|
||
Obama, the Arts, and Soft Power
As never before, in this century of instant communication and the dissemination of information, it is the culture of a people, of a nation that projects its influence and its standing throughout the world. Yes, armaments and weaponry still count, as does economic might, but who we are and what are our values are will have far greater impact in the minds of friend and adversary alike. And it is our art, our culture of today, playwrights and actors, our song writers and musicians, our choreographers and dancers, our poets and writers, our artists and museum curators, our filmmakers and our art visionaries of every kind. This is the America the world is keenly interested in learning more about, hearing, seeing, feeling, experiencing. It is also one of our great strengths. This is a talented and gifted land with vast reservoirs of energy to create and dream.
And yet we have used this enormous potential of defining to others who we are only haltingly and too often with only the most reluctant advocacy. The role of government support for the arts in our society has always been an open question, debated but never fully resolved.
In Senator Obama's opinion it appears the arts have become essential to reengage our standing in the world. According to an article in Bloomberg, he is the first White House contender to include a far- reaching arts-plank in his platform. Quoting Robert Lynch, president and chief executive officer of "Americans for the Arts" a highly respected Washington based arts advocacy group, "no presidential candidate in recent times has addressed cultural issues in such detail." As early as the spring of 2007 Obama brought together a committee of arts and arts professionals including such luminaries as Hollywood producer George Stevens, novelist Michael Chabon, Broadway director Hal Prince, Museum of Modern Art president emerita Agnes Gund, to focus on this issue.
By contrast the article advises that John McCain has consistently voted for cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts (the NEA) budget, saying that funding for the arts is a local matter.
As a former member of the National Council for the Arts I have always been struck by the paucity of interest and support our government gives to the arts, potentially our greatest source of soft power. An example: our budget for the NEA in fiscal 2008
is $144.7 million dollars. France's Ministry of Culture at the same time has a budget of E3 billion or $3.75 billion. Our population is some five times greater than France's so that on the basis of French governmental support to its artists and art's community were we in the same proportional measure our arts budget would be $18.25 billion. France's Ministry of Culture's mission is understandably somewhat broader than the NEA's. But here we are not comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps oranges to tangerines. And not all examples from France are bad. Remember Lafayette!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This country has produced some of the greatest art forms ever. Rock and roll, the blues, jazz (even though jazz is more appreciated in Europe than here, which is sad), and rap. It has made some of the greatest films ever made, and has produced some of the greatest authors ever.
The last 30 years have been really lean, though. It was very discouraging during those years when everything came down to simply commerce. The arts are very important, and in most countries, it's a matter of national pride.
The arts could do so much to restore America's relationship with Europe, and doubtless most other places. The arts and music scene in Europe never stops, culture of every kind, all year round. A major exhibition of, say, American art, on the scale of the Terracotta Warriors or Titian exhibitions in London would generate the same massive attendance and a huge amount of goodwill.
We love your orchestras when they visit, but why do they always play the European repertoire with maybe a token American piece if we're lucky? The wonderful Marin Alsop, with a British orchestra (the Bournemouth Symphony) has given us Bernstein, Glass, Copland, and others, that have been missing from British concert halls; the good work done by Andre Previn and Michael Tilson Thomas in London was almost too long ago to remember. Maestra Alsop rocked the Royal Albert Hall with a performance of Aaron Copland's Third Symphony at last year's Prom Concerts, and added Barber's Violin Concerto (played by James Ehnes, a Canadian) as well.
Why don't we see American youth orchestras here? You must have them! We have a strong tradition of youth orchestras in Europe, we love them. At this year's Proms festival there was a concert of mostly American music which was terrific - played to a sold-out house by the National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain, a non-professional but very talented bunch of 13 to 19 year olds.
American arts on display in Europe? Oh, yes please, bring it on!
I question the constitutionality of ANY funding for the arts.
Unlike paving roads or the post office or any of the other cultural-neutral activities the federal government engages in, funding of the arts at some point in the process requires a subjective choice of one work of art or artist over another. Whether by a committee or an individual, a choice for funding will be made; a choice for one type of art will be made and, by definition, a choice not to fund (because funds are finite) will also be made. Someone will always be left by the wayside.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Well, when you fund someone and not their neighbor, you most certainly are abridging free expression which falls under the definition of free speech. We should be as strict about not funding the arts as we are in not funding that other prohibited area mentioned in the first amendment: religion.
I am also surprised that Mr. Learsy would invoke the need to use funding of the arts to expand the cultural reach of the United States internationally. The USA is head and shoulders above any other country when it comes to having its fair share of exposure of its "art" in other countries than any other. Indeed, we are more often than not accused of cultural imperialism...why encourage this negative image on the world stage?
