William Safire’s op-ed piece today notes how the times are changing. How the right is now embracing the NEA in its nearly 40-year-old mission of “bringing the arts to all Americans, and providing leadership in arts education.”
From Safire:
Remember the hoo-ha a while back about the funding of edgy art, offensive to some taxpayers, by the National Endowment for the Arts? That controversy is over. The N.E.A. has raised a banner of education and accessibility to which liberal and conservative can repair.
Only problem is, education is not the only mission the NEA was founded to accomplish…their full mission statement reads:
The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts – both new and established, bringing the arts to all Americans, and providing leadership in arts education.
So what’s wrong with this picture? The bolded word above should provide some clue.
As Safire points out…new NEA chairman Dana Gioia won over the current powers that be and secured his proposed $18 million budget increase “by organizing the largest tour of Shakespeare’s plays in U.S. history.” As much as I like Bill, his work only qualifies as “new art” if you’re measuring time in eons.
Gioia then went on to win over the support of Laura Bush via his “American Masterpieces” traveling shows presenting great American works across the U.S.
“So, Edward, wha’cha bellyaching about now?” you ask?
Again, Safire says it better than I can…
Democrats grumped that the increase was election-year politics; that in celebrating yesteryear’s greats, its requirement for matching private funds might drain the pool for today’s edgy artists.
Transparency requires that I note again, I have a contemporary art gallery in perhaps the most “edgy” art community in the world, so I’m not without bias in this, but I’ll let how Safire describes the art this new funding will promote bring out why this is problematic… “Spare; daring; profoundly plain-spoken.”
Now who does that description remind you of?
That voice is certainly valid and worth promoting, but not at the exclusion of other equally valid, perhaps edgier voices.
I’ve got another way to solve the debate. Take the tax dollars devoted to this and apply them to, oh, I don’t know, perhaps more important things like defense, welfare, social security, medicare, the environment, basic scientific research, healthcare research paying down the national debt and nearly everything else in the federal budget.
Do the arts matter? Of course. Should they be prioritized in the federal budget? Of course not.
Should they be prioritized in the federal budget? Of course not.
Having to defend the pitifully small amount of money the US spends on promoting and educating its citizens about our cultural heritage strikes me as tragic. Seriously.
Perhaps when the US is much older (or not the #1 superpower any longer), we’ll reconize as a nation (the way the peoples of nearly every other nation in the world have) that our cultural heritage is the most valuable thing we have as a people. Until we do recognize its importance, we’ll keep “prioritizing” other choices…and leave the preservation and education of who we are and what it means to be here, living in the US now, up to the artists and patrons of the arts. Fine. Really. It’s my passion; I’ll keep doing it regardless.
All I’m arguing for is if there is an NEA it should live up to its mission and not be blackmailed into promoting a more traditional view of the nation than is a true reflection of who we are.
spc67 wrote:
I disagree, with the exception of national defense and paying down the national debt, none of the aforementioned is a legitimate expenditure of federal tax dollars. Even so, funding for the NEA is even more frivolous although I tend to care more about Medicare and Social Security when it comes to budgetary priorities simply because of the dollar amounts and scale involved.
Our cultural heritage, Edward I’m not sure what role the NEA plays in that endeavor. What separates this nation from others are our ideas and ideals and how often we have opened up our doors to others throughout the world.
Eddie, a walk through the streets of New York represent our cultural heritage, it is our people. Just don’t know what the NEA has to do with that.
Now mind you I’m pretty (very) ignorant on this subject (as compared to you, Eddie) but on cutting edge art grants, always figured they are going to the well connected people.
Now mind you I’m pretty (very) ignorant on this subject (as compared to you, Eddie) but on cutting edge art grants, always figured they are going to the well connected people.
I don’t support NEA money going directly to artists. I do support NEA money going to “alternative” spaces, especially outside the main cities. I know these places are often viewed as “next to worthless” because they can’t offer the high production values big-city venues do, but I do believe that participating in the arts in some way, either by making art, viewing art, or supporting it through $$$, is important for all Americans, not just the wealthy. And that’s what I mean about our cultural heritage…we have a vested interest in promoting a very active population of art makers and art lovers. All of us, not just gallery owners.
The US is shamefully unsupportive compared to other countries, where people not only appreciate and brag about their artists, but consider them a source of great national pride. Even their edgy artists.
Active participation in the arts should be promoted by the government, who’s obligation it is, among other things, to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” American literature, art, dance, music, etc. comprise one of the most enduring blessings of our liberty. The forefounders expected us to protect, nuture, and pass them along to our posterity. It’s an obligation, not some frivilous waste of money.
