[sudo-discuss] Fwd: Arts Funding: A comparison of American and European Models

[Romy Ilano]

[low priority]

nice Friday evening reading for you!

http://www.osborne-conant.org/arts_funding.htm

Arts Funding: A comparison of American and European Models

As an American who has lived in Europe for the last 24 years, I see on a
daily basis how different the American and European economic systems are,
and how deeply this affects the ways they produce, market and perceive art.
America advocates supply-side economics, small government and free trade –
all reflecting a belief that societies should minimize government
expenditure and maximize deregulated, privatized global capitalism.
Corporate freedom is considered a direct and analogous extension of
personal freedom. Europeans, by contrast, hold to mixed economies with
large social and cultural programs. Governmental spending often equals
about half the GNP. Europeans argue that an unmitigated capitalism creates
an isomorphic, corporate-dominated society with reduced individual and
social options. Americans insist that privatization and the marketplace
provide greater efficiency than governments. These two economic systems
have created something of a cultural divide between Europeans and Americans.

Germany’s public arts funding, for example, allows the country to have 23
times more full-time symphony orchestras per capita than the United States,
and approximately 28 times more full-time opera houses. *[1]* In Europe,
publicly funded cultural institutions are used to educate young people and
this helps to maintain a high level of interest in the arts. In America,
arts education faces constant cutbacks, which helps reduce interest.

*The Rise of Neo-Liberalism As a Cultural Paradigm*

The divisions between American and European arts-funding models are best
understood if one briefly considers the changes that have evolved in U.S.
economic policy over the last 30 years. Except for the military, there has
been continual political pressure to reduce government. Even though the
government’s budgets have continued to increase, arts funding has been
particularly vulnerable to cuts. By 1997, the NEA’s funding was close to
half its former high, and has only slowly regained some of its lost ground.

University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman stressed the value of
limited taxation and unregulated global markets in the 1970s. Many
influential members of the political and economic elite embraced his views.
With Ronald Reagan’s election, Friedman’s proposals became established U.S.
policy. Friedman’s philosophy of limited government and free trade was seen
as an extension of Adam Smith’s 18th century market-liberalism, and is
technically referred to by many economists as neo-liberalism. **

Some of neo-liberalism’s most important tenets are cutting public
expenditure for social services such as health insurance, education and
cultural programs. This is consistent with its other policies, such as the
deregulation of the market to allow the free flow of capital and limit
restrictions caused by issues such as environmentalism and job safety;
privatization of state-owned enterprises such as schools, parks, toll
highways, hospitals, utilities, and water supplies; and the replacement of
traditional concepts such as “the public good” or “community” with values
emphasizing “individual responsibility.” (We thus see that in its technical
economic meanings, neo-liberalism differs from the common American
political usage of the term “liberal.” Neo-liberalism refers instead to the
historical meanings of market-liberalism as freed from government
intervention or involvement.)

In its purest form, America’s neo-liberalism would suggest that cultural
expression that doesn't fit in the marketplace doesn't belong at all. For
the arts, the alternative has been to maintain a relatively marginalized
existence supported by gifts from corporations, foundations and the
wealthy. A system similar to a marginal and elitist cultural plutocracy
evolves. This philosophy is almost diametrically opposed to the tradition
of large public cultural funding found in most of Europe’s social
democracies.

*The Hip-Con Argument*

Through the influence of neo-liberalism, it is becoming increasingly common
in America to suggest that classical music must enter the market place in
order to survive. One of the most interesting and nuanced proponents of
this view is Greg Sandow, who writes for *The Wall Street Journal*. He
argues that classical music must creatively accept the structures of the
marketplace. He notes that even the fringes of the mass market are
enormous. If artists can't fit into America’s relatively unmitigated
capitalist system, they are to be blamed, at least in part, for their lack
of imagination and relevance. Alternatives, such as public funding for the
arts, are left largely unmentioned. *[3]*

The general correlations between Mr. Sandow’s ideas and neo-liberalism are
fairly obvious. Government is to be reduced and an unregulated market
furthered. His view could also stem from his musical background. He worked
as a pop music critic for *Entertainment Weekly* before moving to *The Wall
Street Journal*. In his writings, he moves freely between pop and classical.

The approach of leveling pop and classical into the marketplace is both
aesthetically hip and financially conservative. The younger Wall Street
might even define business as an extension of the freewheeling, libertarian
ethos of rock and roll. In this sense, they might be referred to as
hip-cons. Rock and roll and its many pop variants are the mainstay of the
corporate music industry’s income. Rock also accurately reflects something
of the American business spirit of enterprise and freedom.

*The Danger of Conformity in Mass Markets*

>From its beginnings, rock revolted against stifling convention and
hypocrisy. Rock, however, is a form of rebellion carried by the mass media,
which leaves it characterized by internal conflicts. Up front we might have
a socially rebellious Bruce Springsteen, but behind him stands a massive
music industry deeply rooted in the Wall Street establishment, whose
purpose is not to formulate social criticism but to make money.

