A few days ago, at a huge writers conference in Chicago, I met a charming and articulate man -- dressed in lizard cowboy boots and a very interesting sort of felt cowboy hat -- who happens to be a lobbyist for the arts. He was very excited to have just been a part of the effort to ensure the 50 million dollar funding of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the hope of continued funding for the organization for years to come. He was also happy to report funding for the organization whose conference I was attending. And he was full of anecdotes, one of which I found particularly compelling.
The great poet Philip Levine saw this particular lobbyist on his way into a meeting in Washington one day several years ago, and said to a fellow poet, "This is the man who lets us know how we are doing." The lobbyist told this story with pride in his work but also with some sense of responsibility.
Now I don't much care for the business of lobbying myself, and I told this charming man so, even when the lobbyist is asking for money for causes I very much support. Mostly I wish that there didn't have to be such a thing. But when our government has had such an egregious record in funding the arts as it has for the past eight years and when, clearly, the Republicans will do all and everything they can to take out any monies in any bills proposed that have anything to do with the arts, then I guess we are going to need all the smart and charming and hardworking and dedicated lobbyists for the arts we can get.
But why is that?
What on earth do Republicans in Congress have against painting and writing and dancing and teaching art in the schools? What it is about us artists that gets their panties all in a twist? What would Philip Levine himself say to Mitch McConnell or John Boehner or any of our other Public Servants, for that matter any of the men and women who nurse at the public tit but don't want a penny of public money going to anyone else?
There's a visible sneer in their faces and an audible sneer in their voices whenever the word "art" is mentioned. As though it were dirty or nasty or somehow something we should talk about only behind closed doors and only with intimate family members but not, somehow, in public, for God's sake. Reading? Fuggedaboudit. Museums? Oh, yeah, those are places where kids go on field trips that are no longer in the budget. Dancing? That's for sissies. Classical music? Isn't that something The Wife makes you go to once a year?
I don't expect Republicans to own up to having read anything more challenging than a Tom Clancy novel but would they really deny the rest of us the opportunity to do so? Is it really so hard to imagine that some people in the rest of the world really likes to hunker down with a beautifully written novel or a slim volume of poetry? Is it so difficult to get their narrow minds around the concept that some people actually enjoy going to museums and actually find looking at art compelling and interesting? That the preservation of paintings hundreds of years old makes us more civilized and compassionate somehow? And that that preservation is important historically? And that teaching the appreciation of the arts to our children is part of being civilized and educated?
And are they so completely out of the loop that the cannot even see the economic benefits of the arts to both our country and the world at large? A recent article in The New York Times http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/16mone.html?scp=2&sq=NEA%20%20February%2013&st=cse made that very clear to anyone who bothers to listen. But clearly they aren't reading anything and they certainly aren't listening to anyone but themselves.
We got into this economic crisis in good part because our government has for the very longest time been incredibly short-sighted. It may be that we now have a president who is willing and able to take a longer view. If the Republicans will just sit down and shut up for a few moments. That, as far as I can figure out, is the least they can do. And as we know, Republicans always do the very least they can do.


Salon.com
Comments
otherwise forgeddaboudit . Art is for queers. My GOD
I despise people with republican type minds , or is it
that they have no minds , or souls ?
rated for rantiness:)
Sheep dog is right though, the Cult has thrown out all art with the Maplethorp bathwater. It's a damn shame.
". . art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. . . . In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the sphere of polemics and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation."
Republicans/social conservatives do not want free thinking - witness their attempts to restrict scientific inquiry in regards to evolution and research. They want people to believe what they tell them to believe. Artists by nature are independent - Republicans hate that.
I think they believe an educated American is somehow a threat, when in fact an educated and cultured populace oils the wheels of democracy and civilization.
I have some Republican neighbors and they are some of the nicest people. They are neither hateful or ignorant, but are hung up on the abortion issue. When I try to explain that everyone is against abortion and there are other issues going on in the world that should be considered when making political decisions, I'm met with blank stares.
