More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Raymond J. Learsy

Raymond J. Learsy

Posted: December 5, 2010 11:18 AM

As a Presidential Appointee in the 1980's to the National Council of the National Endowment for the Arts, it pains me enormously to see a replay of the Culture Wars that were played out so destructively in those years. Congress' intercession into the workings of the NEA humbled that institution. What was once a strong and respected voice and support for the arts community became a shadow of itself, never to fully recover, having been forced to dissolve its Peer Panel Program and its support for the creativeness of our large community of visual artists ranging from painters, sculptors, video artists and on. Virtually anything that helped the individual artist in his creative enterprise ceased to be supported.

Now here we are again. An exhibition at Washington's National Portrait Gallery displayed a work by David Wojnarowicz -- one of America's major angry artists of the 1980's who died of AIDS in that fateful decade. His work "A Fire in My Belly" -- which contains sequences of ants crawling over a crucifix -- was denounced by Bill Donohue, president of the U.S. Catholic League as "hate speech." In consequence it was further attacked by politicians and subsequently withdrawn from the exhibit by the Museum's director, Martin Sullivan.

To be clear, Mr. Donohue has every right to have his opinion and to voice it forcefully. But Mr. Sullivan's action in removing the work from the exhibition, thereby trampling on the artist's creative expression and the independence of the curatorial process that selected the work for this exhibition is shameful. It flies in the face of what a museum director is meant to do, stand up for the art on display in his institution, the artists and staff. It may not correspond to his views nor taste, but once on display it becomes a public legacy and is embedded in the history of the institution. Our freedoms are not enhanced by cravenly caving in to Congressmen and pressure groups.

Perhaps, given the miasma of pessimism and concern permeating the land, institutional appeasement seems to be spreading its wings. Just last week Steve Martin -- whose latest novel A Object of Beauty was recently published -- was invited by New York's prestigious 92nd Street Y to a public 'in conversation' with the gifted Deborah Solomon who writes a weekly interview column for the New York Times.

The result of the public conversation was to be aptly classified by the NYTimes as worthy of being "archived under disaster. Or comedy." ("Comedian Conversation Falls Flat at 92nd Street Y" 12.01.10).

The Times reported the interview seemingly centered on the book and on Steve Martin's experience in the art world, which was, after all, the theme of the book. It became a discussion focusing on Mr. Martin as writer and a collector of renown, and not on Mr. Martin's experience as an actor and other aspects of his heralded career.

Receiving complaints from some listeners that "the evening was not going the way they wished, meaning we were discussing art" the Y hurriedly reacted. In response the Y balefully surrendered its reputation and its institutional integrity. Instead of supporting the artists and professionals they had enlisted, they shamefully apologized to the audience and offered to refund the price to all who had purchased tickets. Thereby the Y callously abandoned their responsibility to the artists they had engaged, and worse, held them up to embarrassment and opprobrium.

Not the kind of institutions you want in a foxhole with you.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:07 PM on 12/06/2010
what gets me is why "artists" try their damnedest to disrespect and devalue the morals and beliefs of those who they rely on for funding and then are "so surprised" when those same people decided that they have been disrespected enough and yank that funding.... To compare most of the garbage that brought the heat to the NEA in the 80s and now in the 2010s to that of the masters is troubling and downright disturbing on its face.... and if they are SO MUCH LIKE THE MASTERS then why dont they do what the masters did.... STARVE and STRUGGLE and get off of the public dole?????

Public money = Conformity and respect.... Private money = Its whatever floats your boat! I dont see why that is such a hard concept to understand! It should be this way for the benefit of both parties - freedom!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rmhopper3
10:35 PM on 12/06/2010
I think a lot of the supposed Gulf between the arts and the working class is largely a Mirage created by the neopuritanical politics of the last 20 years. Remember the 80s when all this started... how materialistic it was ..all about bright colors and lots of money...no morality...cocaine and explosions

Seriously think about it ..in the 40s we had the WW II generation...in the 50s we had the beatniks an greasers, jazzers and bohemians and other...The 60s had the flower children the 70s had the punkers and zep heads and then came the eighties...Pastels blazers, bad haircuts and

we coasted on the backs of the punkers and new wavers for awhile but it was the 80s that gave birth to this corporate clone culture which as dominated the culture ever since
08:25 PM on 12/06/2010
Oh, please! I don't want to go back to the Ashcroft Years--the plastic bags on the monuments; especially when they're building a "theme park" in KY with a giant-sized "Noah's Ark". Don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I will protest censorship, as should we all.
05:00 PM on 12/06/2010
I'm an artist and I've come to realize that most people don't "get" art. They laughed at Van Gogh and at Picasso, not able to visualize the bigger picture of their originality, and Gauguin scandalized society with his Tahitian beauties. Nothing new here.