Mass media pop is thus distinguished by its ability to create a ready,
packaged (and often benign) form of social criticism that raises protest
only within the strictures the mass market will accept. This
characteristic, however, must be carefully disguised or the impression of
hipness is weakened. Big business is the dirty secret in the background.
The current crisis with file sharing is an example of the troubles the
music industry can have when its business side becomes too visible.

The best argument for pop music actually leading a social rebellion would
probably be found in the '60s, but even then elements of conformity were
apparent. The massive criticism of John Lennon’s comment that the Beatles
were more popular than Jesus Christ was a clear illustration. Antiwar songs
and drugs were socially acceptable, but presumed insults to Christianity
were not. Some recent examples of how pop must conform to the strictures of
the mass market are Springsteen’s backdown from his criticisms of the New
York police for brutality, the attacks on Sinead O’Conner after her
criticisms of the Pope (which contributed to the end of her career), the
delayed release of Madonna’s antiwar album in spite of her carefully parsed
image as a fearless rebel, and the boycott and burning of the Dixie Chicks’
CDs after their criticisms of Bush and the Iraq war.

Mass pop thrives on controversy, but it must be carefully gauged to create
notoriety and not shut down the show. More variation exists on the market’s
fringes, but the degree is generally proportional to the size of the
audience. The more unusual the stance or music, the smaller the market. The
financial viability of the fringe markets thus depends on having a limited
supply of artists and a specialized public for a particular view or
aesthetic.

The dangers of artists being forced into conformity are apparent. Given the
volatility of mass markets, Wall Street has a very particular ethos. This
was clearly summarized by Ray Kroc, one of the founders of McDonald's, who
was angered by some of his franchises: “We have found out ... that we
cannot trust some people who are nonconformists. We will make conformists
out of them in a hurry. ... The organization cannot trust the individual;
the individual must trust the organization.” The very nature of a mass
market is conformity in both product and customer. **

Mr. Sandow’s suggestion that classical composers should tap into the
fringes of the pop market is thus interesting, but of limited value. The
fringes are indeed larger than the usual audience for classical music, but
they could still only support a limited amount of experimental music. The
industry is not in a stable condition, the audiences would be splintered,
and the reactions of the public fickle and highly unpredictable, especially
for kinds of avant-garde classical music they had never even heard before.
Tapping into even the fringes of the pop industry would likely require
elements of conformity that might not suit the wildly varied and
experimental nature of modern classical music.

Even traditional types of classical music that have tried to be more
commercial are often criticized for their bad taste. David Lister, Media
and Culture Editor for *The Guardian*, created an interesting summary of
some examples:

"The members of the string quartet Bond, who were trained classically,
perform in skimpy tops, tight trousers and stilettos. Sometimes they are
accompanied on stage by nubile dancers and a rock band, and play music with
a dance beat. British chart compilers said their debut album was pop music
and banned it from their classical chart but it went to the top of the
American version."

"The 23-year-old violinist Vanessa-Mae can probably claim first rights on
emerging from the sea in a suitably dripping outfit to promote her skills
in performing a concerto. When still a teenager she used the wet look in
one of her early promotional videos."

"One critic said of Russell Watson [a singer]: ‘His ability is reliant on
massive amplification, and I very much doubt whether he has the stamina (or
the desire) to sing an entire role in an opera.’"

"The 'Gregorian Babes' [to] whom Sir Thomas refers to [are] a desperate
attempt to manufacture a classical version of the Spice Girls. The group
went to the top of the classical charts, but their medieval madrigals were
described by one critic as ‘estuary Latin’."

In America, the neo-liberal paradigm has already given a corporate
atmosphere to our culture that is stronger than ever before in history, and
stronger than in any other country in the world. So why are we being asked
to go even farther in this direction? Generally speaking, if any one system
of support for artists becomes isomorphic, artistic freedom suffers. Varied
systems help guarantee freedom of artistic expression. This is why
Europeans have a vibrant and healthy system of decentralized public funding
to provide an alternative to the commercialization of culture.

*The Rise of Crossover and Its Hip-Con Public*

Even though the yuppies of the late '70s and '80 never represented a
clearly defined movement, they might be seen as interesting examples of the
hip-con spirit. They were regarded as politically conservative and
preoccupied with moving toward the centers of power – often with little
regard for the implications. They were a counter-reaction to the far more
extreme “tune-in, turn-on, drop-out” philosophy of the '60s. The yuppies of
Manhattan were often well educated, ambitious and intelligent. The
“downtown” classical music scene became one of the chic places for the more
sophisticated to be seen. The stiff, incestual establishment serialism of
the uptown may have been square and alien to many hip-cons, but some of the
downtowners were incorporating elements of popular music that they could
relate to as cool.