This is simply an unfathomable position. Because someone might be excluded, all should be? What kind of small minded, shallow point of view is that. I'd wager the deeper fear is empathy, diversity, intellectual curiosity, virtuosity and independent thinking. All of which a well rounded arts education develops and fosters. All of which apparently makes you more and more afraid rthat there'll be nothing let for you and your closed mind. Let go.
>Well, when you fund someone and not their neighbor, you most certainly are abridging free expression which falls under the definition of free speech<
What a ridiculous argument. The funding of one person does not oppress or prevent the expression of another. It's not an either/or situation, it is simply who gets funding from that particular area. Just because I did not get a grant funding me for college didn't prevent me from going; I simply had to find other means; but that grant that went to someone else still opened up opportunities for me-- in that it was one less person I had to compete with for other funds.
Giving money to encourage the arts will create more jobs. Not only does it encourage the creation of art at home and the expansion of that art around the world (and it's not imperialism as they can reject American culture or accept it; we don't force their museums and venues to host shows, we don't hold them at gunpoint to air our commercials or use our products or watch our television. And it is a two-way street. We can bring in their art as well), but a funding of the arts will expand our dialog with the world, encourage thought and freedom of expression, and can only strengthen us.
You begin with a lump of clay, a blank canvass if you will. From there, you paint, or draw an image of how the arts can spill over into every aspect of people's lives. Many inner cities came to life when programs were introduced to get kids off the streets and into creative fields that showcased thier talents. The result was lower crime, areas thea begged to be rebuilt, jobs that were created as a result of this one idea. The problem in trying to sell this to a group of senators, congressmen, they don't see the value, only what is in it for them if they agree? This is what boggs down many an idea, that without proper implimentation, visual images, success stories, myopic politicians miss the bigger picture. If you sell anything the right way, not only does the program win, the community, but the marketing creates opportunities for the backer as well. It becomes a Win/Win idea for all. This is a pet project of mine, getting people connected to the right backers, so everyone wins, especially the children, and public.
Such hypocrissy, the white house was in favor of funding the arts and the NEA, as they saw it as a means of reaching into inner cities, with programs that encourage kids to get involved in the arts and education. Bush was willing to tie this into the No Child Be Left Behind program. I know this first hand as I once dealt with this very issue with the white house and Laura Bush specifically. The film co. I was working with, was in the process of doing a PSA spot for funding the arts and education. In doing this, we were in the throws of getting backers for this, and presenting this to the white house, and focusing on programs currently being utilized by the NEA. Our idea was so good, we got scooped by the NEA. I saw this as the highest form of flattery. Hopefully Barack will see the need for funding the arts as well. The bridge to education, wellness, starts with a lump of clay, and what people do with that, where they take it, carries over into every aspect of thier lives.
I’m a life long democrat who works in the visual arts. And despite my grave disappointment in the many failures of the Bush administration, I’ve always credited it with not abandoning the arts. In 2000 the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts was $97.6 million. Since 2000, the NEA budget has risen each year. In 2008 the NEA budget is $144.7. Personally, I credit Laura Bush with this, but who knows?
Furthermore, it is my sense that little political pressure was placed on the NEA compared with the bald faced pressure that was applied to other government agencies. In 2005, I served on an NEA panel and noticed that I was subjected to absolutely no questions about my politics. Neither were the other panelists, who were clearly chosen for their expertise in the field. And no pressure was applied on our decisions as to who the recipients were. As I monitor subsequent recipients of NEA grants, they seem to reflect considerable variety and a wide range of political views. There is no sense on my part that the Bush administration has tried to use the NEA to curtail avant-garde art in any way. While the Obama arts platform is an incredible statement on his belief in the value of art and arts education, given the current economic situation I will be happy if he can continue with the Bush increases, until such time as the economy allows him to fulfill his full intent.
The arts, in all its forms, makes the world more beautiful. It saddens me to see music, art, dance and theater programs cut, especially when school systems try to trim their budgets. I grew up in the blue collar, steel mill town of Pittsburgh, PA, and thanks to the philanthropy of old Andy Carnegie, we had the Carnegie museums and what was then called the Carnegie Free Library(s).
When people question the need for "the arts", I often think of a line from a small book by James Allen entitled "As a man thinketh"...
Composer, sculptor, painter, poet, prophet, sage, these are the makers of the afterworld, the architects of heaven. The world is beautiful because they have lived; without them, laboring humanity would perish.
I'm proud to live in a state (CO) that has consistently voted tax money for support of the arts. It is called SCFD (Scientific and Cultural Arts Facilities District). One cent of every $10 in sales tax revenue goes to support arts and science organizations, like the Denver Zoo, Denver Center for the Performing Arts, and hundreds of small arts organizations like visual art programs and theatres and children's chorals. Sometimes just this added rather small amount the recipients get (for the smaller organizations) is enough to keep them going during drought times. Further, there is a statute that has 1% of the cost of a public works project going to public art as part of the plan. Don't like tax money going to fund art? Then you probably don't enjoy the beautiful displays that are part of the Denver International Airport, nor the always interesting (but often conversation provoking) art that adorns our streets and public ways. Denver metro area is vital and thriving, and part of that is the funding of art. Could we do better?? You betcha (wink wink) but at least there is some recognition and support. And in pragmatic terms: Art is good for Business. Who wants to move their companies to bland uninteresting towns?