But why don't people in "advanced" countries like the US understand art better? Because we are a left-brained culture and anything creative is right brain feminine energy, little understood, seldom admired. We don't realize that "the arts" represent our heart and soul -- not the military, not the factory workers, or economists, not the law-makers, not the sports players, not the CEO's or bankers, not our teachers. Our heart and soul is found in our visionaries, which are the artists, the composers, the movie-makers, the poets, the writers, the musicians. They present their "visions," which show the rest of the population beautiful or threatening or rich or hidden truths about themselves. How many of us have the courage to look at these personal truths? Just ask Wikileaks! Cover it up, smother it up, don't ask, don't tell, shhhhhhh. In a world like this, information replaces truth and everybody loses -- except those manipulating the information.

We've taken art away from our children; why should we be surprised that as adults they "don't get it"? Besides, truth changes you. And at the momment,we're all too frightened to change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jockmama
04:30 PM on 12/06/2010
The Republican/Conservative concept of "art" is dogs playing poker, Elvis-on-black-velvet, and religious imagery showing cavemen riding on dinosaurs (the "Flintstones" version of Evolution...). And the Republican/Conservative notion of what Democrats/Liberals see as art is still stuck on Robert Mapplethorpe. (That was 30 years ago, rednecks. Put it behind you already!) The idea some Conservatives seem to have that art and religion should have equal standing in the public support arena (that's you, Prewett) is both asinine and illogical. Art is non-denominational, and is aimed at all people; religion is EXclusive rather than inclusive, and is aimed ONLY at a handful of "believers." What kind of a neanderthal compares the two???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CapeJack
09:53 PM on 12/06/2010
We are ALL "artists" in our own minds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Prewett
http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/
02:24 PM on 12/06/2010
You don't want to support my notion of religion, and
I don't want to support your notion of art.
10:56 AM on 12/06/2010
Is hate speech a crime, now?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liaisonsus
Travel Facilitator-Interpreter of the Southwest of
12:03 PM on 12/06/2010
Maybe not yet, but it starts to motivate people to commite hate crimes, maybe it will be...Words are like toothpaste..: You cannot put it back into the container...Take responsibility even for what comes out of your mouth..
10:24 AM on 12/06/2010
Since this country is so broke I think that the NEA and the National Council of the National Endowment for the Arts are two institutions that we can live without. Let them find private funding.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kernel85
11:50 AM on 12/06/2010
This would be a dreary world indeed if the only acceptable art is that art approved by conservatives. Public support of the arts and public art have long traditions in the civilized world. To not support the arts would be another step downward for civilization. Wouldn't it be better to promote art than warfare? Let the Pentagon get private funding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muziker
01:01 PM on 12/06/2010
The governments of Europe sponser galleries, museums, and orchestras - and that is the big reason they continue to have the best of all. People know they have the right to NOT go if they wish. And if they go and are offended in anyway, that is a personal issue and do not attempt to censor and/or approve of what another person can see, hear, and like. THAT is civilization and freedom.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
centercentric
Writer, reflective Easterner.
12:51 PM on 12/06/2010
Countries that don't support art tend not to support other humanitarian missions -- relief for the disadvantaged, care for the physically or mentally ill, shelter for the poor, young, elderly and abandoned -- and instead focus their energies on conquest or the acquisition of wealth for the ruling circle. Further, an honorable democratic government supports the arts because only it can do so in the spirit of public betterment; patrons tend pay for what glorifies them. And, government should be able to withstand adversarial special interests such as the Catholic League.

Moreover, a government should be able to see the value of, say, National Public Radio whereas the owners of Clear Channel would reject it because it doesn't fit the ad-driven business model.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VBH1622
Die Gedanken Sind Frei
09:43 PM on 12/06/2010
I think you are right and you are very aptly describing the America I see one before me when all has become subservient to the accumulation of wealth.