For the most part, the downtown artists who incorporated elements of pop
were not anything like hip-cons. They were (and still are) solidly on the
political left. They knew they had been able to take advantage of the
fringes of the mass market, but given the diversity of avant-garde musical
expression, they generally recognized that this model was limited and
suited to only a narrow spectrum of modern classical music. It was only
much later, after neo-liberalism had become more established, that their
work was used to support an argument that classical music should be moved
to a stronger market paradigm.

Some of the most notable crossover artists were the Bang-On-A-Can All
Stars, who rose to prominence with programs that included works emulating
elements of the tasteful, semi-popular new-age music of Brian Eno. Programs
by Laurie Anderson, such as “Home of the Brave,” were modeled on the format
of rock concerts. Her song “O Superman” reached No. 2 on the British pop
charts. John Zorn created collages using television cartoon music that was
almost iconographic to a generation of young Americans. And the repetitive,
rhythmic qualities of minimalist composers such as Reich and Glass
attracted a generation brought up on rock. **

During the '50s and '60s, pop music had developed a central place in the
American psyche. For the young people of the late '70s and '80s, a
crossover with experimental forms of classical music was simply part of a
quintessentially American milieu they did not even have to think about. And
even though it was not a very conscious idea for the young hip-con public,
the idea of widening the cultural influence of the marketplace fit the
neo-liberal spirit that was a growing hallmark of the Reagan era. The
musicians also seemed to be influenced. One of the most important aspects
of cultural isomorphism is that artists often unconsciously adapt to and
employ the larger social forces surrounding them.

One of the first writers to note the crossover forms being developed by the
downtown composers was *The New York Times* music critic John Rockwell, who
described some of the work in his 1983 book *All American Music:
Composition in the Late Twentieth Century*. He later became a program
director for Lincoln Center’s summer festival. Partially through his
influence, some members of the downtown began reaching more established
midtown publics and a wider international audience.

Rockwell noted that once again the desire and ability to merge the
aesthetic structures of classical and commercial was something distinctly
American. What neither he nor anyone else anticipated, was that the
crossover would eventually be used to support a claim that classical music
and its modern composers should be more strongly shifted to the
marketplace. Few understood the aesthetic, social, and economic
implications of the evolving neo-liberal paradigm that was making American
society and culture more isomorphic than ever. **

Europeans rejected most attempts in their own societies to merge commercial
and classical music. Their cultures are not dominated by the mass media as
in America, and they do not have the same innate relationship to pop. Given
their more extensive cultural history and public arts funding, it is not
surprising that Europeans hung on to (and were burdened by) more complex
and historically continuous ideas of classical music. And above all, they
continued to view forms of culture associated with the American mass media
and corporatism as hegemonistic and potentially isomorphic, regardless of
how hip they might seem.

*The Increasing Political Division of Europe and America*

In many respects, neo-liberalism is a manifestation of the suspicion toward
government traditionally held by the American right – an ethos that
contrasts strongly with Europe’s tradition of social democracies. During
the '60s and '70s, however, a number of Republicans were still relatively
strong supporters of the newly founded NEA. Support for the arts was still
considered a part of traditional, conservative values. As the Republican
Party moved increasingly to the right, the old cultured libertarian
conservatives like Nelson Rockefeller or William F. Buckley moved to the
background. By the '90s, mainstream libertarian conservatism seemed far
less sophisticated. A new populist version with an openly bigoted crudeness
along the lines of Rush Limbaugh had evolved. Rock, country western, and a
kind of neo-liberal cowboy social Darwinism replaced Vivaldi’s “Four
Seasons.”

Populist rightwing attacks on controversial artists such as Karen Finley,
Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe were used to rationalize funding
reductions for the NEA. Between 1992 and 1996 the agency’s budget was
reduced by almost half – from $170 million to $97 million. Twenty
categories of grants were abolished between 1990 and 1995. The Contemporary
Arts Center of Cincinnati was indicted for pandering obscenity hours after
the opening of the photography exhibit, *Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect
Moment.* In question were seven portraits, mostly of sadomasochistic acts.
The partisan rhetoric of conservative politicians such as North Carolina
Senator Jesse Helms raised suspicions of intimidation and censorship. And
perhaps more important, the elimination of entire government agencies was a
continuing theme of congressional rhetoric under Republican Speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich. The neo-liberal agenda of reducing government became
part of the rationale for shutting down Mozart and Shakespeare along with
Serrano.

Popular music also moved to meet the demands of a newly forming market on
the right. Following on types of punk that incorporated a kind of tribal
masculinism, by the 2000’s Eminem even metastasized black male anger into a
hip-con white male anger. He endorsed, for example, extreme violence
against women, but given the backlash of the '90s, this was within the
strictures of the mass media’s pre-packaged forms of protest. These social
statements were embraced by the music industry because the swing to a crude
and somewhat bigoted form of libertarianism had made them widely accepted
and provided the basis for a mass market. The racist implications in some
of Eminem’s most recently revealed statements, however, are not widely
accepted. We thus saw the industry that supports him quickly backpedaling.

