The Culture Wars Roll On

A week or so ago I wrote a blog post summing up the arguments surrounding the possible creation of an arts czar/culture minister. I came out in favor of senior staff-level liaison for the various arts, humanities and culture entities in and around the government. The arts and humanities get a pretty raw deal. I’m thinking of the West Wing episode where Toby has to fight to keep the entire budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, and his prime opponent is a congresswoman rattling off various ridiculous-sounding art projects—nakedness, animals, you know: all the random shit weird artists do that has no impact on society as a whole.

It was painful to watch the purported centrists in the Senate cut out nearly $100 million worth of funds for arts, culture and education—“purported” because the list of axed items looks like a Republican’s top 20 list of awful “nanny state-cum-socialist” policies.

But I digress.

At Culture Monster, The Los Angeles Times’ arts and culture blog that’s leaving all other outlets in its dust in terms of national arts policy coverage, Christopher Knight laid a compelling thought experiment that doesn’t have “a snowball's chance in Hades”: pump $62 billion into the non-profit sector. Why? It employs some six million people across all 50 states and, because they’re constantly looking for cash, countless non-profits have “shovel-ready” projects. Knight’s best argument (and where the above figure of $62 billion comes from) is his comparison of the non-profit sector to the industrial-military-lobbying complex that, among other things, is pushing for continued funding of a much-criticized fighter jet, the F-22:

President Obama must decide by March 1 on its continuation. Lawrence Korb, assistant Defense secretary in the Reagan administration and a widely respected national security analyst, has described the F-22 as “the most unnecessary weapons system being built by the Pentagon.” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, has been critical of its usefulness and cost.

Yet that hasn't stopped 46 senators, led by Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), senior legislators in the states that primarily build the thing, from signing a letter to the president urging F-22 continuation in the 2010 budget. So have more than 150 representatives in the House. According to Congressional Quarterly, the old pitch that the airplane is a security demand has been gilded with a new one: An ad campaign (above) says the F-22 is now essential to stave off unemployment in a collapsing economy.

Knight points out this is exactly what FDR warned about, and that the amount of jobs the military lobby is crying for is “dwarfed” by the amount of jobs in the non-profit sector.

But America is not in the business of accommodating the arc of cultural renewal and invigoration.

Why? Because ever since a bunch of farmers, merchants and other small-businesspeople fought the American Revolution against the East India Company and its nominal CEO, King George III, corporations have been the nation's primary obstacle to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They still are.

Culture is all about pursuing happiness, so even in a crisis it barely stands a chance. If you doubt it, ask the Wall Street bankers who have gotten hundreds of billions in bailouts and bonuses — and stand to get more. Then ask your senator or representative, who can't get elected without them.

The culture wars of decades past still have a corrosive effect not only on political and moral discourse but also on the state of American culture. Today’s congressional leaders lived through Vietnam and the Cold War, while the electorate, year by year, moves away from those defining milestones. That a largely derided fighter jet is pretty much guaranteed continued funding while the very front yard of the U.S. government falls into disrepair is an example of how we still have a long way to go in terms striking a balance of priorities.

Sam Tanenhaus recently penned a piece for The New Republic titled (over-provocatively) “Conservatism is Dead.” One of several money quotes:

[The Conservative Mind author Russel] Kirk, for example, denounced federally sponsored school lunch programs as a "vehicle for totalitarianism" and Social Security as a form of "remorseless collectivism."

Where in this, Schlesinger asked, was even a hint of classic conservatism, with its concern for the social and moral costs of unchecked industrial capitalism?:

“Disraeli with his legislation on behalf of trade unions, his demand for government intervention to improve working conditions, his belief in due process and civil freedom, his support for the extension of suffrage, his insistence on the principle of compulsory education! If there is anything in contemporary America that might win the instant sympathy of men like Shaftesbury and Disraeli, it could well be the school lunch program. But for all his talk of mutual responsibility and the organic character of society, Professor Kirk, when he gets down to cases, tends to become a roaring Manchester liberal of the Herbert Hoover school.”

For years to come, this paradox would roil the right, which remained split between the Burkean politics of realistic adjustment and the revanchist politics of counterrevolution.

The right has developed a visceral knee-jerk reaction to anything involving culture, and their “loyal opposition” stranglehold doesn’t seem to be loosening anytime soon. Bombs make jobs, but renovations and building projects and part-time jobs or anything else within a stones throw of a—gasp—opera house do not. This is government as violent adolescent child.

Knight also stumbled across a neat factoid: Republican Senator Sam Coburn of Oklahoma is the “Dr. No” of any arts-related funding—and his daughter is an opera singer. This is almost as ironic as a vice president of a virulently anti-gay administration having a gay daughter.

At the rededication of Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., President Obama opened his remarks with:

Michelle and I are so pleased to be here to renew and rededicate this hallowed space. We know that Ford's Theatre will remain a place where Lincoln's legacy thrives, where his love of the humanities and belief in the power of education have a home, and where his generosity of spirit are reflected in all the work that takes place.

Right now, love of the humanities and belief in the power of education are in the doghouse, though at least not in the alley.

