Art and Public Funding

There is always an ongoing debate about public funding, as in tax money, being used to give grants to art projects through the national Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and other public mechanisms. I have had the same debate a number of times over the years and today I was reminded of it so I thought I would make an entry about this subject.

The first problem with the system is that art, by its very nature, is so subjective that the difficulties in determining which projects should be funded are problematic. It will always be left up to the interpretation of the leaders of the NEA what constitutes worthwhile projects. Inevitably, there will be public disagreement about whether a project is worthy. A large part of this is that the very people chosen to be a part of the NEA are not going to be in the mainstream of American education or values. Anyone who believes that a crucifix in a jar of urine is not offensive and is worthy of public funding is clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion. The art community will, of course, argue that the very nature of art is to be provocative. While that may be true, it in no way obligates the use of tax funding to subsidize the making of such projects.

My older brother, who is one of the smartest people I have ever known, once told me that a project like that was art because it “evoked an emotional response”. I argued in response to him that if someone was to make a bowel movement on the hood of my car, it would certainly evoke an emotional response in me and I wouldn’t consider it art. Additionally, what I would do to that person would certainly evoke an emotional response from him/her and that person, while traveling to the medical facility, would not consider my response performance art. It would, however, be nice if the police said no charges could be filed because I was just doing some “art”.

After the conversation with my brother, the analytical side of me reared its head and I decided I needed some objective criteria for what I considered art. So, here are a few that I came up with in a short time:

1) If I can do it, it isn’t good. I am absolutely terrible at painting anything other than a wall in a house. If art work consists of randomly throwing something at a canvas, scribbling nonsensical figures, pouring something to have it splatter, dropping something out of a flying plane, or especially, using bodily fluids, it sucks because I can do that. I am not sure who decided that three I-beams stacked up and painted orange is art but you see that same crappy thing in front of buildings everywhere. Once again, I can do it, so it sucks.

2) If you have to explain it to me, it isn’t good. Quality pieces of art have some intrinsic beauty or force that allows one to just know it has merit when seen. If I have to listen to some long-winded explanation about how it represents mans constant struggle to revive the extinct Dodo bird, the artist is not an artist, he is a bullshit artist. I can look at anything Rembrandt painted and just be awed by the lighting and mastery contained in the painting. Anyone can look at a Michelangelo statue and have no question of the mastery in his hands. I don’t need Rembrandt or Michelangelo to come back from the dead and explain it to me.

3) If you can’t sell it, art is your hobby, not your job. I play the guitar pretty well and sing while I am playing. That does not make me a professional musician. I do not expect the United States government to fund my upcoming CD costs. I don’t believe that Brad Paisley, Josh Groban, or the Rolling Stones expect funding for their recordings, either. If no one likes what you are producing enough to purchase it, you should at least consider the idea that your art work is not good. There are thousands of “actors” in Los Angeles who have never made dime from the entertainment industry. If you are making your living bussing tables, you are a potential actor but not a professional one. In fact, you are a bus boy. A struggling artist is a pseudonym for someone who can’t make a living from art. My previously mentioned brother is a very successful writer but he always had a job in addition to writing and didn’t expect taxpayers to subsidize his work.

4) Funding for art education is a legitimate use of tax dollars. The idea of having a broad educational experience for children in public schools, including art and music is a good thing. When you consider the current state of commercial television and the pop recording industry, it is clearly in the interest of all people in the country to have kids exposed to some quality. Classical music, jazz, poetry, classical literature, and art all deserve a place in education. I will also add that they should be in addition to, not in place of, reading, mathematics and science. I would much prefer kids to know the story behind the 1812 Overture than what “I’m gonna do with all the junk in my trunk”.

5) Good art and literature stays good. Charles Dickens books are still good all these years after he has departed. Leonardo DaVinci's works still inspire awe despite the hundreds of years since he produced them. He is another one who doesn't have to come back and explain them. Anything that is trendy and doesn't stand the test of time exposes itself for what is is... bad.

When the outlay of public funds for art projects is left in the hands of a small group of people chosen because of their out of the mainstream radical views, it is inevitable that curious and outrageous decisions will be the result. Their response is the typical left response of “You just don’t get it” because anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid. Recognizing trash when you see it is not one of the prerequisites for stupidity, however, not recognizing it certainly is.