A compromise the conservatives can love – follow the Irish model and make revenue from sale of artwork exempt from tax. “It’s an arts subsidy!” “It’s a tax cut!” “Wait, you two, It’s an arts subsidy and a tax cut!
If you’re going to argue cultural heritage as a rationale for the NEA Edward, then I don’t think “cutting edge” stuff fits the bill.
This is a job for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Henry Kravis etc. and others who wish to act as patrons.
Not at all Spc67…I want to bring cutting edge to middle America
Just to be a pedant, “new” doesn’t have to mean “edgy.” There are new artists all the time that work in traditional idioms, in music, dance, painting, photography, drama, and so forth.
I want to bring cutting edge to middle America
Middle American generally isn’t fond of cutting edge, not because they’re stupid, but because they’re not. Damien Hirst doesn’t play well in Casper, Wyoming, because people there tend not to like feeling that someone is trying to make a fool out of them.
“A compromise the conservatives can love – follow the Irish model and make revenue from sale of artwork exempt from tax. “It’s an arts subsidy!” “It’s a tax cut!” “Wait, you two, It’s an arts subsidy and a tax cut!”
Huh. You know, actually, yeah, that’s a pretty interesting idea, there. Might need a little bit of fiddling to avoid fraud concerns, but… I’ll have to look into that further. Thanks.
Or better still, make everyone exempt from the income tax and rather than using the government to pick the taxpayer’s pocket, “artists”(1) can go out and earn an honest living in the marketplace with their wares rather than feeding at the government trough.
TW
(1) By which I only mean those “artists” who feed at the government trough as opposed to those artists who actually produce something of value in the private sector and earn an honest living.
Damien Hirst doesn’t play well in Casper, Wyoming, because people there tend not to like feeling that someone is trying to make a fool out of them.
With all due respect, that’s hogwash.
Hirst is making no attempt to make a fool of anyone. Anyone who feels he is, is revealing more about themselves than about Hirst.
There are degrees of accessibility. Good art appeals on many levels, at least a few of which all people can relate to. To suggest that “edgy” art is beyond the interest or (hidden in that assessment) capability of the people of Casper Wyoming is to underestimate both good artists and the public.
Children reveal the truth of this again and again. Take children to see a Hirst show and the last thing they’ll feel is that they’re being made fun of…they’ll be all over his work and reveal things about it that would surprise the most astute critic. Adults who’ve lost that ability to see would do themselves a huge favor to make an effort to get it back.
There are new artists all the time that work in traditional idioms, in music, dance, painting, photography, drama, and so forth.
Granted, and the NEA should promote them as well, but that doesn’t mean the edgier artists should be relegated to the sidelines in funding or in the nation’s esteem.
A compromise the conservatives can love – follow the Irish model and make revenue from sale of artwork exempt from tax. “It’s an arts subsidy!” “It’s a tax cut!” “Wait, you two, It’s an arts subsidy and a tax cut!”
st, I’d be all over that idea…but then what would the IRS do…auditing art dealers accounts for 85% of their activities.
“st, I’d be all over that idea…but then what would the IRS do…auditing art dealers accounts for 85% of their activities.”
Ed, is that an actual percentage, or is that a ‘well, it feels like they do’ kind of thing? Honest question and it’s a pretty good line if you meant the latter. 🙂
it is the latter…not an actual percentage…but the art world deserves it…you have no idea how much money goes unreported there…really, it’s scandalous…(not that I have any details to offer, mind you)…my books are completely “uncooked.”
Not at all Spc67…I want to bring cutting edge to middle America
And you’re gonna do it whether they like it or not. And best of all, you’re gonna make them pay for it too!
A liberal daily double!
spc67 demonstrates his point by bringing those arty italics to us all, whether we like it or not.
Hirst is making no attempt to make a fool of anyone. Anyone who feels he is, is revealing more about themselves than about Hirst.
See, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. “You’re too stupid/stubborn/closed-minded/provincial/choose one to understand X,” in combination with “Your taxes should pay for X” just isn’t a winning combination. Sorry, but it isn’t.
To be more specific, and not to debate the merits of a particular artist (de gustibus etc. etc.), there’s a reason why milquetoasts like Thomas Kinkade outsell probably every artist in your gallery by about 1,000 to 1 among Americans. It’s because the average Joe or Jane wants pretty pieces of art that looks like stuff. They don’t want edgy, or avant garde, or what have you. They want something that looks nice over the love seat.