Due to its internal tensions, being a hip-con became an increasingly
difficult balancing act. White racial resentment, for example, is still
difficult to define as hip. The hip-cons seemed to divide into two groups,
one along the older yuppie model, and the newer along Eminem’s mean-right
pattern. As early as 1992, many hip-cons had moved toward the
saxophone-playing Bill Clinton and his more moderate conservatism, which
included a crack down on crime. By the end of Clinton’s second term, 13% of
all African-American men could not vote because they were in prison or had
criminal records. The people whose music had laid the original foundations
for hippness were still strongly disenfranchised and vast numbers were
still living in poverty and degradation.

After twenty years of neo-liberal Reaganomics, the political and cultural
landscapes of Europe and America were farther apart than ever. The
long-term forms of social democracy that Europeans might have used to
approach the problems of massive racial ghettos could not even be
considered. Hillary Clinton’s campaign for national health insurance --
which is a mainstay of European social policy -- failed miserably. George
W. Bush was elected, and the dot.com economy collapsed. Fueled by
recession, state governments began to slash or entirely eliminate arts
budgets. America’s cultural institutions struggled to survive, many of them
running up large deficits. The new American administration, which embraced
neo-liberalism to an unprecedented degree, jeered at its traditional allies
as “old Europe.”

*An American Culture of Rationalization*

With subtle psychological shifts that are almost impossible to deconstruct,
the conflicted hip-con ethos of America became an increasingly complex
network of rationalizations. The Prez plays the sax, so we’re still hip,
aren’t we? If we listen to both Springsteen and Schönberg we must be
egalitarian, right? Even white guys can rap, can’t they? Inside of 20 years
we went from Miles Davis making obscene gestures to his white public, to a
buttoned-down Wynton Marsalis playing in Lincoln Center. Many of jazz’s
greats earlier in the century were firmly embraced by the white
establishment, and not all jazz comes out of a spirit of protest.
Nevertheless, some critics seemed to feel that the presentation of notably
conservative jazz in Lincoln Center was another example of the white
establishment conveniently presenting and appropriating only a specific
spectrum of black culture. Both pop and jazz seemed to find a place in
America’s culture of rationalization.

In many respects, hip-cons have come to represent the latest incarnation of
the classic American ethos of being rebels without a cause. Listening to
rock gives them a sense of breaking from the bourgeois middle and rejecting
conformity to a system that is often vacuous and morally conflicted. The
irony that the mass media is one of the largest manifestations of cultural
isomorphism in the history of humanity is not considered.

In culturally isomorphic societies, thought is less and less likely to move
outside a pre-configured set of paradigms. In the 20th century, for
example, we saw a culturally isomorphic essentialization of art in the
"Gleichschaltung” of the Third Reich, in the Social Realism of the East
Block, in the “Cultural Revolution” of Maoist China, and to an increasing
extent in the mass media commercialization of culture in America. *[7] *Like
the political divisions of the 20th century, these aesthetic orthodoxies
reduced human expression to systemic concepts that tend toward the
formulaic and reductionist. Since narrowed perspectives make it difficult
to confront aspects of reality, a culture of self-referential
rationalization evolves.

*The European’s Defense of Communal Identity*

So where does this leave the European view of America and its arts funding
models today? To answer, it is important to note that continental Europeans
often regard American music as a type of exotica – an art that embodies a
radical departure from their own traditions. In Germany, for example, Ives,
Bernstein, Cage, Reich, and laptop improvisers fit their desired image of
the American spirit. Composers more in line with Germany’s still dominant
forms of complex modernism, like Carter and Babbit, remain much less
appreciated and performed.

Europeans thus especially appreciate the crossover forms that have become
an American specialty, but they reject the argument that a commercial
paradigm is an appropriate funding model for classical music. They question
the breezily hip tones that tell us classical music must become
commercially viable or go extinct. Rock or die? Is that the only real
alternative? What does that mean for artistic integrity and the autonomy of
human expression?

In the spirit of their mixed economies, Europeans would argue that many
forms of artistic expression cannot be positioned or relativised within the
mass market or its fringes. For them, culture must be communal and
autonomous. They often see American culture as hegemonistic -- a totalizing
and destructive assault on the humanistic, cultural and social structures
they have worked so long and hard to create.

A general sense of the different perspectives concerning communal identity
can be illustrated with an example now widely discussed in the States. Many
Americans have seen how corporate-owned strip malls and Wal-Marts have
deeply affected their cities and towns. The old downtown areas are
abandoned as customers move to corporate businesses on the edge of town.
Communal identity and autonomy, which are an important part of cultural
expression, are replaced with a relatively isomorphic corporatism.

