Bob Perelman, "Must Works of Art Reflect Only
Marketplace Values?"
(The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, February 5, 1995)
Government by irritation: It's one of the dominant political modes of our day. Taking
their cuefrom talk-show hosts, politicians try to topple their opponents by unleashing
discontent. Thesedays, the National Endowment for the Arts serves as a handy source of
annoyance if not outrage: A few well-publicized examples of troublesome art have, over
the last few years, been able It's not easy to argue against such energy. The value of art is
not always instantly apparent - and at the same time the difficulties art brings with it are
much more likely to be perceived at a glance.
The latest remarks by senators that the NEA be abolished unless it supports
"family values" show how true this is.
Rather than arguing for art that is familiar, obedient and at best ornamental, I
think art is valuable
to the community precisely because it's not perfectly predictable or obedient.
That doesn't mean that unruly art is automatically wonderful. Art is one of
the testing grounds
between individuals and the community. The point is that it's an opportunity
for judgment:
Members of the community need to make up their minds about it. That's one
of the basic values
of art. It can't be approached dogmatically.
If the NEA budget is considered in terms of the $1.5 trillion federal budget,
it's hardly a big deal,
amounting to a relatively piddling $167 million, a fraction of a percent. The
military spends more
on marching bands.
To eliminate the NEA would save each American exactly 65 cents a year the cost of a can of
soda. Here in Philadelphia, dance, poetry, the visual arts and theater would
all suffer; the gamut of
organizations affected would range from the Institute for Contemporary Art
to the Please Touch
Museum, from the Philadelphia Orchestra to the Settlement Music School.
The bigger, more established concerns would take a hit, but would probably
survive. Some of the
smaller organizations might have to close. Those who are out of sympathy
with the arts might
think that's fine: If a theater company needs a handout to survive there's
something wrong with it.
But to consider the arts in such a framework is an unfair oversimplification.
For one thing, business itself is not treated in such a sink-or-swim way.
Government subsidies
are an integral part of many industries, from farming to sports franchises.
One of the better
reasons for such subsidies is that they shield enterprises from momentary
reverses. If farmers
couldn't survive a single bad season, it would ultimately make for a weak
social fabric. With the
arts, the time frame is often more stretched out. It can easily take decades for
general taste to
approve of development in art.
The last hundred years are full of examples. In France painters such as
Claude Monet and Henri
Matisse were ridiculed by the majority of their contemporaries and there was
a riot at the premier
of Igor Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring." Of course, paintings by Monet and
Matisse are now among
the most valuable objects on the planet; and 30 years after it had driven
listeners into a frenzy of
disgust, Stravinski's music was used by Disney as the soundtrack to the
dinosaur section of
Fantasia.
These are examples of successes. But its not always the case that today's
innovative art becomes
tomorrow's classic. A 1920s symphony by George Antheil that used airplane
engines has not yet
become a cultural treasure (nor is it likely to). That's important. It raises the
point to say "Fine,
innovate, be creative, but only if you turn out to be Monet. No duds or wild
excesses, please."
But why should the government have to underwrite art? Didn't Monet work
on his own?
There are a couple of answers to this. For one thing, a significant part of
NEA money goes to
community groups, often helping get art to places it doesn't normally reach:
smaller towns, rural
areas, schools that don't have the resources for art programs. And for the
government to cut all
arts funding would mean that it recognizes no values other than the
marketplace.
Under the reign of purely economic motives, there is no way anyone would
want to produce
something unless it could be sold immediately.
Imagine a society in which every cultural product had to turn a profit
instantly. If you want to get
a sense of how claustrophobic this can be, consider how commercial
television is dominated by
spinoffs and imitations.
Given how informative, exciting and revealing the arts can be, what an
important antidote they are
to instant opinion polls, and how essential they already are to different parts
of the community, I
think they're worth 65 cents a year. The money is not wasted: People in the
arts are appreciative
of the little support they get and work hard whether or not they get it.
By their very nature, the arts speak to the individual's judgment at the same
time as they offer
possibilities for building communities. They're perfect training for the
independence and possible
sense of connection that we need to live in a democracy.
Maybe 65 cents is a bit low. Why not make it $1.30?
, 16-Mar-1999 09:07:25 EST