There has been a real big push in the last month or so between articles and email exhortations to have President Elect Obama appoint a cabinet level secretary of culture. As I read these things it really appears that no one has really stopped to consider what the implications of such a position might entail. There was an article that appeared right after the idea came up at the National Performing Arts Convention (NPAC) this summer. I have spent about 8 hours over the last three days, alas to no avail, trying to find it because it made a convincing case for being wary about instituting such a position. It might be that I am misremembering when it appeared and that is preventing me from finding it.
From what I do recall of the article, one of the points it made was that the effort would cost the President a huge amount of political capital because there is no national popular support of the arts. Education, Health, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, etc can all have cases made for their importance and people will go along. Government support for the arts has often been a contentious issue disproportionate to the actual funding it receives. It certainly isn’t a reliable survey method, but when you read comments on the articles about a cabinet level culture position, those against pretty much unanimously mention not wanting their tax dollars to go to the arts. If the Obama administration pushes for the creation of this position, there is going to be a great deal of public debate on the topic.
Now I will be the first to admit that short of some transformative incident, national support and appreciation for the arts will likely never emerge on its own. I don’t anticipate there will ever be a good time to institute this position so there may be no point in waiting. If the next phase of the economy is going to be creative, then we certainly want strong leadership in that direction. Arts and Culture could absolutely benefit from stronger central leadership and advocacy. I would welcome a scenario where everyone working in an cultural organization was better educated and equipped, working collaboratively with other entities and enjoyed the confidence of having support on the national level.
A Secretary of Culture would also benefit the country internationally since we don’t have a central person with whom foreign officials of similar portfolios can meet. There would be much rejoicing if Visa processes for artists were facilitated and that pernicious 30% tax on foreign performer income was adjusted.
The thing to remember is that the agendas of the government, no matter how sympathetic an administration might be to one’s cause, is unlikely to be synchronized with the agendas of the arts and culture organizations of the country. It is one thing to disagree with the initiatives of the National Endowment for the Arts because the worst impact they can have on you is to decide not to fund you. When you have a person making cultural policy decisions for the entire country, that is a different matter. And if you stepped up to call for this cabinet level position, your cooperation will certainly be expected.
There is the question of whose interests will this person predominantly represent. Both Hollywood and folk artists are home grown and national treasures, but money buys access and influence. Will the Secretary of Culture press for greater freedoms of artistic expression or fight to preserve and extend copyright and intellectual property protections at the behest of large corporations? Will live experiences and interactions with art be valued or more virtual experiences like television, film, internet and video games?
If one thing is supported, other areas end up lacking by simple default. What happens though if an administration decides something should be actively censored or undermined? Things can be declared as unrepresentative of the culture of the United States or simply un-American and we will have asked that someone be placed in the position of doing so.
Don’t think it will happen? Last year British Culture Minister, Marge Hodge, criticized The Proms of…well actually being too British and not inclusive enough of the multi-ethnic backgrounds of the country. Yes, multi-cultural focus is to be desired, but it could have easily gone the other way and people were still miffed at her comment. In 2002 another British culture minister, Kim Howells, stated the contenders for the visual arts Turner Prize had produced “conceptual bullshit.”
It is one thing if a senator stands up and criticizes a work of art but quite another when someone whose job it is to eat, drink and sleep arts and culture and theoretically knows what they are talking about makes damning statements.
Finally, don’t forget, there is no guarantee arts and cultural institutions will get any additional money. The budget can be cut regardless of the title the nation’s top arts official holds. In fact, for a number of years Congress will be able to claim they quintupled the arts budget without grant awards increasing a penny because all the money will be directed to the bureaucracy of this new Department of Culture.
So the question is, are you willing to accept the possibility of all this? As cynical as I may sound here, honestly as soon as I read about the NPAC proposal to have a cabinet level position, my first thought was of Gilberto Gil. In my mind, he is the Culture Minister to emulate in terms of striking a balance between the interests of the creators and consumers and promoting creative expression.
But I am also cautious. Given how we have discovered that the Justice Department and Inspectors General of many government offices have been subverted and suborned in recent years, there are no assurances anyone can offer me that my gravest concerns can be warded against.
I guess for me, it comes back around to where I started this post. If there is enough political will to make the position effective and credible to accomplish all the positive things we hope for, then I am generally willing to accept the potential for the negatives.