National Endowment for the Arts and politics

[KalaKesar]

I'd simply like your collective opinion on the following article:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[kevintr]

I don't like the idea of orginizing the NEA to support goverment initutives. For one thing I think that alot goverment policys are irrational, we don't need enthusiasm we need analysis. On the other hand as a lefty I think the NEA is already leftward leaning and it being used to support the agendas of democratic administration could harm it if the republicans gain power again. I think it should be allowed to continue to support the left in a disorginized way, in my biased opinoin.;D

[RBM]

Many different levels available to address.

Sounds to me like if his club wants to move in this direction he'll be a part of it - or he won't. If the club wants to be a tool of the state the club will. I appreciate his principal, and even agree with it. But what matters is what the club wants. And if I read correctly the club members are somewhat a function of partisan politics, so the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.

All in all, my bottom line is ... So ?

[Profit]

Interesting article. I would tend to side with the author concerning his fear of the art community siding so explicitly with and actively creating art/movements and dare I say even blatant propaganda in support of specific administration policies. That being said if a group of artists wants to create art that raises awareness of social inequalities (lack of adequate medical care for low income citizens) or the darker side of human behavior (overconsumption of natural resources leading to environmental collapse) that they share a concern over who am I to cry government stooge (regardless of whether or not I agree with them). Sounds like it is basically up to them to fund what they want.

On a side note....is anyone really surprised? Not to say that all artists are liberals or supporters of Obama but I think the majority of them, if they have to pick a label, are going to fall under into the democratic camp. Funny....people who create art and people who read/research and teach for a living tend to be liberal....go figure.

[KalaKesar]

I agree with kevintr that the NEA should be allowed to do what they choose, but I think the crux is the concept of art being used to deliver the message of a political entity instead of being the expression of an individual.

Indeed the pendulum will swing, but at what cost? If the populace feels that art is merely a propaganda machine, they will stop listening and stop supporting.

I also agree with Profit that artistic types lean left. The harder side of me wonders if it's because there is little money in art and it can't support itself without government assistance. On the other hand, artistic types tend to be touchy-feely and perhaps are easily wooed when told what they want to hear.

[rickster]

The NEA has long been a political football - as indeed similar organizations usually are.

Who will ever forget that ultra-left Commie Bill Clinton severely slashing the NEA budget in order to satisfy the American Family Association and their successful efforts to censor art which offended their decent Christian morality? Nobody ever heard about "Piss Jesus" or Robert Mapplethorpe?

The article outlines more of the same - albeit with a slightly more sinister "feel good" approach. I think the Soviet-style illustrations make the point of the article very clearly.

[RBM]

I admire you watchfulness. Sure the crux is obvious. The cost, I expect to be minimal. Afterall there is precedent of politics and art mixing, albeit on less 'formal' levels:

And I (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) quote!
"The problem has nothing to do with your paintings. It's that you are not a Marxist."

He, himself, was a Marxist, and he offered to introduce me to the inner clique of New York ones which had powerful lines into the Art Establishment.
I explained to him that even if I wanted to be a Marxist, which I didn't, I couldn't be one. I would never have passed the character and morals security checks the US government imposed on American citizens hoping to gain employment at the United Nations.
Additionally, all international civil servants (as UN employees were called), were required NOT to have political feelings, ideas, relationships or standards -- and if they did were required never to voice them. The United Nations was an international forum. Those of diplomatic rank were expected to have political orientations, but workers within the Secretariat were expected not to have them.
I don't know if this is true today, but it was the case in 1958 when I first entered the UN as a worker there.

Many who read this will think I'm jesting about the Marxist infiltration and domination of the art world. Many believe artists are above politics -- and many are. But there is a distinction between mere artists and those who manage the big business of culturalism.
Many have told me to my face that politics and art do not mix and are NEVER mixed. Well, politics are everywhere, and mixed into all things -- and all can be as sure of this as they are of their daily bowel movements.


Besides ...

I also agree with Profit that artistic types lean left. The harder side of me wonders if it's because there is little money in art and it can't support itself without government assistance. On the other hand, artistic types tend to be touchy-feely and perhaps are easily wooed when told what they want to hear.

... it seems your political partisanship is as important as the NEA/art issue. Given the above quote my view is you are muddling the original issue. I don't live in the box of political partisanship, and have no use for such limited thinking. Good Luck with your issue, whichever it may be.