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!
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ...
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 "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.