Is art necessary, and at what cost?
February 13, 2009 - 12:07pm
Connecticut Opera closes down, citing bad economy
Orchestras, ballets and opera companies across the country are facing huge deficits. The Los Angeles Opera is laying off 17 people, cutting salaries and will stage fewer performances this year. The Miami City Ballet is cutting eight dancers. The Baltimore Opera has declared bankruptcy.
The nation's premier opera company, the Metropolitan Opera, this week dropped four productions from the 2009-10 season and slashed salaries because of the economy. The Opera Orchestra of New York also canceled its two remaining performances this season because of the recession.
The nonprofit group Americans for the Arts estimates 10,000 arts organizations could disappear in 2009.
I'm not a big fan of opera, but it brings up some interesting questions: does art play a necessary role in society, and if so, to what extent should government take measures to preserve art in an economic crisis?
During the Great Depression Roosevelt's New Deal produced the WPA, which was famous for becoming the "employer of last resort," putting millions men and women to work on all kinds of infrastructure-related projects from roads, to bridges, to National Parks. But a less-known brach of WPA actually funded writers, theater productions, music productions, and visual arts.
These projects were collectively the predecessor of the National Endowment for the Arts. Established in 1965, the NEA's mission is, "to enrich our Nation and its diverse cultural heritage by supporting works of artistic excellence, advancing learning in the arts, and strengthening the arts in communities throughout the country." Its slogan is "A great country deserves great art." The current NEA budget is a little over $140 million.
Many will argue that during economic crises like the Great Depression and the Great Recession (that's us) one of the hardest hit elements of culture is art - and since art is a necessity for any culture it needs to be publicly funded.
Others will insist that art must compete in the marketplace on it's own merits. After all, if nobody is willing to pay for a ticket to see an opera or an avant-garde art showing, then how necessary can it be? These folks might point out that other forms of art, like popular film, thrive during difficult economic times and that these forms are truly relevant and necessary and, therefore, doesn't need public funding.
I realize this raises dangerously broad questions, like "What is art?" and "What is its function in society?" and "What's the difference between high art and pop art?" but I'm willing to take the risk. ; )
Bonus Question: Can you name the painting depicted in this post? The first person to correctly identify the title and the artist will receive a FREE Twoshirts.org t-shirt (definitely not a work of art, unfortunately)! Click here for a larger image.
- Jason Coker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Blog Categories
- Articles (76)
- From the Mailbag (1)
- News (75)
- Non-Profit Spotlight (5)
- Polls & Surveys (3)
- Videos (5)
- Weekly Tips (9)
- Weekly Wrap Up (8)
Online Now
There are currently 0 users and 25 guests online.
Support Twoshirts
Give today to help us keep Twoshirts running!
Good thoughts. As a
Good thoughts. As a self-identified artist and musician I am biased, but I think art is a necessary component of culture. It gives us hope and imagination when times are rough. But I also think that times like this bring the best out of creators. Ingenuity and creativity, forced to work with materials or in situations that are not prime often bring out the best art. So, I happen to think that this era will bring about some wonderful art.
ARTWORK?
I would have to say it was done in the Depression Era, maybe a New Art Deal ? But not sure who did it or name.
You're on track
You're on track Teresa, but you'll have to be specific. If you figure it out let me know!
I agree, but doesn't that require suffering?
I agree, but doesn't that require suffering? And aren't public funding initiatives, in essence, meant to mitigate the economic suffering of artists who might not otherwise practice their craft due to such pressure?
So, does public funding destroy good art?
NO
public funding does not destroy good art. It does mean that more bad art will be produced. I have known a lot of very good artists (especially while in an art program in college) and many of them were only released in terms of time and resources through public funding. Really good artists have likely already suffered enough and the kind of public funding that is out there does not mean they are suddenly living extravagent, satiated lifestyles, typically all of the money goes back into the art, at least with the good artists.
sorry, this will be long
These really are some big questions...but really good ones -
My immediate reaction is to agree that art is a necessary part of culture, and to be disgusted and ashamed that we would allow quality art like opera or symphonies or galleries to shut down, even during the hardest of economic times. But art is also one of these tricky cyclical entities - it is created by the culture, then maintained, then critiqued, challenged, broken apart and re-created, and the cycle begins again.
I think Jason Evans is right that tough times bring about great art. Although I'm not personally a fan, I would say Springsteen does a great job with that musically. I think some of the art that is political, coming out of the civil and gay rights movements is especially moving. The same would go for war photography and anti-war music. IMO, a definition of art is that it is a "sensory outlet and response of an emotional and/or spiritual experience or reality."
