Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The NEA: Count Me Out
I am a bit conflicted about the Trump initiative to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. On the one hand, art has enriched my life immeasurably; on the other hand I can’t pretend that the NEA operates in the same universe as I do.
As a member of the Board of Directors of a small private museum and a long-time collector, I should be as upset as most in the art community seem to be, but I’m not. The art world got along just fine before the NEA was created in 1965 – I argue that the state of art in America was actually better before the NEA. It’s not about the money, the NEA budget is “only” $148 million, the problem is politics, decency, politics and a lack of definition of what “art” is.
I am a retired person, but if someone asks what I do for a living I can jokingly reply that “I’m a fund manager, a writer, and a political analyst and economist” all of which is true to some degree. I manage my own assets, write comments on Ricochet and submit an occasional column in the local newspaper; I also generously share my political analysis and economic opinions. Many so-called artists do much the same thing. A person can call themselves an artist and create something called art; in fact, anything can be called art. According to the NEA any expression by any person is art, be it graffiti or flower arranging. Call it what you may, but count me out. In my mind the creation of art implies a certain degree of talent, skill and craftsmanship. The product should be at least admirable and at best awe inspiring.
I get my fill of political correctness, social justice, feminism, environmental concerns and other leftisms every day of my life. Art should be a refuge from such bombardment, not another arrow in the quiver of the Left.
It is argued that some countries, notably Germany, France and The Netherlands outspend the US in art funding by a wide per capita margin. That’s true, but they do so under the umbrella of protection provided by the United States which spends a prodigious amount covering the backsides of virtually every free country on earth. Also, consider the fact that Americans devote more personal resources to charitable pursuits — per capita — than any country or combinations of countries of similar size.
According to a recent article by George Will, Americans’ contributions to arts organizations reaped $17 billion in 2015, which dwarfs the government’s NEA contributions, which could easily be replaced by those who actually use those organizations. The arts will be just fine without the bureaucracy of the NEA.
I don’t subscribe to the opinion that art is meant to challenge, shock or disturb one’s senses; there is plenty of that in life. If one is entertained by a crucifix in a vial of urine or elephant feces adorning an image of the Virgin Mary or pornographic photos or plays designed to insult and outrage the audience, then funding for such garbage can be raised through some form of crowd funding. The NEA and other such organizations should stand on their own two feet and obtain funding from those who are moved or entertained by such things.
I realize that some good comes from NEA funding, but that’s the price you pay for failing to require a minimum of decency.
Published in General
Oh, I so agree with you. I consider myself an artist and all my works seem to accomplish admiration, never any disgust. I do agree as well the NEA needs to go.
Yabbut, the art world was receiving millions of dollars in financial support from the US government long before the NEA was created … via the CIA.
https://www.google.com/#q=CIA+art+subsidies
Is the problem the subsidies, or the management? The most famous group funded by the CIA was the abstract expressionists like Jackson Pollock. i.e. Abstract conceptual art that wasn’t politically transgressive. The CIA program didn’t fund overt propaganda, and it would never have funded a “piss Christ”.
Is it bad form to post my own tweet on the subject? I hope so.
After seeing what constitutes “art” over the recent years, when it was really obscene, vulgar and disrespectful (I am talking about the Christian desecration art), I’m not too concerned. I think the current administration is looking for areas to cut, where private funds could easily pick up the difference, the priority being the enormous deficit that keeps going up, not down. So those that cry, if had the option to keep passing that debt load on to the next generation, or find other creative ways to fund art, what would they choose? Our little area has a huge art community, shows and fundraisers year round – very successful and brings out the best in people – artist and non-artists alike.
I see no conflict. The fact that you enjoy something, or even value it greatly, does not imply that the federal government should pay for it (using other people’s money).
Indeed, an argument could be made that the things we value most are the things the federal government should be kept as far from as possible.
I’m reminded of a vignette from a book titled “In Search of Excellence”
The author interviewed the director of new product development at 3M. Asked how 3M managed to crank out new products year after year after year. How did they ‘manage’ for creativity? The reply was surprising. “You have to periodically cut off their funding!”
Huh? Cut off their funding? How could that possibly help with creativity?!?!?
The reasoning was … The money had its own gravitational effect … Projects with good funding attracted hangers-on who weren’t really married to the project, just a nice cushy well-funded gig. The program’s became sclerotic. “You have to pare them back to the TRUE BELIEVERS!” So you cut off their funding. The hangers-on will move on to a new well funded gig. The true believers will find a way. Scrounge equipment. Work weekends. Whatever it takes. That’s what propels them forward.