Obama has a lot on his agenda, so much so that he had to let a strike go over the plate in the form of state secrets privileges and the like.

I’m not ultimately that upset about losing billions for the arts and humanities and education (and science and culture) from the stimulus package. Straight up, there are more important things in the immediate sense. Nor do I believe the arts and humanities will wither on the vine without a taxpayer-backed bailout. But the sector’s potential for growth—growth in jobs, cultural output, international respect—is undeniable.

Down the line, I hope for a tipping point—an extended period of cease-fires, a few balanced budgets in a row, etc.—that will allow for the open backing and funding of American culture. Until then, even those with a passing interest are forced to watch men (and a few women) from a generation ago grapple with boogy- and strawmen that have little to no relation to the country we live in now.

This post originally appeared at Splice Today.

Comments

[Cacaoatl]

In the past, states such as I don't know...the Greeks, Romans, and Renaissance Italian city states paid for art as a way to show off how rich and powerful they were. By not paying for art, the US only comes across as poor and week. And Lazslo's comments are totally ignorant. The artist's job is to act as a mirror and reflect the society he or she lives in. If the reflection is ugly or comes across as critical well...that's only because the artist has done his job and reflected only the truth, showing society warts and all.

[Lazslo]

Artists have only themselves to blame for not being taken seriously as important parts of society. Artists can't on the one hand demand total artistic freedom while on the other hand beg for tax dollars from the society it more often than not criticizes. When people see exhibits like Andres Serano's photographs of feces, they tune out and regard artists as whack-jobs and rightly so. Artists seek to be outside of society, and when they come looking for a hand-out, they are more often than not laughed at. Artists need to regulate themselves and put their efforts more in line with the concerns of the general public. When that happens, then artists can truly claim to be integral to society and seek tax dollars. And anyway, the NEA just received 50 million dollars! The NEA should utlize that money to support artistic efforts aimed at the social concerns of today, rather than awarding it to their friends and social connections.

[tuttlemsm]

Wow. Because one artist takes pictures of feces, that's what all artists are about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_fallacy

If "artists need to regulate themselves... etc." are you saying that all art should just please the masses? Is that what art does? Concern itself first and foremost with its likability and popularity?

Doesn't society ever *need criticizing*? Isn't that worth a little bit of a hit to your wallet, so that artists can occasionally call into question the injustices of our society, like great artists did during the civil rights movement? You can't just legislate a better world. You have to win hearts and minds. That's where art comes in. Laws can't make us love one another or create a more tolerant and just world. The arts are probably the greatest force for creating a more thoughtful society and progressive social change. (Somehow I suspect that you know that, and that's why you're against it, because you don't really *want* a more thoughtful society and progressive social change.)

Great art isn't going to be always liked by throngs of people. But it should be funded by society anyway. That's what sophisticated and civilized cultures do, to create a robust marketplace of ideas.

And what is an "artistic effort aimed at the social concerns of today" in your world, anyway? Do you realize you've contradicted yourself? If art really does aim itself at the "social concerns of today," some of it might entail... some criticism of society.

[marlovian]

Those cave painters in Lascaux were helpless until their government check arrived.

[redkim]

Exactly. What these folks are saying, essentially, is "we can't be artists unless we get money from the state."

In the spirit of Benjamin Franklin: artists who would depend on the state for their vocation deserve neither patronage nor to be called artists.

[majii]

The military uses art & artists when they have to design new types of camouflage for clothing, weaponry, planes, and military hardware. Writers are used for the publication of the gazillion informational pamphlets that are cranked out every year. What would government do if the services of this segment of the society were non-existent?

[LitDr2B]

West Point also recognizes the importance of literature. They require all of their cadets to take courses in literature, because they strongly feel that this is an important component of an educated, engaged citizenship.

[redkim]

Here's an interesting quote:

"Talk about trillions of dollars has become so commonplace that billions seem minuscule -- even though a billion minutes ago Plutarch (46-120 A.D.) was alive -- and it is hardly worth mentioning mere millions, such as the $50 million for stimulus through the National Endowment for the Arts. But those millions elated Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Arts Caucus: "If we're trying to stimulate the economy and get money into the Treasury, nothing does that better than art." Nothing? Is Slaughter correct about what we're trying to do? Is the point of the government's stimulus spending to get more money into the government -- "into the Treasury"? She is not the first politician to desire prosperity for the people so that they could be more bountiful taxpayers."

Is that what we, not only as artists, but as American taxpayers are supposed to be doing--giving money back to the government? Yet this is exactly what we would be doing.

The above quote from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021802773.html

[zizyphus]

Arts, culture and education were cut, as those are ways the poor can lift themselves out of poverty. Republicans are mainly concerned with the lives of the wealthy, and helping them maintain their wealth.

Having worked with bureaucrats on art projects myself in the past, I would rather put my head in a meatgrinder. I only want clients with money who will let me do pretty much whatever I want. Then my work is actually fun. Sadly, I don't have more than three such clients, but am willing to take on more.

