a poor player

I have been reading the simmering discussions on the question of arts funding at Superfluities and Theatre Notes. The question is rife with political thorns and quagmires, and is one which brings out considerable passion in people. For what it’s worth, this is my thinking on the issue.

Since the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts during the Kennedy Administration, artists by and large have steadily drifted to the political left. Today, the situation is such that art itself has been inextricably linked with the political ideology of the left; art is a “blue state activity,” if you will. The result of this trend is that in the US, there is virtually no significant right-wing artistic expression to speak of. As a result, the funding of the arts in this country is consistently viewed by the right wing, not as “funding for the arts” in any absolute sense, but funding for the political left to express their political views through the use of art. Those who attack the arts generally hold conservative viewpoints, and their criticism is usually based, not on the issue of whether or not arts funding in and of itself is good or bad, but in the view that the artwork itself is being used to promote a political agenda and to denegrate their particular conservative beliefs.

We see the same style of argument when we turn the situation around and look into the area where conservatives express their politics and values best: in their churches. Many liberals would like to remove the tax-exempt status of certain religious denominations and of the “super-churches” which have congregations of 15,000 or more and help to support financially many right-wing causes and organizations. They see the so-called “Christian conservative” movement, not as a religious phenomenon, but as a political phenomenon, and thus do not want them to receive a tax subsidy.

Why the right wing does not create art is a question which bears some scrutiny and conversation, because I can’t find any theoretical justification as to why conservative-minded people should not be creating art. If they were creating art, and if they were receiving arts funding to the same degree as left-wing artists do so today, then perhaps there would be no outcry. The playing field would be viewed as level. Someone’s right-wing play promoting the sanctity of human life and family values would receive equal funding and opportunity to be produced as someone else’s left-wing play promoting freedom of choice.

It would be disingenuous not to admit that the history of theatre in this country (and I suspect most western countries) has been dominated by the political left, especially since the Roosevelt Administration and such institutions as the Federal Theatre Project and the NEA. Conservatives know this instinctively, and thus attack federally-funded art, not from an argument framed in artistic terms, but primarily political terms (hence their success in generally neutering the NEA). The response they get from artists, however, is invariably framed primarily in artistic and economic terms, with the politics of free speech/expression thrown in for good measure. It’s really a case of two sides who have completely different assumptions about the nature of the argument.

It is time for artists to admit openly that most artwork has a strong left-wing bias (but not to apologize for that), and begin to re-frame the argument by opening our theatres, studios and workshops up to art – any art – created from the right wing; and further, to actively encourage it. I feel, as an artist/educator, that if there is no art coming from a right-wing perspective, I should be going out there and teaching conservatives how to create art. My generic response to any comments which attack art funding is similar: go out and create your own art which is worthy of funding, and seek the funds yourself. They are out there for your use as well as mine. If you don’t know how to create art, then I am willing to teach you how. Let me teach you how to play the oboe/act/dance/paint/sculpt/photograph. Then you, too, can go out and create art which expresses your beliefs and views. And if you want to discuss the merits of art funding, then let’s discuss it on the same terms and with the same question – do the arts serve a public good in society as a whole? If you create art for your community, is that not a public good, and is that not worthy of funding? That should be how the question is framed and debated, in my opinion.

Funding for the arts is indeed a no-brainer, but it’s a no-brainer if and only if the culture as a whole is educated in and values the arts regardless of political ideology. Alison notes in her discussions that the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu says to “embrace your enemy,” and I agree with that sentiment. Let’s embrace those who attack the arts and inform them that we welcome them to create art. Not only that, we’re willing to help them learn how to create art, and how to apply for arts funding. If we, as artists, continue to allow our work to be viewed by the larger culture as left-wing political propoganda, then we are doing ourselves a disservice and shooting ourselves in the foot. Those of us who practice the arts actively understand and cherish the beauty and potential for human expression that the arts offers. It will take a grass-roots effort to begin to convince our opponents that they, too, can create beauty (and politics, if they so choose) through art. Alison writes these gorgeous words in her blog:

Anyone who has ever loved another human being, who has had a child, who has felt – by looking at a painting, or listening to music, or by walking through a virgin forest or a humble laneway transfigured by moonlight or, like Wordsworth, by standing on a city bridge – in fact, anyone who has been touched by beauty in one of its myriad manifestations – knows that there are many things in life that are too complex and too profound to be valued simply in terms of money. Art is one of those things.

I cannot believe that those who attack arts funding do not feel these things as well, and I refuse to de-humanize them to that point. Perhaps it’s our responsibility to our culture and to ourselves as artists to make clear that art is for anyone of any political stripe who feels these experiences.

It is when all of us, as a society, see ourselves reflected in the mirror that is art, that our society benefits from art as a whole. To make the whole greater than the sum of its parts, we would do well not to exclude any of those parts. The continued exclusion of right-wing views and expression in the arts, whether intended, accidental or unintentional, threatens all art. We would do well, I believe, to actively encourage and promote the growth of “red-state” art.

Please remember to vote! -twl