On another note, I recently watched an HBO special by Alexandra Pelosi. She bravely followed the McCain campaign during the last months of the election and I'm not sure I've ever heard such vile, ignorant, bigoted racism in my life.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Republicans come in all shapes and forms of ideology, but their congressional leadership is one scary group of stubborn, narrow minded neocons that sometime border on the ridiculous when it comes to art and education.
(He's also an accomplished poet and critic in his own right. Not all Republicans hate art.)
For pro-art libertarians like myself, the problem is government funding. Given that art is whatever patron and artist agree it shall be, when the patron is a government the art tends to be bent in whatever direction that government approves. It's one thing for a town to fund art in furtherance of its own image, but quite another to have to appeal to the tastes of a distant national organization in Washington. You wouldn't like it if Republicans had that degree of control over your work, and you're no more likely to enjoy that sort of control from Democrats.
Trig: You may have something there:)
Surreal: Would that we could.
Voicegal: I have noticed the emphasis on the kids, too, but at least we are getting kids in. A recent NPR story told the sorry tale of field trips being cut, cut, cut with budget cuts. I would hate for that to happen because I think that the ONLY time some people every see the inside of a museum is on a school field trip. Which is a crying shame. But I am with you: why can't we just look at art?
Sandra: I think people have addresed your issue. But the thing is that people have to be educated about art and literature, don't you think? And if funding gets cut because it's "unecessary" and "doesn't immediately produce jobs" then we will be a nation of real dummies and that scares the shit out of me, as an artist. It SHOULD scare the shit out of everyone. That it doesn't bothere the Republicans in power really scares the shit out of me.
Emma: I don't think they are failed artists so much as wannabes. I can't tell you how many times people have come up to me and said, "Oh, you're a writer. I have always wanted to be a writer!" I want to say to them: "Really, I've always wanted to be a brain surgeon!"
Grif and Cat: Nice!!!
Bill P: Terrific! Thanks so much for finding that.
Steven: Thanks for the props. And yes! Art's purpose is to shake things up. But conservative minds hate that sort of thing.
Joe RR: Oh baby. Eternal vigilance is right. We must not rest.
Irritated: Thanks, doll (Sure wish I knew what you looked like in Real Life:))
Coogansbluff: Art and making it make me very happy, too. Listening to Boehner and his ilk does not make me happy.
Perididochas/Agore: What we are talking about is helping out literary magazines, art education, getting art in schools, getting grants to artists, and making art accessible. Many many other countries value their art and their artists a whole lot more than we do! In Ireland, they don't pay taxes and in other countries they are often subsidized. In this countries most every writer and painter teaches just to be able to do his art. Only a handful make a living, most make no money at all. We make fun of artists, we cut art the first thing. Music education is a joke. What is up with that? And yet we revere the great masters. AFTER THEY ARE DEAD.
Screamin: Thanks.
Michael: You and I know some of the same one-note wonders. Chri Rock has a great riff on this.
Bill, Cartouche and Eric: Yes and Yes and Yes!
And Finally Leandra: Lots of artists would vehemently disagree with you about Dana Gioia and are glad to see the back of him!!!
I hear what you're saying, Lisa, but I don't know if anything is going to change right away with so many other problems threatening to crush us.
I believe in education for the sake of being educated.
I believe in art for the sake of art.
Therefore, I feel by definition I cannot be a Republican.
If your attitude toward education is that it should only be used to help one become employed, well, any education which helps broaden one's views will be deemed anathema. Art falls into this category, as it can help teach many to see the world through a different lens.
One of the things I hear most frequently from Republicans is that they don't consider much of the art funded by the NEA to truly be "art". They define "art" only in terms of what they like. They don't understand that government funded art, when that art is used as a message for the government, is reduced to propaganda. The NEA allows creative individuals to express themselves without being hindered by the masses nor restrained by government censorship. This seems to be the Republican's biggest objection.
So again - what is your argument - that the government should do more to endow the arts? That Democratic administrations do so far more than Republicans? Do the economic benefits of supporting the arts outweigh the economic benefits of other social programs?
