Farewell Mapplethorpe, Hello Shakespeare (Roger Kimball on NEA, the W. way)

National Review Online ^ | January 29, 2004 | Roger Kimball

[NietzschesJoker]

I see merit in both of your statements, and I'm afraid that my answer will not assuage either of you. The arts - those that are truly arts - have academic/spiritual merit far beyond that of NASCAR or wrasslin'. They deserve to be supported in the same way, but to a lesser extent, that education deserves support - it will improve those whom patronize it.

Of course, what you take from a Monet or a body slam isn't quantifiable, so I have nothing to persuade you with. The merit lies in the effect.

I'm a good FReeper (so don't hurt me!), and I think you are right in that this will neither swing libs nor make the base any happier.

Can I leave you with a quote from Heidegger? "Art is the most genuine and profound will to semblance; namely, to the scintillation of what tranfigures in which supreme lawfulness of Dasein becomes visible." That is honestly the best argument I can make.

Have a good day - I gotta get back to work, making money from the arts!

[NietzschesJoker]

And for the arts! D'oh!

[cyncooper]

Under normal circumstances, the White House announcement that the president was seeking a big budget increase for the National Endowment for the Arts might have been grounds for dismay. Pronounce the acronym "NEA," and most people think Robert Mapplethorpe, photographs of crucifixes floating in urine, and performance artists prancing about naked, smeared with chocolate, and skirling about the evils of patriarchy.

Thanks, but no thanks.

But things have changed, and changed for the better at the NEA.

PING

[George W. Bush]

Can I leave you with a quote from Heidegger? "Art is the most genuine and profound will to semblance; namely, to the scintillation of what tranfigures in which supreme lawfulness of Dasein becomes visible." That is honestly the best argument I can make.

And I will spend some time later today, practicing on my Yamaha U3 (which I worked hard to buy on a modest income) so I could practice Chopin's etudes and nocturnes with some mechanical and tonal accuracy.

The difference is that I don't think I'm entitled to having taxpayers buy it for me. Or pay me to play it. If I am interested in outdated musical forms (from a commercial standpoint), that is my own problem and not the taxpayers'.

I just wanted you to understand that I do hold the arts in some regard and avoid all sporting events but I do not favor government subsidy of entertainment.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Don't see anything in the Constitution about promoting the Arts or subsidizing artistes

I don't either. I am fascinated by the topic of how federal expenditures are justified constitutionally. Article 1 Section 8 is my friend. Perhaps we are dealing with a penumbra situation here. As Walter Williams would say, "Let's look at it."

The Congress shall have power...

OK so far.

To establish post offices and post roads;

Government at any level serves the function of being a focal point for what people need collectively, like health inspectors.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Patents. Copyrights. Not fine arts, and not direct funding. But certainly the intention to promote the creation of good things.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Here is the big step. Anything that the states can do, which is just about anything, may need to be regulated as inter-state commerce, and this has been expanded to mean anything the states can do can also be done centrally by the federal government, as a way of consolidating efforts.

Don't shoot me. I am just the messenger.

[applemac_g4]

Well,

I suppose changing our laws so as to allow illegal immigrants to come into the US and drive down wages for his corporate buddies wasn't far enough to the left.

Now, we're going to be giving the NEA the largest budget increase in history. Way to go, George. Hope you enjoyed being president.

[spodefly]

What you say is correct, but I can't tell whether you are entirely disgusted by it or not.

I no longer get disgusted. I observe it, and I comment on it, but staying perpetually disgusted with politics in d.c., and our inevitable slide from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist democracy, is not healthy for children and other living things, including me.

[NathanR]

If you compare the constitutionality of the welfare state versus the constitutionality of modest arts funding, I think a better case can be made for arts funding.

I agree. However the operative word here is modest. NEA funds could be reduced by 75% and it still would not be modest.

Federal art is art chosen by committee. Art chosen by committee, is almost by defination bad art.

[LaraCroft]

"Government at any level serves the function of being a focal point for what people need collectively, like health inspectors."

I disagree, and I don't think that was the intent behind the Constitution. We dont' NEED health inspectors paid for by the government. IF people want them, they'll form a private company to do so.

Almost all, no all of the things government does should not be done by them period. If it's not national defense, they should just go home.

[livius]

Regardless of what people think of the NEA, funding for it was not going to go away in any case. So what's wrong with Bush actually using it for something that could have a positive effect?

