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.