It’s An Attack
Dunkirk NY – Having no interest in who wins the Oscars tonight, I spent the time deciding to become more depressed than I already am this time of year by cruising the internet to see what was trending on the arts blogs. The biggest trend I picked up this evening was the relatively recent news that many states are ending funding for the arts in their most recent budget proposals. Sam Brownback of Kansas did it by executive order, a process that makes it unlikely that it will be overturned by the legislature.
Leonard Jacobs of Clyde Fitch fame rightfully gives himself credit for having seen this coming, and he has also been vocal lately about the stupidity ineffectiveness of email campaigns. I really have no quarrel with him on these issues; indeed, I also find that I am in fundamental agreement with him that the arts should become more entrepreneurial and less dependent (and preferably completely independent) of government funding. But in this particular post (which actually has a far larger scope of purpose than the small segment I have picked out), he claims that the current reduction of state funding for the arts is not an attack on the arts and artists, but rather the implementation of an ideology. In his words:
What place, if any, does government have in funding the arts? If you believe there is a place for government in funding the arts, that leads to a certain set of actions, principles and protocols. If you believe there is no place for government in funding the arts, that leads to a different set of actions, principles and protocols. I do not believe that the latter philosophy constitutes an attack. And I think that if the field doesn’t know the difference, we need to read a little history, post-haste, or we’re condemned to repeat it.
In the best of all possible worlds, Leonard is philosophically and rhetorically correct. If this country as a culture and society truly believed that the arts themselves must survive as a fundamental principle, then you might be able to make the case that how they should be funded is a matter of ideology. But I have not heard one single conservative politician who wants to “zero out” government funding for the arts state that the arts should survive, that they serve society well, and we should encourage ways to help them survive – just without our funding. In this world of power games, deceit, and hidden agendas, I am afraid Leonard may have forgotten to account for the sheer duplicity of politicians and right-wing power brokers bent on crushing at every turn the ability of people to think for themselves, and using every tactic at their disposal to do so. Make no mistake; this is an attack on the arts and artists, and if it bears the disguise of an “ideology” so as to convince some people that it’s not an attack, so much the better.
It’s an attack because the last thing that Capitalist America wants in the current cultural climate is independent thinking. Artists have the power (when they exercise it well) to shape thought, and history seems to indicate that artists tend to be anti-establishment; they question authority and conventional wisdom. When you choose to cut off their funding, you reduce their power to do so by making it economically harder to produce such work and garner an audience. The strategic bet on the part of the right wing is that artists cannot financially survive independently in the economy as it is now constituted, no matter how entrepreneurial they are. By cutting off government funding, their voice will be severely weakened and shut off via economic starvation. That strategy constitutes an attack.
I realize lately that I sound like a conspiracy nut, but I can’t help noticing that there is an alarming amount of coordination in all these attempts to cut off funding from artists and attack unions lately. Jon Stewart has proven time and again by the way he edits his videos during some of his segments that “talking points” get distributed and mouthed almost word-for-word by every conservative spokesman over and over again. It’s not that much of a stretch to assume there is a “playbook” out there detailing what budget items need to be attacked. The arts have been on the hit list since 1990, and there is no reason now to believe that this current attack is anything but that.
Throughout history ideology has been a convenient front for hidden agendas. In the name of an ideology called “manifest destiny” we effectively wiped out an entire race of people on this continent. Clearly, there are people now in government who have no use for the arts whatsoever, find them useless, and in fact dangerous, and under the guise of ideology would just as soon wipe them off the face of the nation. Just as people who believed in manifest destiny had no use for the red man, people who believe that government should not fund the arts have no use for the arts. If we fail to see this clearly, then that is why we will continue to run useless “send 50,000 email” campaigns. -twl
It’s An Attack
Dunkirk NY – Having no interest in who wins the Oscars tonight, I spent the time deciding to become more depressed than I already am this time of year by cruising the internet to see what was trending on the arts blogs. The biggest trend I picked up this evening was the relatively recent news that many states are ending funding for the arts in their most recent budget proposals. Sam Brownback of Kansas did it by executive order, a process that makes it unlikely that it will be overturned by the legislature.
Leonard Jacobs of Clyde Fitch fame rightfully gives himself credit for having seen this coming, and he has also been vocal lately about the stupidity ineffectiveness of email campaigns. I really have no quarrel with him on these issues; indeed, I also find that I am in fundamental agreement with him that the arts should become more entrepreneurial and less dependent (and preferably completely independent) of government funding. But in this particular post (which actually has a far larger scope of purpose than the small segment I have picked out), he claims that the current reduction of state funding for the arts is not an attack on the arts and artists, but rather the implementation of an ideology. In his words:
What place, if any, does government have in funding the arts? If you believe there is a place for government in funding the arts, that leads to a certain set of actions, principles and protocols. If you believe there is no place for government in funding the arts, that leads to a different set of actions, principles and protocols. I do not believe that the latter philosophy constitutes an attack. And I think that if the field doesn’t know the difference, we need to read a little history, post-haste, or we’re condemned to repeat it.
In the best of all possible worlds, Leonard is philosophically and rhetorically correct. If this country as a culture and society truly believed that the arts themselves must survive as a fundamental principle, then you might be able to make the case that how they should be funded is a matter of ideology. But I have not heard one single conservative politician who wants to “zero out” government funding for the arts state that the arts should survive, that they serve society well, and we should encourage ways to help them survive – just without our funding. In this world of power games, deceit, and hidden agendas, I am afraid Leonard may have forgotten to account for the sheer duplicity of politicians and right-wing power brokers bent on crushing at every turn the ability of people to think for themselves, and using every tactic at their disposal to do so. Make no mistake; this is an attack on the arts and artists, and if it bears the disguise of an “ideology” so as to convince some people that it’s not an attack, so much the better.
It’s an attack because the last thing that Capitalist America wants in the current cultural climate is independent thinking. Artists have the power (when they exercise it well) to shape thought, and history seems to indicate that artists tend to be anti-establishment; they question authority and conventional wisdom. When you choose to cut off their funding, you reduce their power to do so by making it economically harder to produce such work and garner an audience. The strategic bet on the part of the right wing is that artists cannot financially survive independently in the economy as it is now constituted, no matter how entrepreneurial they are. By cutting off government funding, their voice will be severely weakened and shut off via economic starvation. That strategy constitutes an attack.
I realize lately that I sound like a conspiracy nut, but I can’t help noticing that there is an alarming amount of coordination in all these attempts to cut off funding from artists and attack unions lately. Jon Stewart has proven time and again by the way he edits his videos during some of his segments that “talking points” get distributed and mouthed almost word-for-word by every conservative spokesman over and over again. It’s not that much of a stretch to assume there is a “playbook” out there detailing what budget items need to be attacked. The arts have been on the hit list since 1990, and there is no reason now to believe that this current attack is anything but that.
Throughout history ideology has been a convenient front for hidden agendas. In the name of an ideology called “manifest destiny” we effectively wiped out an entire race of people on this continent. Clearly, there are people now in government who have no use for the arts whatsoever, find them useless, and in fact dangerous, and under the guise of ideology would just as soon wipe them off the face of the nation. Just as people who believed in manifest destiny had no use for the red man, people who believe that government should not fund the arts have no use for the arts. If we fail to see this clearly, then that is why we will continue to run useless “send 50,000 email” campaigns. -twl