The ideal situation would be to take the current funding for NEA and return it to the people from whom it was collected. However, when any government funds are “cut”, they just go back into the general fund for spending elsewhere. If those funds were returned to the People, then the People would be able to make their own donations as they saw fit. Same goes for any government arts or humanities funding.
I don’t care whether the NEA has funded art I find beautiful or disgusting. Like a million other things the federal government has spent money on since the New Deal, it’s not what the federal government was designed to do. Let the people who attend a cowboy poetry festival pay for it.
Amen to that.
I don’t mind the government funding art, but it should be stuff which can legitimately be shown in a government buildings in full compliance with EO law.
And it should only be used to decorate government facilities.
It sounds good, but we’re heading toward a society in which all buildings are government buildings.
Artist’s need to go back to the good ol’ Renaissance system wherein they kiss up to a wealthy private individual who is flush with cash and looking to throw a little at the arts. At the very least, private commissions are guaranteed to create artwork that appeals to one person; though the likelihood of other people also enjoying it is probably higher. (Whatever else their faults, I think we can all agree that the Medicis had excellent taste in interior decorating).
The current system of getting public money for art more often or not results in artwork that nobody in the public finds appealing. It’s a little bit like the tragedy of the commons when you think about it.
Back in 2011, a group of Catholic protesters in France damaged one of the prints of “Piss Christ.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters
Sadly, no one took up my idea to leave the damaged print up and renamed it “Pissed Christ.”
The argument seems to be that it is important to challenge norms, and that without government funding, such “art” wouldn’t get funded because people are too backwards to support it through charity, i.e. if charity is the only way to support art, then the only art that will be made will reflect, not challenge, social norms.
In my world, it means that people derive moral satisfaction from compelling me to pay for things that are designed to offend me.
Commercial art shouldn’t be considered “bad” art – look at an original Norman Rockwell painting in an auction. If one is an Artist, there are many art jobs that pay enough to live on, including art teaching. The Artist can then generate all the “best” art on their own time or after retirement, and let others rate them without government interference.
I am willing for the gummint to fund the Smithsonian. There’s something really wonderful about wandering around the Mall, watching thousands (and thousands) of tourists and school children walk in and out of what would have been, in the past, the palaces of the rich. When I bring Maine game wardens to DC during Police Week, I always drag ’em into the National Gallery. “Twenty minutes!” I promise them. “That’s all…but listen, this is a whole building full of priceless works of art, and it all belongs to you…because you are American!” We’re always in there for at least an hour and a half…
I used to spend whole days at the Smithsonian when I was meant to be in High School. I have a fantasy about spending a year in DC doing just that—taking the #32 bus down to the Mall, and wandering around among the paintings and planes and texts and taxidermy for days and days…
So, art prior to 1965 vs post 1965?
NEA may owe some people money for what they have inflicted on the world.
I’m sympathetic, but only to the extent public money does not go to the artist, by not buying the work of living artists. If the art wasn’t great enough to be sponsored by or picked up by private owners at some point, it isn’t great enough to go in the Smithsonian.
I recently heard Andrew Klavan describe “art” as (paraphrasing here) taking something from the natural, brutal, uncaring, random world and imposing humanity on it. Or arranging it in a way accessible to the human mind as “beautiful’. That stand of trees over there is pretty random, they occurred as they are through forces that had no consideration or knowledge of a human’s sense of beauty. But I can, if I’m talented, patient, skilled, trained, aware – whatever, set up a camera to snap a photo of those trees that will inspire wonder in a human observer. That is an example of Art. The trees aren’t art, the photo is; human consciousness apprehending some raw materials and arranging them to edify another human consciousness.
I may not be saying this well, but it really struck me as true.
Anyway, it occurs to me that if this is how art is made, a true artist would want to run away from government involvement with all speed.
I went into the Navy on the Delayed Entry program. When it sunk in that I might be away for a while (I grew up in Arlington, Va) I quit my job a month before leaving and spent most of my time wandering from museum to museum down on the National Mall. I still remember that as being one of the coolest things I did as a 19 year old. (Yes, I am a little weird.)
Ricochet had a recent podcast with Roger Scruton who describes it well in this video:
“It is argued that some countries, notably Germany, France and The Netherlands outspend the US in art funding by a wide per capita margin. That’s true, but they do so under the umbrella of protection provided by the United States which spends a prodigious amount covering the backsides of virtually every free country on earth. Also, consider the fact that Americans devote more personal resources to charitable pursuits — per capita — than any country or combinations of countries of similar size.”