Europeans struggle to maintain a different model. Most cities and towns
have thousand year histories that are reflected in the architectural and
other cultural treasures of their various municipal centers. They employ
zoning laws and other regulations, as well as public education, to protect
their cities from the Wal-Martization that would be caused by embracing
American-styled neo-liberalism. Europeans have large department stores and
the occasional K-Mart, but their influence is kept within balance. They
would consider the losses to their cultural identity caused by corporate
uniformity to be too great.

Europeans see Hollywood and America’s massive music industry in a similar
way. They feel these institutions standardize culture into mass markets
that reduce communal identity. Far from making music even more commercial,
the European response has been to create a balance with public arts
funding. In Germany, for example, cities with more than about 100,000
people often have a full-time orchestra, opera house, and theater company
that are state- and municipally owned. A good deal of funding for these
groups is set aside for new music. Europeans also administer this arts
funding locally, and not from a remote Federal organization such as the
NEA. *[8]* They are not only the recipients of mass culture; they express
themselves according to their autonomous, local needs and prerogatives.

As a result, the European view is likely to reject a superficial form of
postmodernism that presumes to flow with an exaggerated ease from rock to
Brahms, as if distinctions between the production, marketing, and reception
of commercial and classical music could be brushed aside. They know that
the production costs for recording a five-piece rock band are far smaller
and the audience vastly larger than for a recording of an opera that would
require 200 to 400 people and reach an audience not even a tenth the size.
They know that a festival for new orchestral music such as at
Donaueschingen might have standing-room-only crowds year after year, but
that such endeavors cannot be designed to make a profit. *[9]*

In Germany, classical recordings compete strongly against pop. This is not
merely a matter of history or coincidence. Europeans use their local public
cultural institutions to educate their children and this creates a wide
appreciation for classical music. The popularity is also based on a sense
of communal pride. They support their local cultural institutions almost
like they were sports teams. European society illustrates that music
education leads to forms of creativity and autonomy that are often
antithetic to mass media. The European view is not based on elitism or a
dismissal of popular culture, but on an understanding that an unmitigated
capitalism is not a seamless, all-encompassing paradigm - particularly when
it comes to cultural expression.

*The Loss of Cultural Discourse in Isomorphic Systems*

Proponents of America’s neo-liberalism claim that alternatives to a
singular cultural paradigm exist. In reality, the large majority of
cultural offerings come from Manhattan and a few other cities, even though
the country has 280 million people. Even the other boroughs of New York
City, such as the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island would seem short of
cultural offerings. And the situation is similar in many of our heartland
cities.

International comparisons might illustrate this point. Germany, for
example, has one full-time, year-round orchestra for every 590,000 people,
while the United States has one for every 14 million (or 23 times less per
capita.) Germany has about 80 year-round opera houses, while the U.S., with
more than three times the population, does not have any. Even the Met only
has a seven-month season. These numbers mean that larger German cities
often have several orchestras. Munich has seven full-time, year-round
professional orchestras, two full-time, year-round opera houses (one with a
large resident ballet troupe,) as well as two full-time, large, spoken-word
theaters for a population of only 1.2 million. Berlin has three full-time,
year-round opera houses, though they may eventually have to close one due
to the costs of rebuilding the city after reunification.

If America averaged the same ratios per capita as Germany, it would have
485 full-time, year-round orchestras instead of about 20. If New York City
had the same number of orchestras per capita as Munich it would have about
45. If New York City had the same number of full-time operas as Berlin per
capita it would have six. Areas such as Queens, Staten Island, and the
Bronx would be nationally and internationally important cultural centers.
The reality is somewhat different.

If America’s Northeastern seaboard had the same sort of orchestral
landscape as Germany, there would be full-time, year-round professional
orchestras (often in conjunction with opera houses) in Long Island, Newark,
Jersey City, Trenton, Camden, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, New
Haven, Hartford, Springfield, Providence, and Boston. California would have
about 60 full-time, year-round professional orchestras. Like Germany, the
U.S. would suffer from a shortage of good classical musicians. There would
be little unemployment for these artists. With that much creativity, it is
unlikely Americans would stick to European repertoire and models. Even with
half the German ratios, a starkly American musical culture would evolve
that would likely change history.

It is also essential and informative to place these numbers in the context
of the dismal social conditions in almost all major American cities, since
these are areas where classical music would normally thrive. A recent
article in *The New York Times*, for example, notes that Philadelphia has
14,000 abandoned buildings in a dangerous state of collapse, 31,000
trash-strewn vacant lots, 60,000 abandoned autos, and has lost 75,000
citizens in recent years. ** Regions such as the south Bronx, Watts, East
St. Louis and Detroit, just to name a few, show that Philadelphia is hardly
an exception. The populations living in our dehumanizing ghettos are
measured in the tens of millions. It seems very likely that the problems
with arts funding in America are closely related to the same social forces
that have caused the country to neglect its urban environments. This
naturally leaves many Europeans wondering why America is so intent on
exporting its economic and cultural models.

