Not long ago I was dragged by a certain female member of my family to see 'Mad Hot Ballroom', a charming documentary about a mandatory afternoon ballroom dance program in certain New York public schools, all provided and staffed by the American Ballroom Theater's Dancing Classrooms. This leads up to a citywide dance competition in which the underdogs come out on top. At least, for this movie.
It's a wonder these dance lessons ever got taught. The sense in America is that extracirricular programs, especially those in the arts, are just that - extras, and unnecessary. Why bother teaching these poverty-stricken immigrant kids to dance the foxtrot, even if it will improve their lives? The only solution social conservatives ever offer is 'two-parent families'. The fact remains is that you can't mandate two parents when there is only one, or replace the parents if both are gone. Besides, you can have a dozen parents and it won't cure all ills in a school district with a 97% poverty rate like Washington Heights.
Politically, this opposition to creative expression is not hard to understand. Few if any noteworthy artists have been uncritical admirers of the status quo, and the ascendant right-wing philosophy views 'art' as pleasant, soothing sounds and images without meaning behind them. Anything, be it music, writing, theater, painting, sculpture, or dance which causes people to be upset with the current order of things is to be discouraged.
This phillistine mindset continues even after the kids are all grown up, and supposedly have more sophisticated tastes. The ugly little fact is that culture is not profitable. The public arts budget for the city of Berlin is greater than that for the entire U.S. Anyone in England can go and see the opera for ten pounds. The entire NEA is equivalent to one fighter jet.
This isn't simply a matter of pedants whining that no one appreciates Mozart anymore. There's a wealth of evidence suggesting that involvement with after-school programs, especially those of an artistic nature, can help enormously in achieving academic success and reduce rates of truancy, drug use, teen pregnancy, and most other ills that people pretend are new. But too many people had already given up on these children as soon as they were born, and the opportunity is usually not given.
Arts are the proverbial canary in the mineshaft. If they die, our society dies with them, and our consumerist culture has precious little to replace it with.
9 comments:
For the love of God, you sound like Adorno! If only you were writing in unintelligible German there’d be little way to tell the difference. You should just cheer up and admit that Capitalism has won. In a few hundred years, your beloved socialism will be as obscure and academic an artifact as Catharism or Lollardy. Give it up my friend, and take comfort in the security of our beautiful global capitalism. Sit back and relax. Our bureaucrats will keep your files in order, our cops will keep watching out for the "unsavory types," our proletarians will keep producing in respectful silence so that you may fully enjoy all that we have to offer. I have but one request: please, cut it out with whining about "poverty," "art," "achievement," "opportunity," "culture," etc. and go soberly about your daily work.
You make an interesting point. In a capitalistic society, profit is all that matters; it is the nature of the beast. Thus, of course art and music are the first to go.
I agree with you that art is important. I myself do not consider myself an "artsy" person, but art is certainly important in making individuals solid human beings. However, I think that your analysis may be a bit off.
I do not think that art should be subsidized--big surprise I know. Seems to me that art should be put to the market test. If people do not want it, that is their perogative. Keeping art cheap by subsidizing it might cause a few people to go to an inexpensive show, but appreciation for art comes from within and starts at an early age.
Which brings me to my second point. What is your opinion on school vouchers? Yes it would be lovely if we could all have perfect families with 2.5 kids in the suburbs, but that's not going to happen as you point out. Seems to me that vouchers are at least worth a try. Everything else is failing.
Jon, you come off so desperatley pessimistic here. Capitalism may have won--though I don't think it has--but art is not dead. The Reagan presidency spawned a solid decade of great punk rock. Now, I realize that may not be construed as art to you or Loyal--and again it may--but to me it's the best kind of art there is.
True art will find a way to beat the capitalist system, if it is, in fact a battle. In fact, don't times of crisis bring art? Happy people make lousy artists. Oppression from the man contributes to art better than any subsidy ever can.
Lastly, while conservatices might not appreciate art, liberals should do a better job of not pissing the conservatives off. I realize that "piss Christ" and others are valid artistic expressions, but when tax dollars go to fund it I, and other conservatives have to ask why.
Here's to subsidy free art.
I know little of Britan, so yes, I was referring to American conservatives, which means, for the most part Republicans. I assume that Loyal was speaking of this country's conservatives as well.
well, us Brits no A LOT about America!! ;-) ;-/
I think your claims that cheap art will have no effect is way off; the chief obstacle between most people and 'art' is not desire but cost. Certainly free offerings of Shakespeare and opera and usually packed. Besides, if people are unable to experience art, how are they supposed to appreciate it?