One of the reasons we have so many people willing to go out and watch garbage (or listen to it) is that they've never really seen anything good - the schools stopped Shakespeare and started up with things like the Vagina Monologues well over a generation ago.

We're going to spend this money anyway, because realistically speaking, no Congress is going to cut it out. So let's at least have it go for something that does not belong in the sewer.

Conservatives could actually have some positive input into this, instead of running around and screaming that the sky is falling.

[NathanR]

Based on this move, I think there is good reason to expect that NEA is safe from a takeover by arch-liberals in the forseeable future.

Since there will be a new president in 5 years, if not sooner, you don't forsee very far. Are you sure there won't be a Democratic president in the next 13 years? (3 elections) If so, NEA would shortly after his election revert to status quo, ante.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Are you sure there won't be a Democratic president in the next 13 years? (3 elections) If so, NEA would shortly after his election revert to status quo, ante.

No, I am not assuming no future Democratic Presidents. I assert that it is not in the cards for a future Democratic President to return the NEA to the hard left. The transgressive and political art thing (Mapplethorpe) was a hugh black eye for everyone involved. We still see spin from the likes of the NYT that conservatives objected, but in fact, soccer moms objected too.

I am aware that in some policy areas, like the ban on federal funding to groups overseas that offer abortion counseling, the Presidents of the two parties have just been reverting it back and forth. But I don't think that dynamic will be at play with the NEA and objectionable art.

[Romulus]

Conservatives could actually have some positive input into this, instead of running around and screaming that the sky is falling.

Even assuming that "conservatives" are in the driver's seat even today (a sick joke, IMO), the fact is that they won't always be. The NEA -- with its new, improved budget -- will be around nevertheless. Even the bots have to face up to the prospect that sooner or leater somebody they don't like is going to be at the center of this vastly expanded power. Being bots, they will continue to lack the capacity for self-criticism and will act as though "the liberals" are the ones to blame.

[NietzschesJoker]

Agreed completely.

Let's also not forget who has been creating our "art" for the last thirty years - the self-indulged, talentless, subjective parasites that our society has produced. In my opinion, we live in the twilight of these post-relevant jerks. Bring on the next renaissance!

[NathanR]

Maybe this new head of the NEA is searching for "Truth and Beauty", but the next one probable won't. The art world is saturated with Post Modern nonsense. The next head might moderate the freak show, but it will still be funded.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Government at any level serves the function of being a focal point for what people need collectively, like health inspectors. -NutCrackerBoy, #45

I disagree, and I don't think that was the intent behind the Constitution. We dont' NEED health inspectors paid for by the government. IF people want them, they'll form a private company to do so.

The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about whether state and town governments are empowered to deal with public health issues.

[George W. Bush]

The Constitution enables or forbids the federal government from certain acts and policies and defines legislative and executive duties and basic election law. All other things not ennumerated are reserved to the states or to the people.

[livius]

Bots? Is that the latest term the truly enlightened have started to use?

The NEA is going to be around forever, whether you like it or not. If you elect a Dem next fall, the NEA is going to be around even more. Elect Bush again, and we might be able to control it and even shape the taste of future citizens.

One of the problems of conservatives is that we have withdrawn from the fray. The academy doesn't like us, the arts don't like us, so we've quit fighting and believe we can enlist the rest of the world in an attempt to defund these things so they don't exist.

We can't. People are used to it. What we need to do is stop turning everything over to the liberals.

The reason they are shaping our culture is that we are letting them do so, because whenever we get into power, we don't try to assert our opinions.

Bush is trying to do that, and I support him in this. You forget the fact that phrase "culture war" is not hyperbole. It's us or them, and unless we are willing to spend money and fight for "us" - then it's going to be "them."

[little jeremiah]

Nope. Even if the NEA funds only art that even I approve of, I still don't want my or anyone's tax money going to it. Not one thin dime. If people want art, let them pay for it, or rich people donate. Screw the NEA and the NEH. At the very least, how many greased hands are in between my wallet and the "artistes" who get the money? These agencies are poster children for a bloated government gone mad.

[Miss Marple]

Sometimes, the market is simply wrong.

If we left this solely to the market, we would have nothing but hip-hop, reality TV, and Terminator movies.

There is a case to be made for instilling in the public an appreciation of the arts of Western Civilization. The schools aren[t doing it, and the entertainment industry sure isn't.

I would suggest that a hefty dose of Shakespeare, Milton, Rembrandt, Da Vinci, and Michaelangelo would go a long way towards changing the cultural fabric of the US.