The problems of arts funding are seldom the topic of genuinely serious and
sustained political discussion. The cultural and political system has
become so isomorphic that most Americans do not even consider that
alternatives could be created to institutions such as network television
and Hollywood. With only one percent of the military’s $396 billion budget,
we could have 132 opera houses lavishly funded at $30 million apiece. (That
much funding would put them on par with the best opera houses in the world,
and as noted, likely lead to forms of expression more distinctly American.)

The same sum could support 264 spoken-word theaters at $15 million each. It
could subsidize 198 full-time, year round world-class symphony orchestras
at $20 million each. Or it could give 79,200 composers, painters and
sculptors a yearly salary of $50,000 each. Remember, that’s only one
percent of the military budget. Imagine what five percent would do. These
examples awaken us to the Orwellian realities of our country and how
different it could be. Given our wealth, talent, and educational resources,
we are losing our chance to be the Athens of the modern world.

We also see that cultural isomorphism leads to the suppression of
political, social and cultural discourse. Discussions outside the
neo-liberal paradigm are becoming increasingly rare. How astounding, for
example, that a U.S. Senator recently gave a long interview for the
American Music Center’s webzine, New Music Box, and not one question was
asked or comment made about the NEA or any other form of public funding for
the arts. Europeans would find this incomprehensible.

Another example of the loss of intelligent discourse is the discussion
surrounding the current proposed $18 million increase for the NEA. This sum
represents only  seven-thousandths of one percent of the proposed 2005 U.S.
budget, a number almost too infinitesimal to comprehend. And yet the topic
is once again being opportunistically exploited as a political battering
ram.

In Europe, by contrast, funding for the arts is a central platform of every
major political party. Lively and varied artistic expression is considered
one of the most important forums for national discourse. Politicians
literally search for opportunities to speak about the arts because it is
politically advantageous. The dialog is generally intelligent, meaningful,
and carefully considered.

*Summary and Conclusion*

In review, we see that Europe’s funding traditions and models suggest
several policies and administrative practices Americans might consider:

1. Europeans use public funding to provide alternatives to the marketplace
for cultural expression. This reinforces freedom of artistic expression and
deeply enriches their societies. America’s heavy reliance on the market as
an arbiter of culture sometimes limits our options. Our government spends
billions on other intellectual spheres, such as education, space
exploration and scientific research, but we have seriously limited our
cultural lives through a suspicion toward public arts funding.

2. European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and
opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever,
broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few
mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina
Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t seen
nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost half of a
nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized avant-garde
artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism, Europeans realize
how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the dignity and cultural
identity of society. This no longer happens in Europe, and need not happen
in America.

3. European arts funding is generally decentralized and administered mostly
on the state and municipals levels. The NEA’s centralized funding makes it
an easy target for populist political attacks. Europeans would also find it
strange for a federal government to fund the arts in any specific way
because it is so difficult at that level to have direct contact with the
lives and work of artists and the communities they serve. The NEA and the
states must continue to develop arts-funding models directly connected to
cities, towns and regional communities.

4. Europeans use their cultural legacies to establish and assert their
place in the world, often through extensive cultural diplomacy. American
politicians should be reminded that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein and
Louis Armstrong can often accomplish far more than an F-16, and for a tiny
fraction of the costs, both economic and human. Given our talent,
educational system, and wealth, we must renew our vision of how brightly
our cultural light could shine.

5. Europeans combine arts education with the living presence of the
performing arts within their communities. Classical music is far more
relevant to young people when performing arts organizations are a highly
present and esteemed part of their city or region. In America, the nearest
genuinely professional full-time performing arts organization is often
hundreds of miles away. America’s children should perceive the arts as part
of their communities. And our more talented children should be able to
think of the arts as a realistic career option, just as children in Europe
do.

6. Even though Europeans often celebrate the lighter classics, they still
stress classical musical for its inherent strengths. As the American
Symphony Orchestra League has noted, America has been trying to build
publics by emphasizing pops (and cross-over) concerts since the 1960s. This
has had a partially adverse effect through lowering the public’s
expectations. Superficial programming is also increasingly influencing
classical music radio stations. Through confidence in classical music’s
inherent strengths, higher standards and expectations could be awakened.

7. Europeans view the city itself as the greatest and most complete
expression of the human mind and spirit. Venice, Florence, Rome, Prague,
Amsterdam, Dresden, Barcelona and Paris, just to name a few, are all embued
with this ideal. Americans, by contrast, behave almost as if they have lost
hope in their cities, as if they were dangerous and inhuman urban
wastelands to be abandoned for the suburbs. This tacit assumption has had a
profound but largely unrecognized effect on American political and cultural
discourse. Classical music is one of the most urban of art forms. Its
status will always be measured by the health and vibrancy of our cities.
Ultimately, questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we
recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban environments are
deeply interdependent.