In my experience, there’s a general feeling among casual, average people that — the ghosts of Abstract Expressionism still looming large — the bulk of mid – to late-20th century art and beyond is mainly created for other artists, for collectors, and for wealthy hipsters and dilettantes. And it isn’t because their aesthetic sense or education is stunted or pedestrian — it’s because the works themselves don’t speak to these people in any significant way. And that’s a failure of the artists, not the viewers.
My personal take on Hirst is that he’s infantile and obvious. Yours — and those of your minor friends — obviously differs. But — to take another recent example — a collection of 2-liter soda bottles stripped of their labels and filled with various colored liquids is designed to appeal to one kind of person: The art snob who nods knowingly and says, “Yes, our consumer culture certainly does present people with a baffling array of ‘choices’ that are really all the same. Oh, look, something else new!” Nobody is going to buy it for their home (except maybe a collector) and the average art viewer just doesn’t care.
It’s the job of the artists to create something that makes them care, not to tell them that if they just looked closer or were smarter, they would.
A compromise the conservatives can love – follow the Irish model and make revenue from sale of artwork exempt from tax.
I’m skeptical. Most artists I have met don’t even break even, so the tax break isn’t going to help much. The point of grant money is to let them take time off from their day jobs. And as Edward says, even if they do make a profit, they don’t report it. (Not that they’re less honest than most people.)
Mithras –
I agree with what you say, but it was proposed as a compromise, not a cure. There is grant money out there for the enterprising artist to find that doesn’t come from the federal government (private foundations, states, etc.). Edward, as a knowledgeable insider, could maybe address what other sources of funding there are; or are the feds really the only game in town?
Anyway, just an idea. For my part, I like the idea of the feds subsidising art, Medici-style. Its an utterly miniscule portion of the federal budget, and for many people it is the only thing that allows them to eke out an existence as an artist at all. I hate a lot of the referential, insider modern art that Phil is describing, celebrating pedantic no-shit-sherlock “insights” as genius, but here’s the fact: in every era, at every time, 99.9% of art sucks. It just does. Or, to be kinder, it is completely inconsequential and forgettable. The size of the cultural legacy we hand down to the next generation is determined by a pure numbers game; how big is the pie from which that .01% get sliced?
See, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. “You’re too stupid/stubborn/closed-minded/provincial/choose one to understand X,” in combination with “Your taxes should pay for X” just isn’t a winning combination. Sorry, but it isn’t.
Phil, you implied that Hirst (or his supporters) was consciously trying to fool people…that there is a conspiracy behind challenging work. Sorry, but that’s just ridiculous. Anyone who believes that is scrapping the bottom of the logic barrel for their inability to find value in his work. You can reject Hirst’s work for a thousand valid reasons…this conspiracy theory rubbish isn’t one of them though.
It’s because the average Joe or Jane wants pretty pieces of art that looks like stuff. They don’t want edgy, or avant garde, or what have you. They want something that looks nice over the love seat.
This is exactly what I don’t believe (and is much more condescending than the statement you objected to that I made above, by the way).
Art appreciation is similar in most ways to sports appreciation. The first time you watch a cricket game, for example, it looks as pointless and silly as the “various colored liquids” piece you describe (I’d guess you saw that in D.C., no?). Take the time to learn the rules, teams, history, and players, however, and the game becomes much more meaningful (note: of course, the cricket playing countries of the world feel the same way about baseball [gasp! pagans!]).
It’s the same in art. You get more out of it, the more you put into it. You may not personally feel it’s worth it, but the total numbers of people who attend arts events (205.9 million people in 2002) argues that Americans do.
It’s the job of the artists to create something that makes them care, not to tell them that if they just looked closer or were smarter, they would.
Mirror makers would be the only artists we need if that were true. Whether you want to believe it or not, Americans do care about being challenged by art. The fact that Impressionism is now widely considered the “best” art by the average American (and that explains Kincade’s popularity, I believe), when Impressionism was once denounced as vulgar, is a good indication that the goals of avant-gardeism are understood and appreciated by Americans (otherwise, it would still be considered vulgar). The fact that Impressionism is over a century old indicates that there is a lag between the cutting edge and widespread acceptance, but that in no way argues for artists to stop pushing the envelope.
I believe exposure can shorten this lag time. I think it’s important to try.
Edward…could maybe address what other sources of funding there are; or are the feds really the only game in town?
There are private grants, residencies, awards, etc. but there are many more artists than such available. Again, I don’t think the Federal Government should sponsor individual artists, per se…state-funded art is lifeless in most cases.
