Q: Save the arts? Really? Why do so many people think the arts need saving? Do we need to save the arts, and if so, what does saving them mean?*
Why do so many people think the arts need saving? Well, first of all, the arts bubble from the latter half of the last century is bursting, as predicted by the late Alice Goldfarb-Marquis in her book Art Lessons: Learning from the Rise and Fall of Public Arts Funding. Arts funding and profitable arts work is drying up, and drying up quickly. I've written about this from both a jazz and classical perspective, and this excellent blog post by David Beem provides the perspective of an accomplished classical insider (the post went viral in the music community this weekend). Basically, people are concerned that when incomes in the arts disappear, then the arts will disappear, so we should do something to save them. Who are these people? They consist of:
The rest of the answer to this question, then, is simple: They want to "save the arts" because people enjoy making music, and they like dancing, acting, painting, and writing poetry and narrative. They would also really, really like it if those activities paid the mortgage for a nice three-bedroom ranch in the suburbs or a hipster condo in the Village. "Saving the arts" is code for "let's patch up and re-inflate the arts bubble."
The question then tells us more about the people asking the question than anything else -- and I don't mean the contest judges, I'm speaking broadly about the arts community, whose voice is reflected in this question. What do I mean by that? The question is phrased vaguely, as all of these types of questions usually are, in a manner that does not properly define the topic. It asks about saving "the arts" -- ok, what does "arts" refer to? Pop music? Club Music and Electronica? Country and Western? Knitting? Of course not -- this has nothing to do with these and most other forms of artistic expression. They are referring to the high-brow, elite, and sophisticated fine arts, as exemplified by the Western traditions in art, dance, music, theatre/film, and literature that have been canonized over many centuries.
But really, the premise is absurd. Save the arts? You'd no more be able to "save" the arts than you could destroy them. This gets us back to the folly and hubris (that I wrote about in my last post) of trying to shape or manage a culture. We in the arts community, however, will have none of it. As a whole, we are completely enamored with the idea that there's some piece of legislation, some law, some new government position, some new agency, or some new education initiative, that can create demand for the arts; all they need to do is find it and/or fund it and just watch the box office revenue come pouring in. Unfortunately, it never does.
The means to this end are taxes, grants, awards, surcharges, tariffs, exemptions, rules, guidelines, Ministers of This and Secretaries of That. In Canada, as I wrote last time, they even have laws in which one group of Canadians tells the other 99.99% of Canadians that, when they turn on their radios or televisions, they have to listen to or watch a certain percentage of art that was made by racially (well, politically) pure Canadians. (We all know that, left to their own devices, these ill-informed and ill-educated Canucks might-gasp-actually listen to music of their own choosing, and we cannot allow that. Pass a law! Save the Arts!) So, we see here how the supposedly "free-thinking, freedom loving, and iconoclastic" arts community quickly embraces bureaucracy and political coercion when they think (wrongly) that it will line their own pockets.
Why not just admit the obvious? Perhaps 5-8% of the population will be interested in engaging with the fine arts in the first place, so create the structures that will support those numbers. This means that not every town will have a symphony or an art museum. This means that universities should consider building unique programs that respond to regional demands and capitalize on the strengths of their faculty, rather than just blatantly duplicating the programs that are found within 100 miles in each direction. (My colleagues at Grand Valley State University will attest to the many unsuccessful proposals I have made in this regard over the years!) This also means that not everyone who likes to paint, sing, or play the trombone will be able to make a living from it. In fact, almost no one who likes to paint, sing, or play the trombone, will be able to make a living from it.
The arts, broadly defined, are thriving like never before. I've written about that several times, so I won't repeat myself here. The problem is, the arts are not thriving in the ways that the conservatives in the arts (yes, they're conservatives, not political conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless) would like them to thrive. Hence, "saving the arts" is just code for "saving my arts job." It might not be pretty, but it's probably true.
*This is the fourth round question for Spring for Music's Great Blogger Contest, from which I was eliminated. I expected the last round question to be one that would try to draw the bloggers out on how to increase arts attendance and engagement. I'm sure we would have had the usual "solutions" dragged out in turn-education, state funding, federal funding, community outreach, unique programming, etc. This question seems out of sequence to me. The previous question-whether there should be a Secretary of Culture-is one of the possible solutions for "saving the arts," so it would make more sense to go from the general to the specific, not the other way around. Still, it made me wonder how I would answer it if I were still in the contest, so I did!
Follow Kurt Ellenberger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FraKathustra
Ian David Moss: Federal Government Money Is Not The Best Way To Fund The Arts
Carla Escoda: Federal Government Money Is The Best Way To Fund The Arts
Carl Gibson: The System Isn't Broken; It Was Built This Way
Why "save" the arts? Because, throughout history, the haves have spent money on creating "art" that would last longer than just immediate gratification. The populace doesn't tend to want to pay for things that last (as they tend to be short sighted and very short attention spans), yet they do appreciate the art after the fact. Look at the great art paid for by the church in the Renaissance, or the nobility in the classical period. Now, the well to do are corporations. They have a choice: what will their lasting legacy be?
