Can't believe I missed it, but Don links us to a series of great conversations about art. The conversation centers around two questions:
1. Is art a necessity?
2. What role should government play in supporting the arts?
Let me briefly touch on governments role in the arts and then go to a larger point.
-------------------------------
In theory, I'm all for the government giving direct support to artists in the form of grants, low interest loans, etc.
But I think what we are forgetting is that if the amount of money the government gives to the arts grows, so will the number of organizations and artists who are competing for that money.
For every artist who is currently trying to make a career, there are probably 2 or 3 who would like to create a similar career if they say the opportunity to do so.
So if the government raises their amount of direct support to X, then I think you will see the number of arts organizations rise to 2X . . . which means that there will still be a fierce competition for resources.
And that competition will most likely be won by those organizations with the money, personnel and clout to win those fights, i.e. the big organizations, or established artists that didn't really need the cash in the first place.
If you want government intervention that will help the arts, do what you can to get a good health care bill passed. That will do a hell of a lot more then anything the NEA could pull off.
Now let's talk about this question of the arts and necessity.
---------------------------
Are the arts a necessary and vital component to a civilized society?
It's the sort of question we love to ponder in the arts because it allows us to view things at the 50,000 foot level. We can talk about "People" and "Society" without ever really defining those terms.
But here's the thing. Real change, real progress, happens at the one foot level.
It's not about convincing some vaguely defined group of "people" that art is necessary.
It's about convincing the 5,000 people that surround your dance studio or gallery that your art could be a vital part of their lives.
I'm shocked that in an increasingly fragmented and segmented world, we still think that their is some message we can hone in on that will convince large blocks of people that art is necessary.
We keep talking about a national effort to win hearts and minds, when really it's a local battle.
We talk about attracting huge numbers, when most of us don't even have a relationships with the people, businesses and politicans right around us.
It isn't about whether the Arts can convince "people" that art is a necessity.
It's about whether you can convince a small, defined number of people that YOUR art is a necessary part of their lives.
That's the battle you should fight.
That's the battle you can win.
Comments