They also provide Public funding for religion. How is that working out? Freedom and competition are good for the soul as well as for the art that comes from and enriches it. Why is there even any question about it?
This concept of art aligns nicely with Leonard Bernstein’s definition (and I paraphrase from memory): Art makes cosmos out of chaos. So, if the art in question merely reflects the chaos of the world, without trying to make sense of it somehow, it may not be art at all.
Great point Michael! I am a full-time practicing portrait painter for the last 35 years. My biggest beef with government funded arts (aside from the waste of money) is that the artist is usually given money to produce anything he wants to do, whether anybody else likes it or not. If I were given such a grant, I would like to spend it on sleeping and leisure activities and call that “Art.”
This is the most successful way of producing the worst possible art that practically nobody will like. On the other hand, if the artist can produce something on which people would be willing to spend their hard-earned cash, then you are going to get Art that other people generally enjoy. Just imagine the kind of music we would have if the gubmint gave out money to every teenager with a guitar and played the results on government sponsored radio stations.
Excellent comment.
There used to be a rough consensus on what great art was (my primary focus is music). Based on that, the idea that art elevated people and was thus a societal good that society (through the government) should support had some merit. That consensus is gone.
What the art world needs is angels: people who are willing to support art they love with their own money. These people do exist (they include the much maligned Koch brothers), and we should be deeply grateful for them.
That video lays out the case for beauty in art vs. other objectives such as shock or the artist’s self-indulgence. That sounds vaguely lewd, which may not be inappropriate in this context.
But must art be beautiful to be art? Must art even be somehow ordered to qualify? And most important to any attempt at a definition, who makes the defining choice? The two arguments above seem to favor the audience. But in Leo Tolstoy’s 1897 study What Is Art?, the author states that art starts (and in many ways, ends) with the artist: “Art begins when a man, with the purpose of communicating to other people a feeling he once experienced, calls it up again within himself and expresses it by certain external signs.”
In other words, the major (perhaps sole) defining quality of art is personal intent. If the artist says it is art, it is art. (Even if it is ugly, chaotic art.)
Then it is art to him and him alone. Nothing you’ve written justifies government purchases of the delusions of self-proclaimed artists. When private individuals and organizations put up the funds to support an artist or purchase his work, there is an indication of that work’s value as art. Until then, the “artist” needs satisfy himself with the inner joy of creation.
The First Amendment guarantees an artist’s right to say, sing, sculpt, paint, write, squawk, spatter or perform anything he or she is moved to, so the question isn’t about whether “Piss Christ”(or its ilk) is art, or even whether “Piss Christ” is better or worse art than my latest painting of unidentifiable-but-colorful vegetation (yes, fans, still painting flowers…).
The question is whether the government is —ought to be—supporting the arts at all. That is, whether it is reasonable for the government to forcibly extract money from a farmer in Idaho and give it to an Idaho artist, let alone give it to a small art museum in Rockland, Maine.
This isn’t as slam-dunk-y a question as it seems: government grants can provide start-up or sustaining funds for some wonderful projects that do indeed end up providing access to interesting and beautiful objects, facilities and ideas that otherwise might not have come into being (or survived, as the case may be). And on some level, at least in the context of the present system, government funding signals that the USA is a country that cares about and values art, and that I as an American have an interest in supporting art in Idaho even if I’ll never personally see the result.
Does it make more sense for rich art lovers who believe strongly in work that challenges and shocks rather than pleases and soothes, to fund “Piss Christ,” while those who believe folks should have the opportunity to see the work of Maine Artists should fund the small museum in Rockland?
Does the existence of the small museum in Rockland—subsidized by the taxpayers—help to create a market for the full-time portrait painter, or all the small, for-profit art galleries that cluster around it? If so, does that make government funding an investment in the creative economy?
But then…does government funding of certain kinds of art or artists—say, “marginalized people”—encourage people to keep doing that kind of art rather than something different, and artists to think/describe themselves as “marginalized”?
Since the people who work at the NEA are guaranteed to be art history majors—that is, steeped in the often-anachronistic attitude, culture and language of the academy—won’t the NEA tend to fund people who share those attitudes, culture and language? Because the government, unlike the market, moves slowly and is virtually immune to painful feedback (the occasional Jesse Helms inspired protest notwithstanding) favored artists who do not have to worry about pleasing or persuading an audience are able to make and display unpleasant, unpersuasive art (e.g. the evocatively titled exemplar “Piss Christ”) Ordinary Americans exposed to that art are then convinced that art is unpleasant and unpersuasive…and to be avoided.
Which is the opposite of what people who care about art want, yes?