President John F. Kennedy said “I see little of more importance to the future of our country and of civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist. If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.” In the 60’s and 70’s this message was taken to heart, many schools expanded their arts programs, humanities were taught and artistic expression was encouraged. Certainly not everywhere, but in many public systems the value of creative thinking was at least an entertained notion.

Economies fluctuate, and priorities change. By the time the 80’s rolled around, arts programs were seen as a drain on the education system, an unnecessary expenditure that was little more then a distraction from the necessary task of training future technocrats. Now, a half century after John F. Kennedy charged the nation with supporting the arts we are witnessing an attack on the arts as ferocious as nearly any in history.

Congress is considering cutting all funding to the arts. No more National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), no more Public Broadcasting System (PBS), no More National Public Radio (NPR). There are many who say “big deal, these are nothing but tools of the liberals to push their agenda.” And the fact of the matter is they are right. For to be liberal is to be educated, open to new ideas, willing to accept change, and ready to meet new challenges with new ideas. This very principal is what is being put on the chopping block. Our representatives are crying no more new ideas, no new ways to solve problems, we have all the answers we need! Kennedy also said, “The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by obvious realities. We need men and women who can dream of things that never were…”

Just last month, Rocco Landesman, the Chairman of the NEA, whose background is Theatre, said “There are too many theaters”. First, Mr. Landesman should be recognized for his efforts, his zeal for supporting the arts, his passion and commitment are admirable, but, in this single suggestion, Mr. Landesman appears to be caving to the pressures of those that would do away with the arts. To his defense, he ponders this as he tries to cut the pie of NEA grants thinner and thinner, but to casually suggest there is too much of any art form, is implying that art, the creation of art is quantifiable. Not only is this egregious, it’s an insult to the very art form that brought Mr. Landesman to prominence.

Why this statement is egregious, is that in many respects, theatre is a destination point for many disciplines in the arts. It may be the one unique place that engages virtually all of the art forms and crafts them together to speak to the audience in one hopefully harmonious voice. Writers are the source material, but then designers, painters, sculptors, musicians, directors, actors and an endless list of different disciplines each touch a project and only when they have exerted themselves to enunciate a core message, is the play ready for us the audience. Now admittedly this concert of art does not occur with every play we see. In fact it may occur only occasionally, however, that is the beauty and challenge of theatre. While artists take the risk of engaging their talents to work with someone else, we the audience are challenged to take the risk of investing ourselves to witness the effort.

When Landesman suggests that the accomplishments of theatre could be garnered with fewer companies, or fewer venues, he is in fact suggesting that the vetting process can be executed outside of the doing. How does this process evolve, how do unknown artists lacking pedigree engage with others? How does one become aware of the capabilities of other artists without the permission to fail.  By supporting a multitude of theatres, we give the artists associated with those venues the permission to try, succeed or fail, they have permission to strive, to stretch and touch each other, and us, in ways that commercial ventures would never allow.

If we are to retain any portion of John F. Kennedy’s legacy, it should be in support of the arts. Encouraging creativity is not just an exercise to keep the riff raff busy, it is an effort to reach the divine. The wonders of the universe are only available if we allow those that wish to, reach for the stars. Needless to say there is a cost to all of this effort, and yes, finding ways to pare down budgets is one way to pay for the deserving. But if we fail to support the dreamers, if we fail to encourage those that have yet to succeed, we accomplish nothing but the extinguishing of tomorrow. We loose the possibility of discovering tomorrow, for tomorrow is yet to be.