Over the long term, these general understandings that Europeans have gained
over centuries of experience could beneficially influence the political and
cultural climate in America. It is not enough that people have freedom of
speech; they must also have mechanisms for meaningfully expressing and
debating it. Public arts funding is deeply valuable because it encourages
societies to be diverse, intellectually alive, inquisitive and realistic.
It furthers the discourse societies need to fully express their communal
and national identity and place it in the rest of the world. It furthers
our ability to heal and help. It furthers our well-being, freedom of
expression, and pursuit of happiness. Public arts funding represents the
deepest American ideals.

*ENDNOTES*

   1.

   As I note later, the U.S. does not have any year round opera houses.
   Even the Met only has a seven month season, but one can add up the partial
   seasons of the country’s few scattered companies in order to make a
   comparison. I gave the US a very generous estimate.

    2.

   The philosopher, John Locke, first proposed the origins of liberalism in
   the 17th century. He argued that the purpose of law was to insure human
   rights through limiting the powers of monarchies. In his book, The Wealth
   of Nations, written in 1776, Adam Smith argued for a similar abolition of
   government intervention in the market place. Two forms of liberalism
   evolved: social-liberalism focusing on the protection of human rights, and
   market-liberalism emphasizing laissez-faire capitalism. Liberalism
   flourished in America since it did not have a monarchy to suppress it.
   Among the country’s founders, Thomas Jefferson stressed social-liberalism
   while James Madison stressed market-liberalism. In many respects, Madison’s
   vision prevailed. By the end of the 19th century, America was a major
   industrial power whose economy was largely dominated by unregulated
   monopolies. Huge dichotomies existed in the distribution of wealth, unions
   were suppressed, and issues such as job safety and public welfare were
   almost non-existent.
   After the economic collapse of the 1930s, the theories of John Maynard
   Keynes replaced America’s extreme market-liberalism. He argued that full
   employment is necessary for capitalism to grow, and that regulations are
   necessary to curtail abuses of the market. Governments and central banks
   intervened to implement his policies. Roosevelt’s social-liberalism was
   quickly dismantled in the anti-communist atmosphere after the Second World
   War, but social democracy continued in Europe and became a deeply embedded
   aspect of their societies. A brief attempt was made to revive
   social-liberalism under John F. Kennedy, but failed. By the 1980s
   neo-liberalism was accepted policy in the United States.
   Even though the social democracies of Europe have been slow to embrace
   neo-liberalism, it is difficult for them to resist due to the integration
   of markets in global capitalism.

    3.

   Mr. Sandow’s views are somewhat anti-modernist and reach instead for an
   aesthetic derived from his background in popular music. In his article
   “Access: Denied”, (Symphony, September-October 2003), he criticizes
   modernist music for its lack of accessibility, “Some modernist music seems
   really strange. Twelve-tone music, for example, inevitably […] comes off as
   abstract, creepy, and mechanical. What was Schoenberg doing, putting all
   the notes in arbitrary rows?” In “Why Classical Music Needs Rock & Roll”
   (published on his website), he writes, “Today, the musical roots of our
   culture aren't in folk songs. They're in rock, country, rhythm and blues --
   the entire range of musical styles that typify pop music in the rock & roll
   era (even rap). Classical music won't seem natural in America until both
   composition and performance reflect that obvious fact.” In “Noise in New
   York” (Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2003), he praises the Bang On A Can
   All-Stars who employ crossover elements from pop music. He describes the
   music of Michael Gordon and suggests, “A lot of people who've never heard
   this music would surely love it -- people, to start with, who listen to
   alternative pop. But how can they be reached? The future of classical
   composition might hang, at least in part, on the answer.” And in his
   article, “I’m Wolfgang, And I’ll Be Your Composer” (Wall Street Journal,
   August 27, 2002) he even suggests restaurants might hire classical
   composers to write background dinner music.

    4.

   This does not mean that the music industry is alone in forcing artists
   to compromise their integrity. Academic composers often face an oppressive
   tenure system that is just as bad. And the European system of public
   funding is laden with officials who often exercise very narrow biases and
   insiderism in their tastes and opinions.

    5.

   The uptown response, which came to fruition a little later, was in some
   sense a kind of neo-romantic music. By the mid 70s, George Rochberg
   championed a return to an early Schoenbergian chromatic tonality. John
   Corgliano was already gaining recognition, but was still held in strong
   contempt by the deeply established serial community. It wasn’t until the
   late 80s that representatives of these trends began to take the composition
   chairs at institutions such as Juilliard and win the uptown oriented
   Pulitzer Prize. Though they embraced a newfound relationship with the
   public, these composers did not aspire to the same kind of commercial
   crossover as many of the downtown composers.