As for vouchers, I simply don't believe that they work. Most private schools are very unwilling to take on lower-income kids, voucher or no, and anyway isn't the whole program basically a form of affirmative action, except without accountability? School choice can have positive effects, but mostly if the choice is between scaled-down public schools, as has been demonstrated in Harlem and LA.
And, as I tried to make clear, everything is not failing. The improvement in these kids caused by a simple after-school dance program was obvious and impressive, despite the fact that many are poor and do not come from two-parent homes. Not everyone can get a voucher; these arts programs are for all.
Punk rock is art.
Happy people do make lousy artists, but so do the mindless. And that's the direction our corporate society is headed.
You didn't like 'Piss Christ'. I've never seen it, but let's just assume it really is offensive. Isn't there anything more objectionable the government is funding than that? I'd like to see some outrage over our bloated defense budget for once.
Musophrenia, I know british conservates like art. But American conservatives are not really conservatives at all.
Sorry to put words in your mouth. I was reffering more to Jon who sounded pessistic. As for the defense budget, yes it's bloated, but at least in theory, it benefits us all. The theory of conservatism is that you only fund something that is a public good. Clearly defense fits into this category, even if an aggresive war does not.
Art, too, is a public good. This doesn't mean we should subsidize it. Subsidies undermine true artistic expression. The last thing we need are artists in it soley for the money. MTV is full of similar "artists".
Wiser:
Its amazing how absolutely you misunderstand the situation. The idea of publicly funded art that it allows people who are not “in it soley (sic) for the money” to produce their art. You see, art produced in the private market place (like the “art” on MTV, for example) MUST make a profit, while art produced with public money does not have to make money (and almost always doesn’t.) What’s worse, art produced by the market must be expected to make money which is why your beloved market almost always produces art which is hackneyed, banal, and derivative. The argument that public funding somehow stifles the spirit of “true artistic expression” (if such a thing even exists) is absurd and without foundation; moreover, it’s hard to see how the market encourages this “true artistic expression” as your MTV example duly illustrates.
I think you are wrong to call me a pessimist. I’m not pessimistic at all; everyone gets the art he deserves and if art in America is more or less destroyed by corporate homogeny, I don’t see what objection I would raise to it. There will always be groups and movements that are able to escape the market for a brief moment and those who know where to look will find these artists. The difference is that in the future I believe that good art will be a mostly nostalgic experience. We’ll say, “oh remember when we could hear music like this almost everyday, those were good times,” instead of, “oh, this music is rather good.” In many ways this process has already begun. Despite all this, I am not pessimistic; like I said, I don’t see what objection I would raise to it.
I also think it’s a testament to the “death of art” that you, a capitalist and theist are into punk rock.
Jon,
I must be missing something. Those who are in art for the money via the market produce bad art, i.e., that which is on MTV. I'm with you there, for the most part. Some genuinely good art does trickle through--not on MTV--but for the most part, I'd say we're lacking in the high art department.
However, isn't a subsidy the same thing? I guess it would depend on the amount of subsidy, but theoretically, people could still make art at the hope of making money later via the exposure of this subsidy. I stretch I'll give you, but won't the artist produce good art regardless of the subsidy?
Another question of interest would be who defines good art? Most of us can recognize, I would hope, really great art in the Michaelangelo or Mozart vein, but in modern art the line becomes slippery.
"I also think it’s a testament to the “death of art” that you, a capitalist and theist are into punk rock."
Maybe it is. I'm again, not quite sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite for listening to anti-capitalistic atheistic rants, but if you know of any good libertarian music you let me know.
'Perhaps I'm a hypocrite for listening to anti-capitalistic atheistic rants...'
Really? I don't find anything hypocritical about that. Music, to me, is about the aesthetic appeal, not necessarily the content (though lyrics I agree with or find inspiring in a political vein have an added positive effect).
On my iTunes, I have five versions of the Internationale, two versions of 'Deutschland Uber Alles', and I occasionally listen to Shabaan Abdel Rahim's masterwork 'I Hate Israel'. At first, I listened to these pieces completely ironically...then they sort of grew on me. That doesn't make me a socialist, Nazi, or Israel-hater. Nor does it make me a hypocrite.
So, listen away to the atheistic, anti-capitalist punk rock (I'm only familiar with the Clash and the Sex Pistols in this category)...you'll be doing the libertarians no harm.
Post a Comment