In our first class, as we discussed the organization of governments as a lens through which one could conduct comparative analysis, Professor Casey (“John C”) referred to the habit of most governments that support national offices devoted to the arts of adding “tourism,” “sports” and/or “leisure” to their moniker.
(It’s interesting that the words “arts” and “culture are used interchangeably in some cases, but not in others. For the purposes of this post, "the arts/culture" are the individuals and/or groups who make artistic expressions as a profession, the processes by which they create their work, and the spaces where performance-based, fine, new media, and folk art are shared with the public.)
How a country labels their arts policy institutions may say something about how its government and people view the role of the arts in their societies. One theory: Perhaps it implies a perception that unless they contribute to the country’s profit and industrial growth, the arts alone do not need support at the top levels of government. Or perhaps it’s assumed that art making, art education, art appreciation and the development of audiences for the arts will simply always exist, with or without governmental policy; maybe the arts are taken for granted. Or perhaps it says that artistic expression should be supported by private means, not public ones.
According to Jeff Chang, writing in The Nation, the answer is more devious than that. “For decades, the de facto policy has been to confuse the culture industry with the source of creativity and largely to abandon the production, promotion, distribution and enjoyment of arts and culture to the dictates of the boom/bust marketplace,” Chang claims. In the piece, Chang argues for the need of a more prominent role not just for “the arts,” but for “creativity,” in our country’s revitalization. I happen to believe that he is right. I am intrigued by what a national Department of Creativity, devoted to making and implementing policy for supporting arts and creative practices could possibly do for the U.S.
This was a good motivating piece for my case study research, in which I will be looking at the differences in arts policy and administration between the U.S. and the U.K.
~ Nancy
Interesting topic, Nancy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, Preisdent Kennedy was the first U.S. president to appoint a special consultant on the arts to his administration in 1962 (Auggie Heckscher who later became Administrator of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs and Commissioner of Parks of New York City).
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Biographies+and+Profiles/Profiles/August+Heckscher.htm
In a speech honoring the poet Robert Frost, Kennedy stated he believed it necessary for a nation "to represent itself not only through its strength but also through its art."
http://www.arts.gov/about/Kennedy.html
I believe he was instrumental in creating the idea and framework for the NEA, which was authorized during President Johnson's administration.
Carol Starmack
Thanks for the links and words, Carol.
ReplyDeleteWhile I respect the contributions Kennedy made to the arts in the US and the efforts of his daughter Caroline today to make the arts more visible, I still don't understand why we only have the NEA and NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) that administer a relatively meager amount in grants (in the article I linked to, the author also notes that the US, even with the $155 million each passed by Congress for the NEA and NEH this year, still spends less on culture than New Zealand), but no official Department of Arts and Culture.
There's some progress in the current White House. In March, Presidenct Obama created a new position to oversee the arts within the Office of Public Engagement, formerly the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs (Obama's still in his "renaming everything" phase.). That's at least a step closer to seriousness than leaving the arts floating somewhere in Office of the First Lady (no offense, Michelle). However, the appointee has got other fish to fry. In addition to his arts responsibilities, he's also overssing disability policy. Hmmm.
~ Nancy
Keeping in line with the majority of the goals of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, the funding for the arts included in this bill promote job creation or preservation within this field. The NEA's funding, "The Arts and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," is specifically geared towards arts-related job preservation on the national, regional, state and local level. We all remember the fierce debates over the spending bill but the discussions about the funding for the arts were particularly interesting to me. Michael Kranish wrote in the Boston Globe about how William Ivey, a member of Obama's transition time, heard comments "that an arts worker is not a real worker, and that a carpenter who pounds nails framing a set for an opera company is a less-real carpenter than one who pounds nails framing a house." (Read more here: http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2009/02/05/stimulus_funding_for_arts_hits_nerve.) While the arts funding represented a very small proportion of the spending bill, it was the target of much criticism. In order to make a stronger case for arts funding, perhaps it would be wise for the NEA to analyze the overaching impact of the its job preservation funding on fields other than just the arts.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of first ladies, had it not been for the background, breeding and very public efforts of Jacqueline Bouvier, support for the arts in JFK's presidency would be different and perhaps less...
ReplyDeleteMaryann
My organization is a grateful recipient of some of those arts stimulus funds.
ReplyDeleteGood point on the ripple effects of the arts on the economy, Jessica. Very Richard Florida of you (http://www.creativeclass.com).
~ Nancy
It is interesting to note that while we don't have a federal department, there are state/city departments of cultural affairs. NYC has one, as does LA and Chicago, as well as apparanlty Nevada and Iowa.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone has more information about these departments in the US please pass it on.
Thanks
John C
I have no first-hand experience with NYC's department of Cultural Affairs, but I do know it dates back to the late nineteenth century. They post a culture calendar I use when I don't have a New Yorker Magazine with me. I believe they fund a lot of nonprofits in NY. Nancy probably knows more
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/html/about/history_96-64.shtml
Carol S.
Yes, every state (to my knowledge) has a arts council. As do many counties and cities too. These councils primarily exist to administer government grants to artists and arts organizations.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am curious about is why the US is comfortable giving money to the arts, but so uncomfortable making arts policy outside of funding. No where on the websites of the NEA, NEH, or any of the state councils on the arts I visited will you even find the word "policy."
Meanwhile, the U.K.'s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport claims right up front in its mission that, in addition to providing funding, it "sets arts policy and supports arts-based initiatives, often in collaboration with other government departments."
~ Nancy
It's funny how a bust economy tends to inspire creative initiatives. Actually, the graphic you inserted in your post is a flashback to Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, which was part of the New Deal (along with social security and so many other reforms). The WPA helped find work for artists, mostly by employing them to paint murals in government buildings, such as post offices, many of which still exist today. This program was a breeding ground for several American artists, including Thomas Hart Benton and others. Interestingly, just 10-15 years after the Great Depression, during Worl War II, Hitler's regime implemented history's most severe restrictions on art. It limited subjects, colors, style, etc., which is obvious in the paintings produced during World War II. But it also explains why artists completely rebelled during the 1950s and 1960s in Europe.
ReplyDeleteArt becomes of huge importance during a recession and it will be interesting to keep an eye on what is produced out there in response to the current environment.
Michelle