From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: government and the arts
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.191326.1293@unx.sas.com> sasdrf@daedalus.unx.sas.com (Dave Frederick) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.221929.21158@scubed.com>, hap@scubed.com (Hap Freiberg) writes:
>|> In article <1992Apr7.113956.5324@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>|> >Let government do its duty and support the nation's culture! Without it,
>|> >the arts will remain the preserve of the middle classes and the well-off.
>|> >Stephen Wilcox
>
>Historically, hasn't it always been the "duty" of the artist to find a
>patron, rather than the other way around? 

Both.  Noblesse oblige!  It wasn't *done* to have a court without art.
Mind you, some did more than others, and some (like August the Strong)
fired all the expensive singers and composers as soon as the party was
over.

>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 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.

>|> 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.
There is no *national* culture, in the sense of a central cultural
tradition.  All of the above (*Andrew Wyeth??*) except perhaps for
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.

>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.  

>|> 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".

No, just not very careful.  Pay a little more attention to what's being
said, OK?  He's talking about the *production* of culture.  How many
artists produce FOR your tastes, or BECAUSE of them, or due to your
funding?  In short, what's your influence on the arts?

> Do you make
>the same claim of every non-wealthy participant in this newgroup? Are
>you wealthy?

Not wealthy enough to sponsor the arts in any significant way, I'm sure.

>|> 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.

> Why do you think that a "national subsidy" for
>the arts is an artist's birthright? 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? 

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."

>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...)

>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. 

Besides, the government doesn't *control* waht constitutes culture, nor
has anyone proposed that, your tendentious comments to the contrary.
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.

>Here's a proposal for you. Instead of direct government funding for
>the arts via the NEA, lets have a National Tax Rebate for the Arts.
>The money that would have gone into the NEA would be redistributed to
>the wealthy and weird (Oh, I see below that you define weird to mean
>middle-class. That means I'll get a share, too!). We would be required
>to spend this reabte on "cultural" events, but we get to decide what
>culture is. How many of us would use this money to witness, say, some
>performance art or an exhibit by Robert Mapplethorpe? Then again, how
>many would buy tickets to the symphony or theatre? See the point. If

How many of us would go see Marky Mark, who supports himself just
fine without it?

Sorry, I *don't* see the point.  

>we as individuals don't value certain forms of expression that are
>intended to either offend us or represent an explicit countercultural
>message, why should we as a society consider these same works part of
>our "culture"?

Because they are, just as much as Aaron Copland, Milton Babbitt,
Madonna, Prince, and Liberace.

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...

>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...

> 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.

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.  

Roger
Xref: sparky rec.music.classical:5945 comp.music:2454