[redkim]

Hmmmmm...but the rise of rap as an art form came about without any funding whatsoever, as is the interest now in more traditional forms of American music, such as sacred harp singing,etc.

[tuttlemsm]

The problem is, in Libertarian Land, only popular "art" by definition gets funded--- all subject to the majoritarianism of the "free" market place. People buy what they like, and that's that. No other funding mechanisms come into play.

And when art concerns itself primarily with its likability over all other intrinsic values, it ceases to be art at all. It becomes a toothless mongrel incapable of confronting or challenging anybody's mind or heart, which is one of the self-evident primary functions of art.

Oops, didn't think of that, did you? You might consider reading an author named Joseph Heller. He had a phrase for self-contradictory situations like these.

It's ironic that the righties hold up Bach and Beethoven as their heroes and icons of the precious western canon, lamenting the decline of culture and collective taste, but would then turn around and subject their own heroes to majoritarian market forces that would kill them. Community orchestras playing those great icons of the western canon are not playing *popular* music. They're performing great art, and for--- dare I say it--- a so-called "elite" minority of people who appreciate it and understand it. And these groups *cannot survive* without financial help from the community (read: governmental assistance).

[redkim]

"Why? Because ever since a bunch of farmers, merchants and other small-busi­nesspeople fought the American Revolution against the East India Company and its nominal CEO, King George III, corporations have been the nation's primary obstacle to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They still are."

Not quite. Knight lazily blurs the distinction between a corporation and a state: because King George III was the CEO, the EIC was a statist entity. It is STATISM that curbs creativity, the arts, liberty et al. NOT corporate America.

[redkim]

As an artist (writer) I neither want my art co-opted by the state and do not support government funding for it, let alone an "art czar", nor do I support the military-industrial complex.

The feds should just stay out of my life and my art.

[lwaxanatroi]

Saxby Chambliss wants something? Reason enough to say no, just as he says no to everything Obama wants. Sorry, Washington state. Pick another project. Pick something that doesn't kill people.

[Rjchinook]

Art is what separates us from animals.

[hortonhearsawho2]

you have never seen me paint...

[wdw505]

now that was a good one

[WorldGriot]

We artists and humanity types are not making our case strongly enough. we are wordsmiths so why can we not find the words to whip these militia-minded babble bombers at "our" game? We are allowing them to frame the argument by establishing the premise that the security of the nation rests with our ability to kill. the artist is the one who made the world revere us; the storytellers are the ones who shaped our story that told the world we "were the greatest" even when our every action proved otherwise. so what is the problem with our ability to use our word & images to shine the light of hope on a demoralized world. Look, wall street and the Predator-bankers live on the power of the story. there is ABSOLUTELY nothing backing up our money save a good story. so why can't we salvage the world's economy with an even bigger, bolder, better story? "We are the ones we've been waiting for" says June Jordan. So let's get cracking. The militarists and the bankers and the Corporate Greed monsters are doing what they are supposed to do. We are the ones not shining through with our words and songs and images.

[BeeOplentee]

Millions for art, not one nickle for weird art!

[PlaceboStudman]

Republicans often forget the interconnectedness of these things, the link between the arts and their priorities.

Take, for example, guns. In the design and development of a gun, someone somewhere had to have a plan of how to make a gun. That plan was transformed into a visual blueprint. That blueprint is a drawing, a drawing is art.

These same Republicans are people, who just like everyone else, are usually tied to their PDAs, computers, cell phones, DVD's, and TVs. Again, the plans for developing these technology are blueprints which are drawings, which is art.

The of course you have all of the actors, musicians, and production people behind all of the products of these technology, without whom there would be no need for technology.

And how does one learn to draw the plans for these machines, or learns to act, produce, write music, etc? Art schools. Even public schools with arts programs inspire kids to develop their art skills, which they may in fact use to make the blueprints to make the machine guns and tanks that lead to the wars that Republicans always seem to want

[LitDr2B]

I wonder how much of it has to do with religion? A -lot- of Western cultural production (art, literature, music) questions Christianity, as well as the status quo. Art is also an intellectual activity, and the Republican party is notoriously anti-intellectual.

[PegeOne]

"Art is an intellectual activity" and your implication is Christianity is anti-intellectual and thus anti-art. Have you studied art history? If so, you will notice the tremendous contribution Christianity has made and continues to make to the arts. Christian art elevates God and uplifts human beings. You may call that anti-intellectual, but I call it productive in helping people fulfill the purpose God created them for. Blessings!!!

[itmaybetoolate]

christianity is "anti-any art that challenges their belief in what is culturally appropriate. " Religious figures - okay. Naked people - not so much. Wasn't it as.s -croft who covered up the statue's breasts?

[LitDr2B]

No, you're right in saying this. And I totally recognize the role Christianity and the Church had in some of the most magnificent works of art.

I was strictly trying to limit my comment to the particular strain of anti-intel­lectualism that seems inherent in an ultra-conservative segment of the Republican party.

[rucognizant]

ANd didn't we go into Iraq and wreck so many of the art & antiquitie­s.........­Despicable­!
We sure are a violent adolescent child!