A bad thing, but only in part
Has Buffy Wicks sent them happily on their mission to produce Obama art?(Photo: flickr.com)
Let’s begin here: A nation’s culture is highly dependent upon a free and thriving arts community. We must assume this to be an immutable fact.
Now let’s tune out Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for a moment. They make some valid points about how some of what the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and Buffy Wicks’ White House Office of Public Engagement is doing veers into paying for artistic propaganda when they should be encouraging artists to follow their particular visions. That’s great, but rather than contributing more to right-wing Obama venom simply for the sake of doing so, let’s look at it from a more sober angle. Yes, some artists appear en route to being given what amounts to a payday loan for their services to the government. But let’s see the good in this rather than focusing on the Obama hate.
Artists create things that reflect their world
Such sharing is integral to the human experience. American Art critic Suzi Gablik has rightly theorized that “For art to be relevant, artists must address the social and spiritual issues of our time.” So what is the problem with artists creating works that study the problems of the day: health care, energy, the environment, etc? Nothing in itself. An artist in a free society has a right to take a stand for what they believe in. Spectators have the right to agree, disagree or be indifferent (although too much indifference will lend itself to extinction). People must care about things.
The problem comes when those who favor government are given preferential treatment
According to their Web site, the National Endowment for the Arts is “a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.” All artists should theoretically have equal opportunity to access the finite funds made available to such organizations. However, as the Boston Globe reports, a recent conference call that involved Buffy Wicks of the White House Office of Public Engagement and Yosi Sargent of the NEA may have crossed the line into commissioning propaganda with public funds.
Focusing on the Obama administration’s recovery efforts
The question of impartiality must be raised here. While recovering America’s economy, finding alternative green energy sources and saving the environment are all worthwhile (and necessary) goals, government arts organizations paying for play while neglecting artists who can pursue their own visions raises more than just a few eyebrows.
Artists used as tools of the state
Sounds like something straight out of Stalin or Hitler, doesn’t it? That’s what the tired, run-of-the-mill FOX News types will drone on about for days on end. Spittle and arched brows will fill your television screens, so be sure to wipe. Let’s can that rhetoric here. While President Obama certainly doesn’t resemble either of those former tyrants, making artists tools of the state with public funds is not something you should see in a free society. If the government encourages artists to tackle the issues, that’s one thing. But as Buffy Wicks put it in the 75-member conference call, the White House Office of Public Engagement had “specific asks” (requests, it seems) for the artists. They wanted artists to provide the Obama administration with the necessary propaganda.
What’s this about Buffy Wicks?
In March 2008, Buffy Wicks was the deputy field director for the Obama campaign in Texas. Apparently, she worked for Obama in other states as well. Controversy arises when some publications like the Galveston Daily News attempt to link her to (alleged) ACORN-like tactics of shady voter registration tactics. And the fact that she is urging artists up for federal funds to work in the best interests of the current administration has done nothing to ease the tension.
The Boston Globe quotes Los Angeles-based arts consultant Patrick Courrielche, who takes a clear-headed approach to this entire situation: “The NEA was not created to encourage artists to address issues.” That’s the artist’s prerogative. The NEA gets $150 million each year from Congress to support “excellence in the arts.”
We must continue to question those in power
It is the only way to maintain an appropriate balance between the public welfare and the concerns of our leaders. Unfortunately, those two spheres are not always synonymous. Courrielche suggests that “It’s time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it.”
Apply Now!
But those involved in the conference call suggest that Courrielche and others have taken their requests out of context. A spokeswoman for the White House claim the call had to do with public service performed through United We Serve. Supposedly, all they were doing was informing arts organizations like the NEA about public service initiatives President Obama supports. However, can’t they see that a line is being crossed? Buffy Wicks isn’t being subtle about it. There should be no indication that those who serve the government would receive preferential treatment. Lots of money in NEA grants, in other words. No, if an artist needs quick cash, they should consider a payday loan first. At least that doesn’t create a political quagmire.
Related Video:
