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
Alas, perhaps we are comparing an orange to a picture of an orange.
Praise be.
The Kennedy administration routinely trotted out Russian-born American citizen Igor Stravinsky as the face of U.S. advancement in the arts and humanities. They understood the value of soft power then.
Obama's support of the arts would be a great service to the education and refinement to all of our nation's children--not just those who come from wealth. I applaud Sen. Obama for his wisdom, insight , fairness, vision and inclusive view of the world. Go President Obama!
This is an important election for every American. I am very concerned with the decision being made by those who believe Obama is the best for this Country. I have looked at different aspects of the man and I find very little that is presidential.
He is not a leader. Just listen closely to the words that have been said by Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden. They don't believe he is ready to lead. He is a Senator who has spent more time working on his campaign than attending to the business in congress.
Look at his voting record. He will create more, bigger and an all controlling Government. He has studied with many mentors who want to change the shape of this Country and not for the good of the people.
Anyone who creates their own symbol to run under, is not looking to lead the USA, he is looking to lead his own regime. He has been observed not doing the pledge or wearing an American flag pin. That tells you a lot about who he is.
Why do you think the liberal news media and dictators of other Countries are supporting this man? Their best interest is not in looking out for the people.
If you want to continue to live in a Country where there are free elections, free speech and unbiased media coverage, do not vote to put him into office.
Join Independents, Republicans and Moderate Democrats in voting for McCain and Palin!
You imagine that media coverage is unbiased at present? What are you on? Have you seen how the main stream media are pushing Mccain at the moment?
I was an independent until I began researching, listening, seeking, evaluating, and praying about who to vote for in this very critical election. I now know that I will be voting for Barack Obama. He represents everything we need as an international leader. His life including his personal and professional walk (the truth, not the fabrications), reflects his character, which is certainly not the case with either McCain or Palin.
There is a deep lack integrity of the Republican party that bodes nothing but disaster for the future, as it did the past eight years. Not only that, but the hypocrisy embodied by both Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, astounds me. How can they call themselves Christians and treat their fellow man the way they have been treating Obama...caring nothing about the possible impact their innuendoes may have on his life? No matter what Obama says in his ads, he has never stooped to the levels that they have in this run for President.
Their platform of fear, suppression, hate and lying is just an indication of how they would run this country, which would lead us into more dire straits than we are already. I don't know what bible Republicans are reading from, but their words and actions don't in any way reflect who God is or how we are supposed to act. Vote Obama!
Aww, how do those sour grapes taste?
To KarCa;
Let's see if I have this straight; A vote for Obama is a vote for the end of America as we know it including the loss of: 1) Free elections 2) Free speech 3) Free press. Did I miss anything? Perhaps 4) Freedom of religion 5) Free enterprise 6) Freedom of assembly? It will, no doubt, mean a return to slavery, and sending millions of us to an as yet to be named Gulag.
Holy crap, man! Will you listen to yourself. If you don't like Obama, you don't have to get completely stupid about it. Even if he turns out to be a lousy Pres., he can not possibly be worse than the present holder of that office.....unless he was, like, the Anti-Christ or something. Oh, wait! That IS where your are going with this isn't it?
In that case, you can forget about "Independents, "Republicans and Moderate Democrats" just go for the End Of The World Armageddonists. Your constituancy (sic) seems to be growing (unfortunately).
I agree with you that this is a very important election for the United States. In almost everything else you have written, however, I have to disagree. Barack Obama has proven to me that he IS presidential in demeanor, as a decision maker, and with unparalled command of key issues facing our country.
Are you suggesting that John McCain has not devoted an undue amount of time working on his campaign? In this, I think you might be right. Judging from the schizophrenic nature of his "message", this proves to me that Senator McCain would be an unstable and impulsive leader who would put our country at risk in the world.
How about John McCain's voting record? It seems to be more driven by special interests and lobbyists than any other factor.
Creating "his own symbol" to "lead his own regime"? Do you also believe that the flag he stood in front of during one of his speeches was designed for his regime (it was a flag with a capital O for OHIO)? I believe he DID wear a flag pin during each of the 3 debates as opposed to John McCain.
I am confident that our nation will be governed with MORE respect for the Constitution with Barack Obama as president than it has in the past 8 years. My vote will definitely be for the better man for the job ahead: BARACK OBAMA.
I think the best thing that Obama could do for the Arts in America is to avidly pursue and promote the Irish approach; income from the creation of art would be non-taxable. Simple, direct, proven, and it reduces the implication that art must be approved by a federal agency to be qualified and supported. That is a slippery slope.
As a filmmaker who makes maybe $10,000 - $12,000 a year (yes, you read that correctly) and who, being self-employed, has to pay about 1/3 of that already paltry sum in Federal income tax each year, I can really get behind the idea you've put forth here. If I didn't have to shell out $3,000+ dollars every April I probably wouldn't be so far behind on my rent and utilities right now.
Our government, as it is right now, couldn't care less about artists. I suppose that's not surprising since it basically feels more or less the same about 99% of the general population to begin with.
http://www.oakstreetfilms.com
This assumes that there is actually an INCOME from the creation of art. Throughout history, and certainly nowadays, the most innovative artists in every genre create works that have little or no mass appeal, and therefore produce little or no INCOME.
As a result, the USA has come to believe that art has no worth unless it sells. It's a free market mentality that does a great disservice to innovation in the arts. Nobody blinks at the idea of spending millions of dollars on research and development in the sciences and technology, because everyone understands that this R&R is crucial to further developments that are positive for our culture and society (and usually yield a pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow.)
The same goes for research and development in the arts, even though the rewards are often measured in other ways than just profits, but no less crucial to who we are as a nation.
Innovative art making and capitalism have never been compatible, so you have always had either kings and queens, industrialist or the wealthiest, foundations and corporations, funding these innovations, usually in a manner that overlooks the vast potential of a society. Federal funding help realize this potential.
The slippery slope appears when the government gets involved in funding, and then dictates what is good or bad, worthy or obscene. Some people think this is inevitable, but many other western democracies don't interfere with the artists they fund in this way.
rossini became extremely wealthy as a result of his operatic composition. in fact, it was with the rise of the concept of concerts open to the public, that making a comfortable, and sometimes even affluent living as an artist, came to be.
beethoven, the greatest innovator in the history of western music, made a decent living and was revered by kings throughout europe.
art and science do not have to be held apart from each other. artists had dreamed of space travel for centuries until science made it happen. the parts of the brain that control the skills which define a musical "prodigy" and a mathematical genius are the same.
people tend to forget that artistic expression is how we express our humanity. we use them to communicate with each other, to provoke thought and express our dreams and emotions. to support art of any form is not the exclusive purview of the wealthy. you can pay all the money in the world for a van gogh, but all that wealth will never allow you to create one of your own. both audience and creator are important and have their roles to play. we need to stop the "gentrification" of the arts, and help people remember that in his day, mozart was top 40, and people packed a lunch to sit in the balcony and hear his latest work.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
