« One Route, Two Guides — Part 2: Marc van Bree’s “Orchestras and New Media” | Main | Perform a Digital Identity Self-Exam »
Why Art? Because it’s Not Only For “Us.”
By L. Corwin Christie | August 11, 2009
Tim Mikulski grabbed my attention the other day with his ARTSBLOG post, asking, “[A]s our public debt deepens and we start to see the proverbial writing on the wall, what is that new argument for funding arts organizations and programs?”
Amidst cautious optimism (!?) about economic upturn, We In The Arts are still reading horror stories about everyone from universities to public elementary schools cutting arts funding. Newly-appointed NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman’s opinions are already sparking debate, and there have been some thoughtful reactions from opponents, as well as others that send shivers down my spine.
So Mikulski’s question is more important than ever. We In The Arts like to say that “the Arts are always the first to go!” and “the Arts are considered fluff!” and “imagine a world without us!” Jan Selman, of Arts Leadership League of Georgia, responds to Mikulski: “I do not debate from a victim mode. I believe that our industry is as viable and important as any other industry.” What a brilliant point!
In other words, we doth protest too much. And in so doing, lend credibility to those who DO approach the Arts from the very stance we are so convinced “always” result in the Arts getting the axe.
We cannot allow ourselves to play the victim, as much as we may perceive ourselves at the whim of Others Who Don’t Understand.
I suggest, as difficult as this may be for many, to remember, for a moment, that Art is not just a tool of the Left. When arguing on behalf of the Arts, I argue for the right for all Artists to be taken seriously. (No, I’m not saying that I think all “Art” is “Good,” but We In The Arts are not only those Bohemian Lefties that Landesman and Laura Collins-Hughes on ARTSJOURNAL’s blog, agree are perceived as “a little gay.”)
Yes, there is Art that is “obscene” or “offensive” to conservatives, and there is at least some art that is offensive to “the typically outraged” liberals. (And as for the Obama in Joker Whiteface poster, I take this argument to the conclusion that any artist who wants to make a provocative statement should at least take responsibility–or credit?–for it, and engender dialogue.)
Historically, Art has caused outrage as it evolves with (and sometimes spurs the evolution of) its society. I say, more power to Artists who question our world, even if they argue against what I believe, as long as they stand behind their work. There is something refreshing about my getting enraged because a well-done piece argues so passionately for something that I think is wrong.
And so, when I argue to preserve funding for arts organizations and programs, I have something new to say. I will no longer play the victim. I will say, because Art gives people another way to communicate, and can spread messages across the boundaries of beliefs. Art is a different way to dialogue and discuss–it is subjective, it is not RIGHT or WRONG.
Art isn’t only the product of the crazy gay liberals. It can be the product of insane heterosexual conservatives as well. And everyone in between.
Topics: Philosophizing, Policies & Practices | 6 Comments »
August 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
[...] [...]
August 11th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
[...] post on ArtsBlog by clicking here. Technology in the Arts blog tackles Mikulski’s question in recent post. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Spotlight on the ArtsArt Institute of Chicago [...]
August 11th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Art will never be looked at the same as sports, at least not in the American curriculum. That’s a really sad realization, but it’s what makes artists so strong today.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Compelling post, Corwin. And quite succinct.
I agree with your reasoning and argument for the continued support of the arts, from ALL sides of the political spectrum. I think your point that “…art gives people another way to communicate, and can spread messages across the boundaries of beliefs.” is an interesting premise.
However, I wonder if that argument will work on those that we need it to work on the most: conservative middle America. I think it is no question that the arts generally receive support from “the left”, so there is really no needing to convince most of them.
You have one of the better premises for supporting the arts that I’ve seen lately. I see a lot of discussion, as I’m sure you do, that “the arts create jobs.” Yes, that is true, but its no more inspiring than saying road construction creates jobs. There is no emotional or human connection to building roads, it is a straight forward job with clear results. The arts, however, have less tangible benefits. So, I think going with the argument you pose is much better because it basically hits on the benefits to a basic human function: that of communicating. I think if you wrote more on this idea and fleshed it out more with details and examples, you would really have a compelling addition to your premise.
Enjoyed reading. Thanks!
August 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Americans loves sports, and as a nation will always be ambivalent about art, for sports distracts from the essential questions, art on the other hand holds what is essential right in front of us like a mirror, but it is a puzzling mirror, that requires interpretation. We spend 12 years educating students and the arts nor science are front and center as they should be. Both science and art education can help humanity out it it’s mess, yet both seem in the low priority category in the American imagination. How did we get here? Funding for basic science and the arts are both critical to our survival, science with the “what can be” and art with “what it can mean” and that’s not a left or right issue, it’s a human issue. We need science to understand the world and art to understand ourselves.
September 12th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Interesting that Zack Hayhurst notes that the Arts generally get support from “the left”âisn’t it “the Left” that is pretty much in control of both the White House and Congress? So in theory, we should have no concern about the arts being cut. T’ain’t so, of course.
Maybe we all need to be a little more effective at making our case for the arts at the local level so that whatever persuasion is in power at the moment at the state and federal level is more likely to find a strong voice coming from their grassroots constituents. After all, if the parents and community members who are gung ho about sports can be successful, why cannot those who are advocates of the arts be equally so? Why are we not organizing Arts Boosters Clubs in our local schoos, for example? And speaking out for the arts at PTAs/PTOs? and at Chambers of Commerce and Rotary and Moose Lodges and Ruritans, and Relay for Life, and throughout our communities? I believe we need to be more than just supplicants with our hands out asking for support. If we are viewed as active participants in the community who make regular contributions by way of participation and speaking up, perhaps the arts community would find itself better positioned.