clevermanka

_luaineach posted the link to this article today and if I wasn't so exhausted, I'd go on a rant. Instead I'll just post a quote from the article and my quick response.

"(The author)...was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries 'to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda - health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.'"

That is not ART. That is ADVERTISING. The federal government should not provide funding to advertise political issues, no matter how noble those issues.

Imagine if Bush had authorized funding for the NEA to form a similar committee to focus on "core areas" such as border safety, war efforts, and public support of the Patriot Act? This is no different. Yes, the issues might be more palatable to some of us, and I'm sure the organizers have the best motives at heart*, but the conference/committee idea itself is not any more acceptable because of that. It's state-sponsored advertising. Or "propaganda" if you want to pull out the nasty words.

It is not art.

* This is sarcastic. Just a little.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Propaganda. Propaganda it is that. Well, I think it is actually worse than propaganda, I actually see it in historical terms as beginnings of the subversion of culture. A subtler form quieting dissidence, art has always play a powerful part in shaping peoples opinions, awakening their sensibilities and mocking authority.

"You are stupid and evil and do not know that you are stupid and evil" comes to mind, here.

Food for thought:

How is this much different than the WPA posters? (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/wpaposters/wpahome.html)

I thought about this before making the post. =D

Public health announcements explaining how to prevent the spread of disease = Not A Political Issue.

Encouraging visitation of federally-funded state parks = Not A Political Issue.

Free art and cultural exhibits, probably funded in part by the NEA = Not A Political Issue.

There are some of those posters that do cross a line, but not many of them. I'm thinking particularly the ones that demonize "the enemy." Yes, that is propaganda.

I thought maybe you had considered it too, we tend to think alike that way.

I'm not so sure I agree with the OP columnist, IF the arts funding is going toward encouraging Americans into service to America, that, to me, is not a partisan issue.
I don't see enough solid information about the actual projects to make an informed opinion.

Bush did so -- it was photo ops with Homeland Security rather than other kids of art efforts.

Now, bear in mind that "public service announcements" have almost always focused on government objectives, whether "Seat belts save lives" or "Don't drink and drive." They are given to radio stations to play "as a public service". This has been going on forever.

The "art-not art" debate can be both very rarefied, and very boring.
Art has always been used in the service of political agendas. In the early part of the 20th century there were many entire movements that believed art without political aspirations was worthless (lists can be provided). While it's hard to see much current relevance it the pro-war stance of the Futurists, in fact it's kind of quaint, that does not suddenly thrust their work into the "not art" category. Also, advertising can be art too! Just ask Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon. Since the ineffable glories of modernism, the zieitgiest has been to regard art as a practice removed from the sticky concerns of the polis. It is well worth questioning this and other assumptions used to encourage more members of the "not-art" catecory. IMHO art can come from nearly any mode of human production despite the context of its creation. I'm not saying "I likey!", I'm saying "I think it's a kind of hare-brained idea, but "not-art"?

Art has always been used in the service of political agendas.

Yes, but that's not the issue for me in this case. My problem is The National Endowment for the Arts is using federal tax money to pay to promote political issues that have markedly partisan aspects.

I was using the advertising/art words dichotomy as a either/or contrast. The two cross and blend, most definitely. And yes, I think artists should create art that promotes ideas they support. Similarly, people should buy the art that speaks to them. The first piece of art I ever purchased is a highly politically motivated piece.

But do I think federal grants and tax dollars should pay for a program that hopes to produce catchy posters promoting political aspirations of a particular segment of the people currently in power? No.

Got it.
The question still on the table: Does the fact of your disapproval move something (anything)from the "art" to the "not art" category? Does partisanship? Does NEA funding (you might get me on this one*)?
* I'm imagining a logical proof for how NEA funding automatically precludes something from being art... Kind of like "Too much Mozart, is an oxymoron.

I'm thinking about this a lot, and in my (ever-evolving) opinion, the difference lies in the motivation for creation.

Now, that said, I realize that much of what I consider art today (let's just bring up, oh, say, Caravaggio's work) was requested and paid for by people who probably didn't have non-politically motivated reasons for their requests and patronage.

Here is how I resolve this seeming double standard: up until the nineteenth century (maybe the very early eighteenth) there was little artistic influence in the arena of advertisement. Obviously, that has changed, and we now have artists doing all sorts of paid advertising work. And that's fine! God knows they deserve the money. But that is not, to me, their art.

Is it their creation? Yes. Is it artistic? Perhaps. Is it art? Not to me. Art is (to me, today, in my spoiled pampered existence) something that comes out of one's sense of self, without overt pressure (physical threat, financial motivation). Of course artists are motivated by others' politics, money, etc., but those things aren't the driving force. When someone else's motivations are the inspiration for the creation, that's where I draw my line.

NEA funding automatically precludes something from being art

Having seen some of the crap produced by NEA-funded artists, I would be inclined to agree with you. But I bet it's only the shitty ones that get any press. There might be some really awesome stuff going on out there that I don't know about because it's good. Oh, irony.

NEA

North Korea produces wonderful art…

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject