Comments on: Burgeoning Opera

By: Moggio

Moggio — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:22:00 +0000

According to you, as an economist, what is the (real) interest of the following study by the National Endowment Arts: “2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts” (http://arts.endow.gov/research/NEASurvey2004.pdf)?
Thanks in advance.

By: Lavonne Gilliam

Lavonne Gilliam — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:23:03 +0000

unevirated pulvinulus seizure irresponsible exopterygotic knabble carelessness miniver
USS Howard (DDG-83)
http://www.kulakit.com/

By: Ray G

Ray G — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:28:15 +0000

So who's the elitist crank that made opera the cultural touchstone for a society?

By: Person

Person — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:41:16 +0000

Guys, I'll agree that football receives government subsidies at various levels. But *please*, get a grip on reality: this immense cultural tradition is not dependent on government subsidies. Don't bend reality to fit your prejudices.

I certainly *wish* people wouldn't watch more football, but my wishes are not reality.

By: spencer

spencer — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:36:48 +0000

Assume that Francis Smith's numbers are correct that government funding amounts to some 5% to 6% of the opera companies budgets.

How does this compare with the state & local government subsidies of football stadiums
and financing of minor league footballs and early development of players through the college football system?

I would not be surprised to find that this is significantly less than the support for opera.

By: Will C.

Will C. — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:04:03 +0000

Forbes says that three NFL teams had gross revenues of over $225 million and operating income of over $50 million – each – in 2004. Based on that Forbes valued each team at over $1 billion.

By: Will C.

Will C. — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:56:41 +0000

I doubt that the NFL figure includes TV revenues which are BIG.

I also oppose the idea that the government furnishes the Chicago Bears a free stadium in which to earn that money. I also wish the Bears had to pay for all the free space they get in the daily newspapers.

By: Joerob

Joerob — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:57:16 +0000

I wonder if the flourishing of opera in a society isn't a good marker for the "wealth effect". At the time opera developed and flourished in Italy and France they were among the wealthiest societies in the world. This wealth was deployed to develop a new art form and bring it to the masses. Today that art form is thriving in the society that has the wealth to support it: the United States.

By: Frances Smith

Frances Smith — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:45:37 +0000

The article in The American does give some figures on government funding of opera in the US -- about 5 or 6 percent of companies' funding. Also, sounds like some companies believe more in private contributions to finance the opera companies and performances:

Here's a quote (second paragraph below)--

“Aggregated, all government subsidies only come to 5 or 6 percent of the U.S. companies’ funding,” says Marc Scorca, the president of OPERA America. But, he adds that funding from the NEA in particular often has a “leveraging effect. It influences donors” as a kind of Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Despite the attraction of government money, Smith believes that there is something “healthy about needing to prove yourself to the community on a daily basis.” He says, “Tough as it is, the American system is good in a lot of ways. In France, they have seven or eight companies that get all the money. If you’re not year-round and fully professional, you don’t get any support. Here, it’s a grassroots system, and you have to demonstrate your value.”

By: vidyohs

vidyohs — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:43:25 +0000

Of course the numbers don't make sense if one is trying to make a "who is the bigger, or who has more per capita" case.

Adam, if it will help ease your mind, I think if you read Russel's piece again you will see that the numbers are brought up more to show that America's taste for opera is growing rather than as a "Nyah nyah, see there we got more than you do" statement.

Either way I cast my vote with the people who say that if it doesn't sell it doesn't belong in the market, don't use my money to pay for other's pleasures.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:48:42 +0000

"How do you feel about state support for professional sports?"

Er, bad? I don't think the government should subsidize ANYthing, including the arts and sports.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:03:17 +0000

I'm pretty certain the rise in popularity of opera in the United States is one of the signs of the impending apocolypse.

Iran is not the enemy. Verdi is.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:15:46 +0000

If not a playoff system, at least some bowl games. But seriously, opera needs on-field violence and off-field controversy. And betting. And gear.

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:06:58 +0000

"I am NOT saying the state should support the arts."

How do you feel about state support for professional sports?

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:00:26 +0000

Just to be absolutely clear for the benefit of anyone who wants to criticize my post: I am NOT saying the state should support the arts. I'm just saying those numbers go against the argument (in which I believe).

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:59:21 +0000

I agree with your point, but frankly the fact that the US has more opera companies than Germany and double those of Italy hurts rather than helps the argument. Italy has about 20% of the population of the US, so more than double per capita the opera companies (I'm assuming it's about double in the US).

They don't give the figures for Germany but if you assume it's less than double (since they specify double for Italy), it's also far less per capita (Germany having a bit more than 25% of the population of the US).

We'll need some other statistics if we're to buttress the argument with figures.