So, I agree with J. Coker too, that if art is simply commissioned by the government, it loses it's soul (I'm thinking of Cornell West right now in Call+Response, which if you haven't seen is a GREAT example of awesome art during hard times) - so while I love to see the government trying to support, sustain and encourage the arts, in some ways I don't think this is the real core of art culture. That's why (again IMO), the opera performances are largely empty, but the rock concerts sell out in just hours. Which one is a more true reflection and output of the emotional/spiritual experience of the culture?
However, the role of organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts I think could be akin to that of "ivory tower" professors - people will always be reading books, writing and creating and discussing - but the professionals remind us of our roots, of the history, of the real meaning and background to the art we are consuming and creating. So there is definitely a place for that too.
Conclusion? I guess I'll say that if federal support for the arts has to go in order to preserve jobs and the overall economy, so be it - because art will always live, die and be reborn in the souls of the people that create and participate in it. (also, according to Ellis Jacob in the link provided, it doesn't seem like people have too much trouble dropping $10 on a second-rate movie, even when they are foreclosing on their house....I've heard similar statistics about sports extravaganzas - season tickets are still being sold, baseball players are still signing multi-million dollar contracts. So like Ellis Jacob says, "it's a form of escapism" - but that's a whole other issue)
Sorry for the long post! Great topic!
1st off - bonus question:
1st off - bonus question: I've never in my life have seen that painting before but I will say that the "wings" on the guy in "center stage" looks like airplane propellers(sp). Hey, that's the best I have.:-)
2nd: "does art play a necessary role in society"
IMO (and as one who loves and has participated in the arts) Yes and no. It's necessary for people to express themselves. Whatever form that expression takes is up to the one(s) involved. Also, because a message is always at the center of any and every art form, the art (in whatever form) can then very well become necessary. So perhaps the answer is more "yes" than "no". (not to mention, it would depend on what one considers "art")
"and if so, to what extent should government take measures to preserve art in an economic crisis?"
NONE! As far as I can see. Local government *maybe* - and THAT'S pushing it. At the federal level? Never! Too many strings attached and more importantly, I don't see where that would be in their job description (then again, goverment does MANY things that they're not suppossed to be doing....but I digress....)
3rd: "What is art?"
Well, isn't THAT the 60 million dollar question!:-) Personally, I don't know if that can be definitively answered. IMO, the definition of art (or "art" in some cases) is so abstract - pardon the pun - that the question can't be answered. It's just like that old saying, "One man's trash is another man's treasure/art." and visa versa.
The other parts, I don't have time to answer right now.:-)
Julie
Nice thoughts Jesse!
Excellent thoughts Jesse! I appreciate that you've tried to represent the complexity of the issue, and I really appreciate that your conclusion is both pragmatic and reflects a high view of art at the same time!
At the risk of opening up an even more convoluted discussion, I'd like to suggest that this tension only really exists because the modern concept of "Art" has divorced it from being useful, and that wherever art remains workable and useful in everyday life it is never in danger of losing its funding. Sadly, those products tend to be relegated to the category of "crafts." Architecture remains the lone realm of high art that can serve a pragmatic purpose ad yet remain "Art."
Hombre en una Encrucijada
Bonus question: "Hombre en una Encrucijada" by Diego Rivera. The only reason I know that is because it is prominently featured in the film Frida which details Frida's relationship with Diego and the socio-political implications of that mural which was supposed to be put up in the Rockefeller however Lenin's face was too socialist for the capitalists so it was destroyed. The picture above is taken from a small recreation of the mural in Mexico.
I should have known
I should have known you would know the answer to the bonus question Chris. Good job! Free shirt for you.
Wow Chris
Wow Chris, Arent you the lucky one, You join and 1 hour later you solve the bonus question. Welcome to twoshirts!
Art is part of our culture
Art is part of our culture and we should not allow it to be set aside. The nature of art has been described by Richard Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture". It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation. Maybe some of you are saying that during these tough economic times, we should take the risk of losing one part of our culture and that is art, but we should not allow it. There are still other ways on how to survive to the recession without sacrificing something. This recession is awful, but a disaster is worse. Disaster, be it natural or manmade, is a fascinating topic. Many out there are devotees to one specific disaster, and all associated memorabilia, the Titanic. The RMS Titanic is among the worst of maritime disasters. Lousy materials and construction paired with a flawed design made for a very bad disaster. [edited by admin]
[EDITORS NOTE TO THE AUTHOR: These are interesting thoughts Jalyn, but you can't use the blog to advertise for payday loans, so I have deleted your link. Please understand that I have a personal bias against that industry, and since it's my website, I get to decide the content. You're welcome to join and participate in the community, but please don't use this site as a platform to advertise your services.]