Because I don't want to be a Blogroll

Be warned: this is a written conversation with myself. So if my arguments are spotty, please be understanding.

My brother told me, when I was writing a previous entry, that references to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are the easy way out when speaking about propaganda art. But there is nothing in the past century that can ever ever compare to the brutal slaughter of artists under those regimes. And nothing really to compare to the utter heartbreak that I know artists felt when they had to decide whether to leave the country that they loved, because they feared for their lives, or to stay, and hope beyond hope that their work - their plays, novels, and movies - wouldn't be censored, mutilated, or silenced by oppressive governments.

Don't get me wrong: Russian and German artists experienced two different situations; one had their political compatriots go rogue on them, and the others realized that their government had changed and left them high and dry. But both sides had friends flee or become soulless mouths for the machine.

Weimar Theater in post WWI Germany was a beautiful, sensual, completely immoral world that would have given the Christianists absolute conniption fits. You don't often learn that 1920's Weimar movies included work like "Madchen in Uniform" - the first ever lesbian movie. If you do the research, you get the feeling it was Explicit. Then you learn that the movie's ending was changed in order to pander to the Nazis. Then the Nazis banned the movie, and it wasn't seen until the mid 70's.If you went to Swarthmore with me, then maybe you saw Spring Awakening (the original play - it was popular with Weimar artists). Explicit.

Gorky was a communist playwright and author whose plays are, quite honestly, pure Communist propaganda, and not particularly well written, though they do get better as he writes more (practice = perfect). But they were HIS writing before Stalin came to power. He desperately wanted to show people why they should support the Communist agenda, and he believed in his work. By all accounts, he was tremendously successful. He leaves Russia, visits the US, criticizes Lenin's restrictions on freedom of Speech, and pretty much decides not to come back to Russia. But he returns and gets locked up - house arrest in Moscow. After that, he writes mostly propaganda intended to prop up the Stalinist regime. He may have been assassinated by the NKVD.

So, Democratic and Republican Bloggers alike, BE CAREFUL with your words and your opinions, and your oh-so-doomful or scornful remarks. For the Democrats, there is a reason why Rocco Landesman forcefully said (4 days ago):

Fact 5:		This call was completely unrelated to NEA's grantmaking, which is highly regarded for its independence and integrity. Artistic quality, excellence and merit are the guidelines for decision-making; favoritism or political affiliation plays no role in NEA grantmaking.
Fact 6:		The NEA is a successful, independent federal agency that has supported the best of the arts and arts education for nearly 45 years. We take our responsibility to the American public very seriously and are committed to upholding this public trust.

That reason is because Art, no matter the purpose towards which it is aimed, is powerful. Even if it's the simple artistry of a well-framed photograph that seemingly catches the President ogling a teenager's butt. Or if it's the Hope poster. Or if it's a frighteningly explicit solo performance work about AIDS where infected blood is spilled onstage.

And if the Government starts meddling in the Arts - starts selectively funding art that markets one point of view, that truly is a sign that something bad is going down. So many people are right to freak the heck out. But I'm not sure the Republicans have a better record - just the opposite one, where instead of selectively funding, they try to selectively not fund. And even "moderate" Republicans don't have a particularly good record where it comes to supporting all the arts, forget about a few. As Andrew Sullivan said in 2006,

"For good measure, I'd get rid of the NEA and the Education Department."

Imagine what he'd have done with arts programs in schools. I shudder to think.

All of this said, having read and thought about the issue - the comments were pretty tame, if stupid.

Arts Policy/NEA scandal Blogroll

So, approximately one week after I wrote my post describing how Glenn Beck took up the NEA as his own personal most recent "lets see how many people we can get fired in the National Government" shtick, the Democratic Blogs finally took notice, and commented. Many of the blogs pooh-poohed any instance of artistic manipulation via Obama's NEA. A couple samples:

Ordinary Gentlemen:

Don’t bother looking for recriminations or punishment for artists who don’t produce pro-Obama artwork, or do produce anti-Obama (or anti-Democrat, or anti-government) artwork. There’s no such coercion anywhere– you know, the kind of coercion that the people pimping this pathetic story so desperately want to find. What’s there is precisely the kind of vague, empty bureaucrat speak that suffuses not only every branch of government, regardless of the party of the sitting president, but also every corporate conference call promoting “synergy” and collective effort for collective goals.

Edge of the West:

Wait wait wait—I thought conservatives were upset because the White House created an office, installed it five federal agencies, then used them to fund a clearly partisan policy agenda to the tune of $2.2 billion. You mean to tell me all those links are about an August 10th conference call that tried to wrangle up support for the current President’s National Day of Service—a call in which not one cent of the NEA’s $155million budget was dispensed or even offered?