We seem to exist solely as a mechanism of wealth production. Sad days.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CapeJack
09:55 PM on 12/06/2010
Juan Williams could not be reached for comment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jeanrenoir
10:14 AM on 12/06/2010
"Progressives" have stupidly played right into the hands of the Hard Right ever since the politically suicidal "counter-culture" and birth of political correctness in the Boomer Sixties. Instead of making an effective case to poor white workers about the core ECONOMIC issues which left politics had always been based on, Boomer "progressives" pushed things like abortion-rights, busing, and gay rights, while gleefully and suicidally mocking Christianity, all guaranteed to spell doom for "progressives" on election day. So we've had more than forty long years of utter dominance of America by conservatism, which is getting much stronger and more radical than ever in opposition to Obama, who was naively elected by "progressives" in what they thought was America's KUMBAYAH awakening, when, in fact, it was simply the re-awakening of the Klan core of poor white American bigotry. Until the left figures out a way to focus virtually ENTIRELY on the real economic issues which are ruining poor Americans of all races, "progressives" will still be hoist on their own Rachel Maddow "cleverness." You don't get the focus back on "the economy, stupid" by making your poster woman an abortion-activist lesbian. I'm all for a woman's right to choose and for lesbian rights. BUT neither is helped by playing into the hands of the Republicans. It's not good for "progressives" to be "true to their principles" and lose all power. Their only hope is to build MAJORITY power and THEN advance theirs principles, slowly but surely.
11:09 AM on 12/06/2010
Good and thoughtful comment. Fanned.
01:40 PM on 12/06/2010
Being true to progressive principles AND focusing on the economy are not mutually exclusive positions. For example, we can focus on the economy by opposing an unfunded tax cut for the wealthy upper 2%, while at the same time having Rachel Maddow as our "poster woman." Ms Maddow does a remarkable job in presenting progressive principles. The diligent research of her staff and the fact-based analysis she provides are a breath of fresh air versus the sludge of the right-wing. We shouldn't be cowed by the wingnuts into dissing her because of her sexual orientation. Rather, we progressives should continue to fight for our principles against the education-challenged wingnut "regressives" at every turn, whether it's on issues of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, art, science, or the economy. Otherwise, we'll just be throwing in the towel in the face of Republican bullying, which is what they want, what they're good at, and which has been happening all too often recently.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CapeJack
10:08 PM on 12/06/2010
"Bullying"? Mirror, mirror on the wall...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Campbell
09:26 AM on 12/06/2010
In the 40's I attended my public Chicago High School (Lane Tech.) for the music program better than my college program. We had a full symphony orchestra, band and jazz ensemble That was true of all the schools.I also studied counterpoint, music history and orchestration. We considered marching bands as rubbish, not serious music. Now the schools have "Show Bands" and the kids really believe that is serious music. It's show biz and in that change is the problem with the arts in America,. We've lost it.
07:57 AM on 12/06/2010
All of this concern about artistic freedom would seem a little more relevant if any of the art institututions or atists have the guts to do some art that treated Islam like they regularly treat Christianity. I am not a religious person but the double standard in the art world about certain religions is so obvious that it is almost absurd. I guess the "brave" and "independent" art community has second thougths when it comes to literally loosing one's head over art.
08:24 AM on 12/06/2010
100% agree and i am an atheist but i wonder what would happen if the "christian world" threatened to explode and start randomly killing people...hmmmm?
11:54 AM on 12/06/2010
That would be Crusades-----> Inquisition-----> Renaissance.

I think people just need to effing thicken their skins a little bit. Okay, so this artist you've never heard of doesn't like your religion, and the parent organization backing this ONE show is receiving maybe one-three-hudredth of the NEA budget, which is less than one-tenth-of-one-percent of the entire federal budget. SO WHAT? And to the fella further up there who thinks cutting out the NEA will save the economy, that's like trying to keep your mortgage paid up with the change you find in your sofa cushions. Dream on.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
centercentric
Writer, reflective Easterner.
12:57 PM on 12/06/2010
Artists in the U.S. incorporate Christian icons because we are a Christian nation and so the issues the being explored have to do with us. Using Islamic imagery would have a different and murkier impact for most U.S. viewers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CapeJack
10:10 PM on 12/06/2010
What's Christian about a Campbell's Soup can?
10:10 PM on 12/08/2010
Surely if these artists are good they can say something about Islam? Paint Mohammed burning in the fires of the two towers--wouldn't that be clear? Being speared by 70 demons? Bowing to Jesus on the cross? Bowing to Richard Dawkins might be more obscure, but some would get it.

It takes more courage to tackle, or tickle, Islam than Christianity. But what is the accurate description of the world: Jesus's, Mohammed's, Dawkins'...I think Jesus's.
07:20 AM on 12/06/2010
The long decline of art, music and related education in our primary and secondary schools, due to economic and 'teach to the test' demands, has led to an ignorance and in turn a desire to cut public funding for the arts, public television as most don't see the 'necessity' of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MilesToGo
05:55 AM on 12/06/2010
The culture wars will,unfortunately, intensify. Any progress for the LBGT community, along with public acceptance of DADT will have the consequences of right-wing "blow-back." And early next year, once the GOP can initiate investigations in Congress, there's no telling what mischief will be started to add fuel to the fires.
04:02 AM on 12/06/2010
The powers that be want most Americans to have and to like junk culture, so that's what the public gets. "The Great Society" ideals of LBJ's admin turned into "The Garbage Society" anti-ideals of Reagan.Bush. The US public is getting dumbed down into total public moronism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liaisonsus
Travel Facilitator-Interpreter of the Southwest of
11:54 AM on 12/06/2010
I could not but agree more!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
ErnestineBass
No longer a cog in The Machine.
12:49 AM on 12/06/2010
To borrow a line from the NEA, "A great nation deserves great art."

Perhaps the failure of our artistic institutions are reflective of our current failings as a nation.