Neither a borrower nor lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Shakespeare (Hamlet)
I recently received an invitation to attend a meeting called by the Arts Council of Greater Lansing. The stated intent was to discuss ways to avoid the funding cuts to arts programs proposed by the State of Michigan and to find ways to “better advocate for funding with its legislators.” The message also said that a variety of “action steps” are being proposed which will “include signing up for group legislative visits, a personalized postcard mailing campaign, and other actions that will help mobilize the greater Lansing region as a group in order to keep arts funding in our state.”
It was assumed that I, as an artist, would be enthusiastic about this effort. I am not. I believe it is both naïve and insensitive. I believe this cry for government support will prove counterproductive—it will be perceived by the public as proof the arts community is out of touch with the realities of Michigan’s current economic condition. In my opinion, it is unseemly for arts organizations, or any other special interest group, to ask for special consideration at this time. Arts organizations should be offering solutions and alternatives not asking to be treated as sacrosanct. In the face of rising waters they should be building boats, not waiting to be rescued.
Michigan’s legislators are being confronted with extremely difficult choices—unprecedented choices—stark choices. They have not capriciously decided to slight the arts community.
An Associated Press article written by Kathy Barks Hoffman, appearing In the 12 March 2009 edition of the Lansing State Journal reported that the expected February tax revenues for Michigan were “coming in almost $100 million short of earlier estimates.” Earlier this week, on March 5th, Mlive.com carried another Associated Press report. It stated that unemployment in Michigan topped 11.6% this January. According the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, in February of this year job losses rose by 716,000 bringing the national total to 7.7 million people unemployed!
Michigan and the rest of the nation are staring into the maw of an economic and social crisis approaching that of the Great Depression. Although conditions have not reached the dire circumstances of the dust bowl, it is not inconceivable they will. There is no quick fix in sight and no guarantee that President Obama’s stimulus package and bailouts will be enough. Many people who once had retirement savings have lost them. Many people in their senior years, their seventies and eighties, are now compelled to seek whatever employment they can find just to survive. Food banks are struggling to meet demand.
Why then should the State of Michigan be expected to fund Arts programs when it cannot fund its schools, repair its failing infrastructure and assure that every resident of the State has access to basic health care!
Of course the arts are important. They are fundamental to civilization. They nurture the soul, delight the senses, inform, provoke and teach us important lessons. But the survival of any particular arts organization or artist is not more important than feeding hungry children or assuring that the elderly and infirm receive the assistance and dignity that they deserve.
The loss of any arts organization, however lamentable, is never the loss of art. Art will survive. It always does. Jazz came into being without government funding. Painting existed long before there were galleries, grants and arts councils. Drawing is the very basis of written language—the making of marks to symbolize ideas and observations—a way of thinking and communication as fundamental to humanity as the ability to vocalize. Artists are resourceful and resilient.
Religion and art spring from the same root and are close kin. Economics and art are strangers. Willa Cather
I suggest that the members of every Arts organization ask themselves “is my organization really advocating for Art or the organization?” I submit that too many Arts organizations have confused and conflated the value of the art object with the value of Art. To them the Arts are inextricably tied to money and they seek to justify the existence of their respective organizations on the basis of how much money the “Arts” bring into the economy.
This American penchant for monetizing everything has objectified, diverted (and perverted) much of the arts into entertainment and commodity—something to be performed, exhibited, marketed and sold—something to be acquired as a badge of sophistication and success—something to be collected as an investment—something to be valued principally for its market value.
Over the last 50 or so years we have seen the growth of a large business/bureaucratic structure, comprised of federal, state and local arts organizations. Most of them claim to encourage the growth and appreciation of Art, when in fact they principally exist to further the art business—the selling of art products, performances and themselves.
Art means nothing if it simply decorates the halls of power that hold it hostage. Adrienne Rich
What is often forgotten, or intentionally ignored, is that the greatest value of art is found in the experience of its making and its appreciation. Art—the arts—are everyone’s birthright. The impulse to make art is innate and everyone has permission to make it, regardless of quality. A degree or license is not required, only imagination, courage, desire and the willingness to learn and practice.
Art making is play, discovery, expression, meditation, work and protest. It is the affirmation of life and the assertion of meaning—the artist’s decision to matter. Therefore it may be said the art experience is priceless and nontransferable from one person to another—I cannot experience your experience. However, the art object can be priced.
But even if there were no economic crisis, arts organizations and artists should question the wisdom of depending upon government funding. It always comes with conditions and genuine artistic freedom is rarely one of them.
© Michael Maurer Smith 2009
Bravo. Your argument is well presented and right now, much as I hate to say it, it makes a ton of sense. I’m not quite sure I agree about funding in general — as you know, many creative endeavors have been made possible in our community because of governmental funding, and without it, I fear we’ll see a decline.
You have an excellent point about those
advocating for the organizations and not for art, but in many cases, the organizations bring the art to the people because of the funding. And, without it, some will collapse or will have to severely reduce services. And frankly, if everything in the world was peachy-keen right now, I would probably argue you tooth and nail on this issue.