The Playgoer:

Something to do with the NEA actually supporting Obama's community service initiative? And this is bad because...? Oh, I see, Glenn, because it's going to indoctrinate our children through all that art they see. Well you should be glad they don't see much of that anyway--thanks to the likes of you.

One of my faves, Anonymous Liberal :

In terms of optics, it was certainly not a good idea for the NEA communications director to participate in such a call (which is probably why he is not the communications director anymore). That organization is not supposed to be involved in political advocacy.

But unless Breitbart's got a lot more, this is the political equivalent of jaywalking. Neither the NEA nor the White House organized this call and the staffers on the call basically gave boilerplate cheerleading remarks. There is nothing in the call that suggests that NEA money or grants were being funneled to progressive artists or anything of the sort. And the White House is of course free to participate on calls with supporters and encourage them to be pro-active. That's what the Office of Public Engagement does....

If Breitbart can produce any actual evidence that NEA resources or money were being improperly used for political purposes, I'll join him in calling for an investigation and for accountability. But this recorded call is pretty weak tea, especially by Bush era standards.

And from the Conservative Blog side, Andy McCarthy, with some perspective:

Needless to say, if something like this happened during the Bush administration, there would already be congressional hearings and screams for the appointment of a special prosecutor. We're about to see (yet again) how serious the Pelosi/Reid Democrats are about all that "rule of law" stuff they spout.

The NEA - What I posted on actually has national relevance!

So, here we are - one week ago I posted about the NEA getting involved in politics, and said that I wasn't surprised, but that I was disappointed. And a couple days ago, my lovely friend Daniel (who tries and tries to get people to read this blog, and I love him for it), sent me a link to Ben Smith at Politico.

Some Background to the blog post that started it all: There was a blog post by a conservative artist (yes, they do exist) on the Blog site Big Hollywood. The main cheese there is a friend of Drudge's. Anyways, not only did the artist blog about how the NEA asked artists to chip in on Obama's legislative agenda, but apparently he also taped the call. And then sent the recording to Glenn Beck, who went apeshit over it. If you're interested in watching youtube clips of the interview, you can check them out at HuffPost, here. As a result, Senator Cornyn sent an e-mail to Obama, which you can read here. In his letter, Cornyn repeats the original blog post but also adds something really important, if ironic and marginally hypocritical:

"But even if no NEA funding was intended for political purposes, one cannot escape the disturbing impression that this Administration - including appointees within the White House and the NEA - believes that it is appropriate for the federal government to enlist the arts community for the purpose of furthering a specific political agenda. I agree with President John F. Kennedy, who said that '[w]e must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.'

I urge you to make clear that your Administration will never allocate taxpayer dollars to artists based on their support for Administration policy initiatives. Further, I respectfully request that you take the necessary steps to ensure that the NEA - and the American arts community it supports - remain independent from political manipulation by the White House."

And I agree. But I find it hard to trust any Republican who says that the NEA should remain independent from political manipulation - by anyone. The NEA was, sadly, one of the main targets of the Conservative Christian revival in the mid Nineties. The NEA's budget still remains below 1995 funding levels. And all of that was a solely political move. Christianists objected to the artistic viewpoints being funded. And if that isn't political manipulation, I don't know what is. But Ryan Grim, who wrote the HuffPost article I linked to above, puts my point pretty darn well - "the arts agency is constantly under fire from extremist activists who see it as propagating a liberal, libertine agenda. The day the culture war is finally declared over, there will still be skirmishes over the NEA."

Anyways, back to my point. The Ben Smith article I wrote about says that the now named NEA organizer who pushed artists re. Obama's legislative agenda has been demoted! Not sacked, but definitely scolded. His name is Yosi Sergant, and he "has a long history with the Obama campaign, having led the media effort for Shepard Fairey, the artist behind the iconic "Hope" portrait that Obama has credited with helping him win."

So, presumably, his record helped him. Here, via Grim at HuffPost, is the official NEA statement, along with some additional commentary: "The NEA has updated their statement to emphasize that Yosi Sargent remains with the agency, but in a different position: 'As regards Yosi Sergant, he has not left the National Endowment for the Arts. He remains with the agency, although not as director of communications.'

Sources familiar with the situation say that the move represents a significant step down and was the result of the controversy. Discussion about his new duties is still ongoing."

Oh, Berlusconi....