What I think the Federal Government should fund are art spaces (and no, not commercial galleries like mine, we’re doing fine all by ourselves, thank you)…places that can bring art to the people who may not be able to get to the art.
in every era, at every time, 99.9% of art sucks. It just does. Or, to be kinder, it is completely inconsequential and forgettable.
I absolutely agree. In fact, there’s a great survey of 1990s art in a book titled “Most Art Sucks” that I recommend for anyone wanting a hilarious critique of the scene then.
I know most art sucks because I know there have been hundreds and thousands of artists working for hundreds of years, but history only sees fit to remember so many each century. But bringing back the sports analogy again, I’m a Cleveland Indians fan and just because currently they’re virutally useless, doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy going to see them play (if only to yell obscenities at the umpire). Because you never know when you’ll see the most amazing catch of your lifetime…and you never know when a work of art will prompt that epiphany that changes everything you think you know about the world.
Edward, I think you and I are going to eternally disagree about the roles of federal government WRT culture and welfare. I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other.
That said, why is it that the Federal government has to support the arts? Why not state and local governments? If the people of NYC want to support the arts, let them cough up the cash to do so. Or do you think it’s necessary to have the participation of those who don’t wish to support the arts, too?
I think the only way to explain Kincade’s, excuse me, Kincade–Painter Of Light!’s– popularity is voodoo. (And if you think I’m looking down on the south or midwest–what really gets me is his “gallery” on the richest street in Boston.)
What’s the NEA budget per capita, anyway?
Slarti, NYC is too busy providing for the common defense since the federal government won’t.
Anyone unaware of the insidious cancer on our national aesthetics that is Thomas Kinkade should definitely read this Susan Orlean article, which lays it out in all its hideous and unintentionally hilarious glory.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it appropriate that John Derbyshire is a fan.
Slarti, NYC is too busy providing for the common defense since the federal government won’t.
Given that there’s truth there, I’m going to let you off easy on the fact that it’s an extremely recent problem.
If you think the Kincaide thing is inexplicable, how about that guy who used to teach painting technique on TV? That was extra bizarro.
Mirror makers would be the only artists we need if that were true.
Nicely put Edward.
If you think the Kincaide thing is inexplicable, how about that guy who used to teach painting technique on TV? That was extra bizarro.
Do you mean the tree painting guy with the big afro? I loved him! If I remember correctly he had this thing about squirrels, too…or maybe that’s a two-degrees-away association with the idea that he was “nuts.”
The thing that often gets missed when someone advocates progressive approaches to art is that most often they also love all kinds of art. “Fine art” is simply one part of their passion…a more specialized part, but not in any way exclusive. I’ve bought work from people outside the subway who were painting on cardboard and work from galleries where the assistant is wearing clothes that cost more than I bring home in a year…it’s the individual pieces that interest me (at least for my personal collection).
That said, why is it that the Federal government has to support the arts?
I don’t say they have to. I say it’s good if they do. It’s similar to my argument on wildlife refuges. We don’t have to set aside land that we declare off limits to development, but it says something very positive about our nation’s collective soul if we do. The $139 million slated for the NEA in FY2005 is truly a drop in the Federal budget bucket. To bring the debate over such a relatively insignifcant amount of money to the place that pushes people to denounce art is the worst kind of manipulative politics. The idea that poverty or sickness or crime or whatever would end in the US if that money were spent elsewhere is laughable. It’s roughly $0.50 per person per year.
I think the only way to explain Kincade’s, excuse me, Kincade–Painter Of Light!’s– popularity is voodoo.
I nearly choked on my gum, reading that Katherine…I hope I have your permission to quote it…
Kincade is my parent’s favorite artist. He’s the only reason we can talk together about art at all. Personally I find him formulaic and decorative, but I love the fact that my father, a retired steel worker from Ohio, has a favorite artist. It validates my belief that the arts are for all Americans.
st, that article is priceless…thanks for sharing. I found this bit criminal on the part of the gallery:
There are few guarantees in the investment-oriented view of the art world, but the smart money is on Kincade’s “light” fading long before the suspiciously flourescent surfaces of his canvases do.
Mr. Krens, did you hear that?
OK, now that I find out you’re a fellow Tribe fan, I take everything back. Since this season is already a wash, here’s to ’05!
Since this season is already a wash, here’s to ’05!
That’s what I love most about the Indians…the enduring optimism they provide us in direct defiance of any reason to be optimistic.
When I get around to blogging it, you’ll get my exegesis on why having Grover back with the Indians is the best possible thing for both the fans and the team, as long as he’s never, ever allowed to make an important decision on anything involving player development or the roster.