Not necessarily wanting to be a contrarian, I must continue my thoughts on the National Endowment for the Arts. It does serve a public good and is in the business of providing financial support and public advocacy for the arts. No doubt that many of the grants have made a positive contribution to the arts globally as well as locally. When the NEA gives money to the states to disperse through various state-supported grant programs, those funds go to the local communities to advance the cause of the arts. How can this be a bad thing? So why am I against the very support that is intended to raise arts awareness and provide financial resources for artists and artistic endeavors?
Rather than denigrating or exclaiming for or against any organization, we should, instead, examine its actions over a ten-year period and make a decision based on evidence. Once the reader knows how tax dollars are spent, then he can decide if this is a worthwhile organization. Here is the search form for an analytical study: https://apps.nea.gov/grantsearch/. While most readers will find one or two grants that fit one's personal interest, most grants are specialized art forms for small audience consumption.
Keep in mind that the term "arts" represents a vast amount of experiences from the visual and aural world. "Arts" could mean stand-up comedy, dramatic readings, poetry, literature, opera, drama, jazz, blues, rap, hip-hop, rock, folk, orchestras, busking, dancing, film, media, singing, television, graffiti, design, architecture, decorating, quilting, crafts, even culinary presentation. When one considers support for creative endeavors, the only real limit is the human spirit for something new. Add in historical studies, ethnic emphases, demographic alternatives, social considerations, and audience responses, we find a tremendous amount of artistic possibilities for support.
Is it art if nobody is there to experience it? (I know, it sounds like the old tree falling question). If the NEA supports that which requires funds for its existence, it probably funds artistic experiences that are limited in audience response. This makes logical sense. No need for the NEA to provide funds for the musical Hamilton or for a Lady Gaga concert. The NEA looks for those worthwhile art experiences that will likely not garner a large audience but are "worthwhile" in spite of the lack of public financial support.
The conclusion, therefore, is that our tax dollars go to events that are generally not popular. If they were popular, then no support would be required. If I make a cake that is lousy and nobody purchases it, then I am saddened by my poor effort and will try to improve next time or perhaps give up on my cake making ability. While it feels cheap to relegate art to a commodity, is it really that different? Should our art find a public audience, and if not, should it not go the way of all bad art?
Market forces determine so much of our world including our clothes, media, cars, jobs, interests, tastes, and the list continues. Why is art different?
The only valid argument, which is distasteful, is that "we" who are artists, "we" who determine the value of the arts, "we" who make the decisions for what to fund, are the knowledgeable elite who know what is best for society and culture. This is the same weak argument that once prevented the Holy Bible from being in the hands of the people. The same poor argument that causes totalitarianism, demagoguery, power abuse, self-proclaimed experts, and ultimately enslavement.
The NEA, for all its good intentions, may need to start listening to the people. This is not a diatribe against the NEA but it is a large demand for the arts to remain alive and in the hands of a public that just may know best over time. It seems almost dangerous to rely on the so called artistic elites to decide what is best for our culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment