From: sasdrf@daedalus.unx.sas.com (Dave Frederick)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Arts ed vs. Arts funding (was Re: government and the arts)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:18:45 GMT
    <1992Apr8.221929.21158@scubed.com> <1992Apr9.191326.1293@unx.sas.com> 
    <1992Apr10.035457.19026@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasdrf@daedalus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 16366

First, let me apologize for the antagonistic ravings of my previous
post. I was coming down with a sinus infection, and my throbbing head
may have bettered my judgement that day. I return to work today doped
up on pseudophedrine (maybe I should take some of that theremin people
keep writing about :-), so I should be of better temperament, although
a little less coherent.

I have to warn everyone that I am a product of the American public
educational system. Roger in particular has pointed out some short-
comings in this education, but he does have a point in the value of
this system, which I hope to endorse.

|>
|> >Certainly, back in the days
|> >when monarchies were the norm, an artist could set himself up in the
|> >court of the powers that be, but still the monarch, and not
|> >"the government" per se, was the true patron and sponsor of the artist.
|> >Occassionally, citizens of these monarchies resented the fact that
|> >their ruler was taxing them in order to surround himself with the
|> >luxuries associated with the court. Remember the Bastille?
|>
|> I don't think the Bastille (and its storming) had much to do with the
|> support of artists, really.

I had always understood the storming of the Bastille to be the commoners'
reaction to the excesses of the court at their expense. Yes, le Louvre
was a dwelling and not a museum at the time, but certainly poor serfs
seeing the nightly performances might have gotten a little ticked. But
I respect Roger's thorough knowledgde of history as being better than
mine, and I will grant that this was perhaps a minor irritant in the
Big Picture.

|>
|> >I believe a
|> >well known 20th century statesman from your side of the Atlantic was
|> >the one who said "Those who have not learned from history are doomed
|> >to repeat it".
|>
|> I don't recall Santayana being a statesman.

Once again, a failing in my education. A Jr. High English teacher (who
was British, BTW) had taught us that Winnie came up with that pith,
and even though I have been told otherwise several times, it is quite
difficult to ignore one's initial acquaintance with a fact falsely
presented.

|>
|> >|> Nicely stated and, I think, some ideas for us Americans to ponder....
|> >|> The basic problem, of course, is that the U.S. has no national
|> >|> culture.
|>
|> >Of course this is true. Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein, Andrew
|> >Wyeth and Jackson Pollock, Martha Graham, Alvin Ailey, Miles Davis,
|> >Charles Mingus, William Faulkner, Mark Twain, are just a few of the
|> >examples that demonstrate a total lack of culture in this country.
|>
|> Actually, the lack of reading comprehension is a far greater problem.

I could not agree more. Not only is lack of comprehension a problem,
but simply tearing oneself away from a picture box to read is beyond
the ability of most Americans.

|> There is no *national* culture, in the sense of a central cultural
|> tradition.  All of the above (*Andrew Wyeth??*) except perhaps for
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm not a great fan of his either, but I was hastily searching for
examples of Americana. Substitute Norman Rockwell, if you want.

|> Twain, are members of American cultures, to be sure, but with one or two
|> exceptions ("Fanfare forthe Common Man") none of them has an artistic
|> significance to the majority of Americans, or ever has had.  Beethoven
|> and Shakespeare are far closer to the center of our culture than they
|> are.

Well, I'm not in total agreement here. We don't have quite as many
centuries of retrospect to search for cultural identity, and I believe
this leads to the illusion of a lack of culture. While our country is
a couple hundred years old, it has only been within the past 100 or
so years that we have really adopted a recognizable personna, and
sometimes a century is too little posterity to appreciate the accomp-
lishments of many artists. Note that, save Mr Clemens, all names on
the list are twentieth century artists. Yes, Copland was trained in
Europe, but didn't N. Boulanger encourage him to seek an American
flavor for his music? And isn't Copland one of the most frequently
performed twentieth century composers (note, I did not claim best)?
While we have to rely on imports for our "classics" (since we either
weren't in existence or still in our infancy and therefore unable to
produce them), we have been slowly developing a cultural identity
which is coming to fruition. The excuse that "we have no culture" is
not only lame, it is untrue.

|>
|> >Of course, we have Bart Simpson and Madonna to offer the world, so
|> >there may be hope for us poor Americans yet!
|>
|> Indeed.  Pop music and the movies are in fact America's
|> national-cultural exports.

Just a question...Does something have to be exported to be considered
exemplary of a culture? Sumo wrestling has never really attracted a
world-wide audience...does this exclude it from being part of Japanese
culture? But I'm losing focus.