You seem to be arguing that only Democrats enjoy reading and classical music and going to museums, while Republicans to a one have zero appreciation for such things, finding them boring and even dirty and nasty. This is patently ridiculous, and while it might be fun to engage in this sort of hyperbole and create a political 'we' vs. 'them' in the artistic sphere, I simply don't accept the premises you lay forth.
I think art is very important. I think literature is particularly important. I think that art should be a solid part of the educational curriculum in the United States. So I'm not by any means arguing against art. I am just not clear on how we can logically proceed from the faulty premise that Republicans are a bunch of unwashed cretins who can't appreciate the value of art, or that Democrats are solely responsible for barely keeping the arts alive with their courageous, erudite patronage. And I think the idea of government patronage of the arts is a complex issue that requires more than ad hominem attacks on Republicans to justify.
And nowhere did I dis film as art. Nor did I dis Reagan.... who was, at best, a mediocre actor, if a moderate Republican. My piece, and its defenders, clearly speaks to those Republicans who wish to cut all arts funding from the stimulus and from discussion by the current administration, and who seem to find it amusing to dismiss arts funding with the same broad sweep as they dismiss anything which does not IMMEDIATELY provide a job (bogus reasoning in any case)--which matters not a whit in the long run because no Republicans have supported a damn move Obama has made, nor have they come up with their own plan.
I think our country and its government should support the arts. And it is clear to me that Republicans don't wish to, haven't for years and are clearly obstructionist about it now. They talk a big game, but when it comes to banning books and art and stopping funding and the like, they are at the forefront. That's pretty obvious to me. You disagree? That's fine. We disagree.
You painted all Repubicans with a broad anti-art brush and presented them en masse as people incapable of understanding or appreciating art, music, and museums.
"Reading? Fuggedaboudit. Museums? Oh, yeah, those are places where kids go on field trips that are no longer in the budget. Dancing? That's for sissies. Classical music? Isn't that something The Wife makes you go to once a year?"
"I don't expect Republicans to own up to having read anything more challenging than a Tom Clancy novel but would they really deny the rest of us the opportunity to do so?"
It's hyperbolic in the extreme to suggest that all Republicans would like to stop all Democrats from anything more artistic than reading a Tom Clancy novel (not that there is anything wrong with Mr. Clancy per se).
Maybe Republicans are stonewalling endowment to the arts. But you aren't really making the case here by making such sweeping partisan statements and ad hominem arguments. Surely you can see that. I just don't think that approaching the subject this way advances the causes you seek to advance.
My father was a conservative, although not a politician. One of his favorite authors was James Michner, yet I did manage to get him interested in some Updike novels a couple of times.
I think conservatives see the fine arts as a sheer luxury, rather than a vital necessity for growth in both spirit and thought. Their short-sightedness toward the future probably results from their nostalgic and perhaps even obsessive gaze over the past.
So they want a bunch of fearful ninnies who wouldn't be caught dead in a museum or a concert hall, and who think books are for girly-men. I mean, you let the rabble get ideas through reading books and articles, and eventually they'll catch on that to vote Republican is to vote against their own interessts. It leads to all KINDS of problems for an authoritarian political party. The biggest of which is the bottom falling out of their voting bloc when everyone finally sees what a bunch of idiots they really are. Hitler controlled the arts, and so did Stalin. Closing down people's minds and cutting off their access to thoughts that challenge the regime just won't do.
I take that back. Jindal doesn't have a speechwriter.
With regard to the Republican argument about public spending for the arts, I really, really like Cindy Ross' comment below (I mean above), in which she lays out a great argument for the need for public spending for those of us who don't have the cash to have a Renoir hanging in the dining room. Or in my case, don't have the cash for a dining room!!
And yes, isn't it nice that people have had such a lovely discussion without resorting to fisticuffs! I did say on another post how lovely it has been to never have had to delete a comment...... Perhaps it is because I don't write about rape and things. I just write about politics mostly. HA!
http://open.salon.com/blog/bryan/2009/03/09/life_art_hate_death_and_the_gop
Regardless, thanks for the terrific post.