What Berlusconi gets away with in Italy would get a US President drawn, quartered, and the pieces burned. I love reading these articles because they're so funny and, in a way, alien. Also, seriously? Call girl bribes?

Google is charging people lots of money to advertise on my Blog to....no one.

I have made, via ad revenue, over the course of the 4-ish months I have been blogging, $0.06. That, my dear friends, is six cents. count them. *rolls eyes*. I don't even know why I bothered putting in the Monetize app.

But you know what's really awesome? That those links introduce me to new and cool things. Yeah, I clicked to go to a website of a foundation that interested me. Whee!

Reasons why I wish I was in Philadelphia this weekend

The Fringe!!

Not only is there the new Pig Iron show, but my friends are doing two shows: one comedy and one avant-garde theater, and then there's a Gonzales Concert Opera!!!!

omg omg omg.

And then I saw a picture of the Philly skyline and got a little homesick. Dammit.

My Post on the NEA got Hijacked by a More Important Issue

So, my "post rate" will probably be much more occasional, a factor of being a new employee in a very time intensive job that requires a humongously steep learning curve. I hope to regularly post once a week, with extra posts as time and enthusiasm allow.

So, now onto the big issue of the day. This story is the first post on Arts Journal, and it makes me 1) very sad and 2) very nervous and 3) not surprised at all.

Some background: The Obama administration invited a large number of prominent arts officials and rising artists to a conference call on how the Government and artists could "work together" on prominent issues of the day, and encouraging them to use their talents - essentially, "steering the art community toward creating art on the very issues that are currently under contentious national debate."

Anyone who either knows me or has read this blog knows that I am a huge fan of government subsidy for the arts. If you tell me that art (theater, painting, dance, etc.) is a form of personal expression, intended to express the inner soul of the artist, I will show you 500 examples of artists, both male and female (but mostly male) who relied extensively on Government patronage, or business patronage, or, heaven help me, religious patronage, and managed perfectly well to make beautiful, well-respected work that nevertheless endlessly pushed a strong, active agenda. And that is the way that art always has been and probably always will be.

In an ideal world, and with a perfect government, this is the way that government subsidy of the arts would work: the government would evaluate the potential of an artist applying for a grant, and decide if their work was worth subsidizing regardless of the message it espoused or the politics the artist held. Thus, the money that the government offered would be based solely on talent and promise, not on the message the artist believed most important. Thus, the US would be helping beautiful, powerful or emotionally devastating art come into being without placing artificial standards on it.

And given my hopes for the first administration that actively acknowledged the arts in its platform, I truly desired that this administration would act in a way that held to my utopian vision. But, all things being the way they are, Obama's actions are not surprising, even if they are disappointing.

Which man in power, knowing that a huge number of artists of all types and genres had energized themselves on his behalf would not hope that the same energy would be devoted to his agenda?

The fact that Obama is utilizing the NEA to try to invigorate the artist communities is not surprising. Given the immense reluctance of the US government (puritanical at its core - have I talked about this? let me know if you haven't heard my rant) to acknowledge the power of art of all kinds, the NEA is the only tool Obama possesses. The NEA is the largest artist grant-giving organization in the nation. It spurs other organizations to give as well - imagine! It's so much cooler to give money to an artist that has already been granted money by the NEA! You don't have to do research on their work yourself!

And mostly, the government has viewed artists as opponents rather than as tools. But now it finds itself in a unique position - possibly the only time since the 1930's that the greater proportion of artists have been in agreement with the president's agenda rather than opponents to his agenda. As the Honda TV ads say, Mr. Opportunity is knocking. So, to Mr. Courrielche, who asks:

"But the art community must... ask itself about the proper role of government agencies created to promote the arts. And if put in the wrong hands, could a message machine built by the NEA be used in a nefarious manner not currently foreseeable?"

YES. Because it's happened before. In Soviet Russia and in Fascist Germany art was suborned to the political agenda. Those are the obvious examples. My favorite example of art being squashed because of politics is actually Moliere's Tartuffe. Louis XIV actually prevented the play at first because it criticized the church, but then later allowed it because at that point he wanted to shame the church where he hadn't before. And read the ending of the play. A more blatant piece of propaganda I have never seen.

Artists should be cautious about accepting Government funds. Artists should be cautious about accepting any funds. Because along with Patronage comes obligation. If you agree with the message, great. Fine. Make art about the greed of the Health industry. Mock the system that awards money gaming more than teaching arithmetic to young children. That's what the government wants now. But don't get complacent. If you can make great art within the limits of what the government wants, fine. But if you can't, don't accept the money. Because you'll be at the mercy of the one giving it. Because that's what accepting any money does to you.