Yes, Bart and Madonna may indeed be a part of our culture. It is too
soon for us to evaluate the long lasting effect that "pop culture"
may have on American culture as a whole. Still, I would argue that
there is such a thing as an American culture.

|>
|> >|> Culture has always been the province of either the wealthy
|> >|> or the weird.
|>
|> >Well, since I certainly am not wealthy, and since I enjoy music, art,
|> >and literature, you must be claiming that I'm "weird".
|>
Sorry, I forgot the smiley to the above.
|>
|> >|> The denizens of the political right have always been
|> >|> suspicious of culture (because so much of it is foreign? Or that the
|> >|> "cultured" tend to be a bit "different"?) and under the banner of "let
|> >|> the market decide" have managed to quash any hints of a national subsidy.
|> >Let's ignore your political baiting, since that is entirely outside the
|> >scope of this newsgroup.
|>
|> Bull.  Music and its political sources are often discussed here.

Okay.
|>
|> > Why do you think that a "national subsidy" for

Hap Freiberg writes:
|> Subsidy by its nature is political.

Sure, but must it be national, or governmental in origin? Granted, if
the artist does not please the patron, his subsidy will be discontinued.
This may or may not be political. Does the patron need to be the
government? Texaco seems proud to have been subsidizing Met broadcasts
for fifty years (as they are so quick to point out). Look at the program
that your nearest major symphony orchestra gives you, and you'll see
several endorsements from instrument manufacturers, record labels, etc.
These are subsidies that are commercial, not governmental. In contrast,
the State of North Carolina funds its own NC Symphony orchestra here
in the Raleigh area, and it suffers from the most insipid programming
and lackluster performances of any regularly performing professional
orchestra I've ever heard. I've heard more adventurous programs from
amateur community orchestras (including one in Raleigh that occasionally
performs (shudder) NEW compositions!).

|> >the arts is an artist's birthright?

|>I think a subsidy is not the artists' right but the nation's right. Like
I disagree. Federal funding in practice has little to do with art. It's
a pork barrel like everything else in the federal government, going to
thos localities whose representatives have sold their votes on some
other point. In theory, yes, having the government blindly making the
arts available to all would be a Good Thing. Unfortunately, in this
empirical realm it doesn't work that way.

|>education. "Good" art will survive through education and "bad" art will
                                             ^^^^^^^^^ Good point!
|>probably survive along with the "good" and those able to discern the difference
|>between Beverly Sills and Milli Vanilli, Harold Robbins and (yes) William
|>Faulkner will continue to bemoan the fact that New Kids on the Block
|>make zillions while the local symphony balances on the narrow edge of solvency
|>and bankruptcy...

I agree that there is a problem. I only disagree with solving it by
having the government throw money at it.

|> >Are we to take the artist's word
|> >that what he has created is a masterpiece worthy of preservation? Or
|> >do we place our faith in some government bureaucrats to dictate to us
|> >what we should and shouldn't like? Isn't culture itself a reflection
|> >of society as a whole?
|>

Roger Lustig writes:
|> Rarely.
|>
|> On the other hand, what's truly weird is your juxtaposition of the
|> bogeyman of artistic commissars with the (thoroughly Marxist) notion of
|> the role of art, wrt "society at large."

Sorry, my gaffe regarding "society as a whole". But in doling out
subsidies to any artist applying, we leave ourselves open to fraud or
ineptitude (a degree or a prior sucess does not guarantee artistic
quality). By limiting ourselves to a bureaucrat's or agency's decision,
where the arbiter is a political appointee who may or may not have any
knowledge about the arts, the motivation for making these decisions
lies more with keeping one's job rather than with supporting deserving
artists. I don't feel comfortable with either of these choices. For
those of you who feel it's better than nothing, we'll have to agree to
disagree.

|>
|> >If our present day society does not relate well
|> >to the arts as they are presented today, and do not value what our
|> >artists are producing, the fault must lie in the populace as a whole,
|> >and not the artist, right?
|>
|> In a sense, yes.  If people no longer receive the education that allows
|> them to have ACCESS to culture, then the problem is beyond the reach of
|> the artist, unless art is to be "dumbed down."
|>
|> >It must be up to our governments to set us straight.
|>
|> As long as there's still public education, I'm afraid so.  (Note: it
|> also produces most of the artists...)

Hmmm. I agree and disagree with these statements. First, I disagree
with the statement that public education "produces most of the artists".
While their primary education was most often garnered from public
elementary and high schools, very few state universities (with some
very notable exceptions, such as Indiana or SUNY Purchase) support
arts education. When I was pursuing degree programs in music, I could
not find any state universities either in my home state or in a state
with reciprocating tuition agreements that even offered a composition
program, let alone a good one. I was not wealthy, and had to find
funding through scholarships, assistantships, etc. to attend private
universities that offered the programs I desired. At best, public
education can produce *some* artists, but I believe these would be the
vast minority.