But oh, we’re far from peachy-keen. With unprecedented unemployment, housing shelters filled to the max, food banks challenged to meet the increased demand, children facing challenges both in the schools and in their off-time, and so much more — well, I have to agree, at least in large part. I know it affects my donations and every day I feel it affecting those who donate to the organization I work for.
This line really struck me: The loss of any arts organization, however lamentable, is never the loss of art. Art will survive.”
It will — but perhaps not with the vigor, the accessibility, the quantity it has now. Quality? Yeah, some of that will still be there. But I fear that what remains will become even more expensive to enjoy — if the tickets aren’t supplemented by funding, the price will be higher and then those who attend the performing arts, at least, will be the “have’s” and we may well be challenged to reach others.
One area where I stand strong is funding art in schools — visual, performing, music — and if that means funding other organizations that provide this, then I’m all for that one.
Nice piece!
Thanks for you for your thoughtful reply. I fully agree with you about the need for Arts in the public schools. However, I am concerned about how the visual arts are currently taught in the schools.
School art programs rarely teach how the visual vocabulary is applied in advertising, marketing and politics—for good or ill. When Art history is taught it is typically as some form of show-and-tell about famous artists and art works but separated from any broader and more meaningful social context.
It would be a rare public school that would encourage the art teacher to examine with the students how Hitler employed the architect Albert Speer to design spaces, based upon classic Roman architecture, to glorify the Nazi state and help it gain credibility among the German people—or how film maker Leni Reifenstahl used the camera to advance the Reich.
Yet such examples could teach much about the practice and role of art, architecture and design in the context of world history and politics. It could teach the very real consequences of applied art and design in the service of evil.
Closer to home students could learn how designers intentionally use color, shape, texture, and form to influence their decisions to buy everything from a sweater to an ipod. Likewise, they could learn about how the poor design of a ballot cost Vice President Gore the election.
However, visual art as taught in most of our public schools focuses upon art as as a “feel good” activity. It is rarely taught as a language, form of knowledge and a means of communication. Moreover the connection of art and design to politics and the promotion of consumerism is intentionally avoided in most schools—too controversial.
My undergraduate degree is in Art Education. I was taught to teach a “fine art”, expressive and therapeutic approach (there is a place for this) to art. However, there is also a great need to introduce children and the public at large, to a broader and deeper understanding of art and design as forces that shape our lives—as ways of knowing and communication available to all of us.
The fact is few Art Teachers know much about applied art and design. Fewer still are prepared to discuss how art and design are, and have been used to shape public opinion and the environment we live in.
The consequence is that parents and school administrators mostly think of the visual arts as an innocuous means of self expression, something kids can do to feel good about themselves—and possibly something they might pursue as a career. Few actually believe that drawing, painting or graphic design, as ways of knowing and practices, as are as important as the sciences and mathematics. So when budgets are tight out go the arts.
Unfortunately too many Arts organizations feed this myopic view by stressing the value of art as entertainment and as a money maker for the economy. As a result many people, probably most, now believe “real art” is only made by specialists for the enjoyment of the privileged rather than something everyone can do.
Good points, Mike. Very good. With our early childhood literacy efforts, we focus on media literacy and how advertisers often use certain images or words or spokespeople to move decisions. So, I know young people CAN “get it” and certainly by the time you get to higher grades — junior high on — they can really dig a bit deeper.
But first, they have to learn what it is, learn to love it, learn to care. Then you can go deeper.
And I’m not sure that it’s all that bad to encourage art (and I mean in the grand scope here, which includes music and drama, among others) as an enrichment or life enhancement. There is much to be said about doing something that helps you feel good about yourself or to express yourself. And I almost think that has to come first.
And yes, some will stop there. Others will dig deeper, and that’s good, too.
Jeanie: Thanks again for your comments.
Indeed, young people can understand how images and words are used to manipulate their feelings–when and if they are encouraged to do so. However, too many public schools are timid about this. School boards and administrators get antsy when students (high school age) are encouraged to use art to explore the realities of their own lives and the culture they live in, particularly if it might offend powerful people and interests in the community–if it might question the status quo.
Art encompasses beauty. It can be whimsical, fun, benign and even frivolous BUT that is not all there is to it. Art can be, and sometimes must be, about subjects that are ugly and painful. Students need to learn this also. They must learn that while art can be fun and pleasurable, like the study of history, it can also be very serious.
Maya Lin in designing the Vietnam memorial could have opted for classical figures of fallen warriors. Instead she chose to confront the viewer with the real cost of war, those cold marble panels reflecting the viewers own face as he or she reads the names of the dead. She made it impossible for the viewer, after seeing their own reflection, not to ask, “what is my responsibility in all this?” Lin’s art is one of integrity, meaning and universal importance. It is art that raises fundamental questions about what it means to be human–what is civilization? It is also formally beautiful, in conception, scale and material.
As I think more on these issues it occurs to me that poetry is an example of an art form that persists, and even thrives in some places, while almost no one expects to make money from it. Poets are poets because they choose to be, or are chosen–called. Of course a few poets did become famous and make some money. But most never do.
What I’m getting at is the importance of art as inquiry, statement, the making of meaning–something available to all of us–something we all can appreciate and do. And getting past the limitation of confusing the art object with the art.