Palin's people don't need the Arts, they have their own entertainment.
Quote from article speaking of Obama "no presidential candidate in recent times has addressed cultural issues in such detail."
The arts play a critical role in decision making ... I hesitate to point out that one of the tipping points for the world in getting behind America going into afghanistan was what the Taliban was doing to thousand year old statues representing oriental incursion into the middleeast ... I'm trying to locate the article ... there it is ... an excerpt
"In Afghanistan recently, supreme Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar issued an edict against un-Islamic graven images, which means all idolatrous images of humans and animals. As a result, the Taliban are destroying all ancient sculptures. Explosives, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons blew apart two colossal images of the Buddha in Bamiyan Province, 230 kilometers (150 miles) from the capital of Kabul.
The world community — from Russia to Malaysia, Germany to Sri Lanka, and, of course, UNESCO — has expressed horror at the Buddhas' destruction. Many Mullahs in Islamic countries condemned Mullah Omar's interpretation as wrong-headed and damaging to the image of Islam." http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archaeology/2001-03-22-afghan-buddhas.htm
See Amy Zalman's Profile
Actually, there is a substantial history of both overt and covert U.S. government support for American artists (including the growth of the NEA) during the Cold War (Frances Stonor Saunder's wonderful book, The Cultural Cold War: the CIA and the World of Arts and Letters documents much of this growth). Even the dullest bureaucrat, apparently, could see that atonal jazz and Jackson Pollock's random splatters represented the individualist, entrepreneurial, free market spirit of America. Stodgy socialist realism didn't have a chance. I've been left with mixed feelings about government intervention in the arts--as a former (and perhaps future) poet, I always rather liked the fact that poetry has virtually no existence in any market. Bad for the wallet, and clearly not viable in a real world where artists need subsidies to work, but quite freeing for art.
For the sake of fanciful argument, what about a world -- and a government -- that did not perpetually reify the distinction between science and art (and isolate art and artists, moreover) by funding and valuing them differently, but that saw the virtue and rigor and and innovation that artists' ways of thinking could bring to the central tasks of government itself? That saw the science in art, and the art in science. What if poets did, in fact, legislate?
Thank you for a provocative post ...
A stark choice - the difference between electing a writer and a fighter - a man with an affinity for the arts or a man with an affinity for wars - a man of contemplation and insight or a man with a volatile temper and a persistent knee-jerk reaction. It's a no-brainer. Obama 08!
Probably one of the most important elements that makes people all over the world dream about America has been the arts. At least since the 1920s American movies and music are one of the reasons that has made people everywhere feel awe about this country. When America inspires hopes and dreams in other people that's when we're strong. Our real strength will never be in our military might.
All you cynical Naysayers please just be quiet and spend some time traveling around the world. Last year in a little town in Italy I met a 17 year old boy who couldn't speak English but LOVED 50 Cent. Our artists inspire goodwill everywhere. It's been these war mongering politics that people don't like
I love having a leader supportive of the arts. There is difference between SUPPORT and CONTROL!!!
You old naysayers, I'm so tired of you. Just please shut up.
The lack of appreciation for the arts has certainly trickled down to the general population. So many people i have come into contact with disregard anything that is not 'popular" or a big revenue generater. Also, there is a sense that only people who can afford to "pay to play" should be able to experience the arts. Art and music programs suffer in our schools...but there is always money to fund sports. Not to knock sports...but shouldn't the right to paint, draw and sing be equal to the right to kick a ball around?
The "basics" are certainly important. Everyone needs to know how to read, write, do basic computations and have some computer literacy. Those who wish to prosper in our society need to delve into science, math and technology much more deeply. However, I contend that the arts are also a key life skill. Give a person a way to express themselves in an enjoyable way and they have a hobby for life. Instead of constantly shopping for pleasure, they can pass time in more creative ways. In this way, I believe the arts promote personal serenity.
See Cheryl Lubin's Profile
I completely agree! Funding the arts potentially instills critical and creative thinking skills and helps children acquire a cultural frame of reference that can enrich their entire life. It is noteworthy to me that, during his years at Columbia University, Obama immersed himself in government studies and literature, thus providing himself with an expanded worldview that makes him the thinker he is today. Fostering appreciation for the arts tends to create the kind of society of active thinking, reflection, and compassion that ensures better life decisions.
Arts = freedom
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