But as for allowing individuals to have "ACCESS to", and appreciation
for, culture, I agree that our public schools are the best place to
foster this cultural education. Somehow, I developed an appreciation
of especially music and literature before I attended college. Since
this appreciation did not seem to come from home, I have to attribute
it to something I picked up at school. Was this same access provided
to all students at my high school? I would have to say yes, it was.
Did everyone benefit equally from it? Well, a number of my friends
from my high school days with whom I remain in contact have developed
interests in the arts, but I imagine most students took the easiest
path (such English classes as World Lit and The Novel were electives,
and were much less popular than Short Story or Mass Media). Most
teenage children would opt for the easiest route, I suspect. Suppose
our government, rather than subsidizing arts production, used the
money at this level to suppport arts education. Would most teens elect
to take it? Probably not. Would it cause them to drop out of school
if they were required to take it? Probably not. Could we try to get
our local schools to make arts education part of the required curricula?
Even if schools had the money, they would hesitate on the grounds that
it is not politically correct to force this Western bias on them,
without the option or requirement of studying alternative cultural
activities. Thus is the plight of educational reform.

|>
|> >And certainly any credible artist would be thrilled at the
|> >prospect of having to acquiesce to government control over what
|> >constitutes "culture", and would never have to worry about political
|> >posturing in return for favors granted.
|>
|> Hey, it's been that way for a couple millennia.  See _Republic_, section
|> 399.

I wouldn't argue that this hasn't always been done. I would argue that
artists would prefer more freedom than this entails.
|>
|> Besides, the government doesn't *control* waht constitutes culture, nor
|> has anyone proposed that, your tendentious comments to the contrary.

They do if they *control* the purse strings. By giving a cultural grant
to a group or individual, they are claiming that said group or individual
is a part of our culture. The awarding of a grant says that the product
is art, without awaiting posterity's judgement. In a capitalist society,
money is control.

|> The problem is this: government IS involved in culture (*and cultural
|> education), and we need to decide HOW.  Alvin Ailey, Martha Graham,
|> Aaron Copland, etc. all benefited from government funding; Mingus and
|> Miles got their basic training in school, too.


[misguided argument about arts rebate deleted because I'm too embarassed
to have it in print again].

|>
|> Look, the vast majority of arts money is spent in the schools.  The vast
|> majority of the rest is spent on utterly establishment high/middlebrow
|> things like symphony orchestras.  Since the NEA costs each of us less
|> than 75 cents annually anyway (less, incidentally, than the military
|> spends on bands), why this fuss about a tiny fraction of one cent?  All
|> the things you find objectionable, and that the NEA funds, cost you less
|> than the Army Chorus.  Over hill, over dale...
|>

Put more into education. Make arts education necessary for a high school
diploma. Make high school diploma necessary for a driver's license. Make
someone quote Shakespeare before he is allowed to purchase a TV :-) Put
more things like Bernstein's old young people's concerts on in prime
time. There are many things that can be done to improve the state of
the arts in our day, but having the government indicriminately throwing
money at the problem is bound to be as successful as any other solution
involving the government's money squandering.

|> >Of course, such a rebate could never occur. The denizens of the political
|> >left (once they have finished screaming "Regressive, regressive. Let's
|> >soak the rich for every penny they've worked for)
|>
|> Hey, let's refrain from political baiting, which is beyond the scope of
|> this newsgroup -- when it doesn't have anything to do with music...

It has as much to do with this argument as Mr. Freiberg's statement,
and is just as ludicrous and opinionated, too, I'll admit.
|>
|> > have always been
|> >suspicious of being responsible for themselves (because the concept is
|> >so foreign to them? Or they'd have to think once in awhile) and under
|> >the banner of "I can't decide" have managed to quash any hints of
|> >self-sufficiency.
|>
|> Horseshit.  Self-sufficiency is not the issue here.  Most of the artists
|> who apply for grants have been self-sufficient for a long time, and will
|> go back to being so after the grant is over.  Nobody lives off of NEA
|> grants, certainly not for long.

If the grants aren't necessary to keep organizations and individuals
afloat, why do we need them? And if the grants are necessary, then
these groups and individuals aren't self-sufficient. That is an issue.
I'd say they should be self-sufficient (which might mean relying upon
private patronage and an educated populace).
|>
|> And remember: if people had been unsubsidized and self-sufficient (or
|> whatever), you wouldn't have 80% of that wonderful culture you tell us
|> you like...
|>
|> all the oil painting.
|> Most of the symphonies.
|> Almost all the opera.
|> A lot of the jazz, for that matter -- it's rarely been profitable.
|>
How many people choose a profession in the arts because it's profitable?

Dave Frederick                          sasdrf@unx.sas.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical,comp.music