It's not my job your saving, but giving something to future generations.
When your country is perfect, come and tell me how to run mine.
No one is telling you what to do, we just dont need to be told whats good for Us.
Prove it. The Academic/museo/gallery complex and music producers to appease teh wealthy and keep the money mill of academia rolling has destroyed art, and so sports are king. At least its honest and true, well, most of the time. Certainly compared to contempt "art".
Plus the lily whiteness of the artscene is what has driven an increasingly brown nation away. its not for us sahib. That means whiteman, no respect intended. Or earned.
Contempt "art' entertains them with absurdities, while rome burns, and the middle class shrinks. We dont need more artistes, we need a few great artists. Adn those we lack, outside of perhaps an Anselm Kiefer, and he aint American. The few jazz musicians left are doing other things,as jazz itself is now like euro classical, its over. Sadly. I heard the last of it from the mid 70s on, but Herbie Hancock still wups on classical guys all teh time, he know their stuff and much much more.
Now we need a new art, but that wont be allowed, its all about fashion and titillating the desires of the rich. "We" supposedly dont get it. if you have to go to school to understand it, you have failed, the more words the less art it is. Art is felt and understood with all the brain, not just the tiny portion of the frontal lobe.
Art is communication, of mind body and soul as one. It must be felt as such to be art. You cant teach soul.
Ellenberger's thoroughly dishonest bit of nastiness ascribes positions and motivations to whole groups of people, puts words in their mouths, then kicks over the strawmen he created himself.
This seems to make him feel like quite the tough-guy debater, but it advances serious discussion not at all.
I believe that he can add this opinion piece to them . When he stated that every town does not need an art museum (with his proposed lower levels of public funding) , I realized just how disingenious his comments are . Every town does not have an arts museum . In fact in many areas they are sadly absent .
THERE IS NO FUNDING FOR THE WORKING ARTIST. This guy is yammering about art institutions, not art. He's lucky to have a regular source of income, otherwise known as a JOB.
Seriously, though, I'll never get the reflexive attitude of people who love art and think the government should have to approve and fund it. They may not say approve, but that's what happens prior to funding it. And taxes crowding out private art purchases leads to the government having a large role in what art gets made and what art doesn't.
My bet is with the dream libertarian federal government that takes and spends only 10% of GDP instead of 20%-25% (not even including state and local taxes), you'd see a lot more art being produced. Even just by regular people who could have a couple extra months worth of time a year they'd normally spend working for the federal government.
Programs and funding for arts in schools have been slashed. If you have no exposure to it, you're less likely to appreciate it. Art teaches them something outside the art itself -- like physics, science, history and math. Surely Ellenberger knows how the wave pattern of A440 interacts with other frequencies.
Yes, things like knitting, quilting, guns and teacups can be considered art. Many museums have sections devoted to armaments, folk art, etc.
His ignorance of Canada is astounding. No one tells you what to watch. There is no purity test -- racially or otherwise. Canadians listen, watch and experience arts and culture from many sources.
Ellenberger's solution would create a corporate funded arts world where it would be only available to the elites. Only the approved message of the status quo would be produced. Artists can provoke us to challenge our thinking and beliefs. That's a very dangerous thing to the status quo.
Arts funding is about giving voice to those whose voices may be drowned out by the corporatocracy. Arts are about challenging our minds and hearts. Without support, we get only a very limited view.
Mr. Elleberger's problem, it seems, is that he's nicely ensconced in academia where he doesn't have to do the money chase. The development department of his university does. This leaves Mr. Ellenberger the freedom to pursue his art (and save his job) without having to seriously think about where the money is coming from.
One final point: Mr. Ellenberger should be reminded, it wasn't that long ago, jazz was considered base and not art... especially not fine art.
His cynicism will probably render him and his art insignificant in whatever future is on the horizon.
If public funding for the Arts is so unnecessary, why doesn't he quit his job? He is another one of the huge number of hyper-critical, self satisfied hypocrites who believe, as narcissists do, that he has unique knowledge and insight, and he should be admired and given accolades, but that his own rules shouldn't apply to him. Maybe there will be a job as the arts adviser to the Gingrich campaign?
To me, rebuilding the carburetor in my 1968 Aston Martin is art. To my neighbor, it's her collection of antique tea cups. My brother swears his 1886 Winchester rifle is the most beautiful thing man ever created. My ex-wife adores Billie Holiday and her sister can read Adrienne Rich all day every day. Who are you, or the government, to tell us differently?
I think Mr. Ellenberger's post nails it. The arts don't need saving by the government. Leave it to individuals to determine what they want to support. Seeing what individuals choose is also an interesting reflection of humanity, almost as much as the art itself.