In the comments to my recent post on Gov. Mike Huckabee, Fractured Atlas Executive Director, Adam Huttler, pointed out that some groups like the NRA supported candidates on the single issue of gun ownership. Acknowledging that it was damned effective, albeit narrow minded, he asked,
Imagine a candidate who will quadruple public funding for the arts and ensure that every arts organization in the country never has to beg for its budget again. Now imagine that he’s also pro-life, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and anti-gay. Can you imagine anyone from our community supporting him?
The first, admittedly crass, thought that came to mind was that it would be akin to supporting a head of state because of an anti-communist stance despite his record of rapacious greed, corruption and human rights atrocities.
The musing that followed were, by their very nature more considered responses to the question. Still the basic idea that any cause is not well served by supporting someone who embraces ideals that are repugnant to their core beliefs remained.
That said, while I think many in the arts hold strong opinions about right to choose, gun control and the death penalty, I don’t think they are defining characteristics of the arts community. If a politician stepped forward who was going fund the hell out of the arts, infuse the educational process with it and espoused pro-life, pro-gun, pro-death penalty sentiments but held favorable views on other important issues like the environment and social services, maybe the arts community would be advised to grin and bear it.
The anti-gay issue though does impact the core identity of the arts. Depending on how restrictive the views a candidate held were, the mass support of such a person could be disastrous for the arts. In my own organization alone which is pretty small, we would probably lose about 15-20 people upon whose goodwill and assistance we regularly depend.
That is just the people who are homosexuals. The amount of support we would lose from their sympathetic friends and family of any sexual inclination should we support a candidate espousing restrictive policies would be immeasurable. Presenting shows that have traditionally raised a furor in communities like Angels in America or Oh! Calcutta! wouldn’t lead to the ruin of my theatre as fast as if groups like Americans for the Arts, Actor’s Equity and DanceUSA, among others, banded together to urge the support of someone who reproached the gay community.
Using the NRA as an example of what the arts should do is not quite valid. For one thing, the NRA doesn’t typically ask for funding. In fact, they often encourage the government not to spend tax dollars on programs that might impact their members like information tracking. Politicians are happy to support people who give them a lot of money and don’t ask for any to be spent in return.
I do think Huttler’s comparison is apt in one respect, expression of passion. I don’t think that arts people are active enough in advocating for funding and assume others will do it in their place.
But even more importantly, arts people don’t talk about their passion publicly the way members of the NRA do. You walk into store to get coffee, sit in a diner, go to a wedding or graduation and you might hear someone talking about how the government is infringing on the right to bear arms. A tension might infuse the atmosphere and a debate might erupt, but everyone standing around is already familiar with the views of the NRA even if they aren’t members of the organization because the conversation is public and widespread.
Can the same be said of the NEA? How many people outside of the arts world know Dana Gioia is the chairman? Actually, how many audience members and gallery/museum attendees who nominally support the arts know who Dana Gioia is? People may not know Wayne LaPierre is the current CEO of the NRA and that John C. Sigler is the president, but can probably identify Charlton Heston as a primary spokesperson, if not past president.
While the argument for arts funding doesn’t have a basis as a constitutional right, the opportunities for spreading a positive narrative are expansive. It can be as simple as talking about the joys of teaching kids to fire pottery while waiting in line at Starbucks.
Better still is taking advantage of opportunities to have other people talk about how great the arts are. While sitting at a table at a wedding reception, ask where people are from and then about the arts life in that city. With any luck, you can ask leading questions to get them to talk about how much they have enjoyed different experiences and they will leave the wedding with a warm fuzzy feeling about the arts.
If you aren’t so lucky, the conversation might be why they don’t like to attend. Leading the conversation in a positive direction might take more skill and humility. If one were a visual artist and people were dead set against that discipline because they didn’t understand modern art, ignoring the urge to lecture about Jackson Pollack to pursue a path of less resistance in a stated interest in music or powerful acting to nudge them toward trying a pops concert or play might be tough.
Engaging in informal public conversations about the arts can help the arts person cultivate the ability to speak persuasively among people who have a low level of comfort with the arts and discover what their barriers to participation might be.
The general public becomes more familiar and hopefully more positively inclined toward the arts as their understanding expands and the general subject enters their subconscious via background conversations.
The more I read and write on this topic, the more convinced I am that funding for the arts isn’t going to be achieved by mobilizing the base in times of crisis or even during legislative cycles but rather by taking a long view and making the arts part of the daily interactions. In order to convince people that arts are central to their lives, they must experience the arts centrally in their lives and not as an alternative to the mainstream practiced by perceived fringe groups.