    6.

   These arguments were analogous with the way postmodern theory was later
   exploited. Some of the French theorists who developed postmodernism
   ultimately rejected many of its manifestations in America. From the outset,
   they felt America is deconstructive by its very nature. They felt the
   conscious and faddish use of postmodernism in the States sometimes led to
   simplistic rationalizations of superficial, provincial eclecticism. Perhaps
   it also contributed to neo-liberal justifications of placing art more
   exclusively in the marketplace.

    7.

   In an earlier article, “Symphony Orchestras and Artist-Prophets:
   Cultural Isomorphism and the Allocation of Power in Music.” Leonardo Music
   Journal 9 (1999): 69-76, I have defined cultural isomorphism as a social
   order where artistic expression is strongly shaped by conditions such as a
   totalizing economic system, religious fundamentalism, hyper-nationalism, or
   a dominating state of affairs such as long term war.

    8.

   This is not to say that a federal arts funding system is unnecessary,
   especially in America where a consensus for supporting the arts still needs
   to be built. As Dana Gioa, the director of the NEA has said, "On a broader
   and less pecuniary basis, the importance of the arts endowment is to
   articulate from a national perspective a compelling and inclusive message
   of the importance of arts funding. The most effective way to build a case
   really comes from the national level. Otherwise, the individual states
   really are left without an umbrella of support." The funding, however, will
   become most meaningful when people learn to administer it mostly on
   municipal and state levels.

    9.

   Germany has been able to maintain its public arts funding even though
   unification expanded its population by 25 percent, and with people who had
   virtually no economic infrastructure left.

    10.

   "Philadelphia's Mayor Seeks to Expand City's Revival," New York Times_,
   April 30, 2001.


*Back to Page I, <http://www.artsjournal.com/artswatch/20040218-11320.shtml>
II <http://www.artsjournal.com/artswatch/osborne2.shtml>*

*SOME ADDITIONAL READING*

*Website of the National Endowment for the Arts.*
http://www.nea.gov/

*Website of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.*
http://www.nasaa-arts.org/

*Melinda Whiting, “Renaissance Man Dana Gioia Brings Broad Interests and a
Business Background to the NEA” **Symphony* (July/August 2003) [An
excellent interview with the director of the NEA in the journal of the
American Symphony Orchestra League. Among other things, he discusses the
Europeans’ sense of cultural patrimony.]
http://www.symphony.org/news/room/03ja_greenroom.shtml

*Roger Armbrust and Leonard Jacobs, “Arts' 2003 Funding Struggles Shift:
States Replace NEA in Cutting Monies for Culture;* DCA Funds Fall” [Useful
statistical information about the loss of state arts funding.]
*Backstage* (December 30, 2003).
http://www.backstage.com/backstage/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2058668


*Jackie Demaline, “Mapplethorpe battle changed art world” **The Cincinnati
Enquirer* (May 21, 2000). [A good discussion of the scandal and its affect
on the NEA.]
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/05/21/loc_mapplethorpe_battle.html

*“The Future of Arts Funding”* [Transcription of a distinguished panel
discussion hosted by the National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia
University.]
http://www.najp.org/publications/occasional/or1.pdf

*Bang On A Can.* [Members of the group interviewed by the American Music
center discuss their marketing strategies and concepts of hippness.]
http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=01fp00

*Benjamin R. Barber, “Jihad vs. McWorld” **The Atlantic Monthly* (March
1992). [Discusses the cultural and political dangers when both regionalism
and globalism become excessive.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/barberf.htm

*“Arts and Minds.” *[A conference on cultural diplomacy amid global
tensions hosted by the National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia
University. The site contains several excellent articles that discuss the
European view of culture and its role in society.]
http://www.najp.org/conferences/artsminds/index.htm

*Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, “What is Neoliberalism? A Brief
Definition for Activists” *National Network for Immigrant and Refugee
Rights (January 1, 1997). [A critical discussion of neoliberalism.]
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=376

*Nick Gillespie, “Poor Man’s Hero”* *Reason* (December 2003).
[An interview with economist Johan Norberg who champions globalization as
the best hope for the developing world.]
http://www.reason.com/0312/fe.ng.poor.shtml

*J. Bradford DeLong, “Globalization and Neoliberalism”* [UC Berkeley
professor of economics provides a balanced discussion of positive and
negative aspects of neoliberlism.]
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Econ_Articles/Reviews/alexkafka.html

*Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?” **The National Interest* (Summer
1989). [A highly influential discussion of the victory of western
market-liberalism and its effects.]
http://www.viet-studies.org/EndofHistory.htm

*Stephan Sartarelli, “Where Did Our Love Go? France and 'Un-Americanism'”* *The
Nation *(December 24, 2003). [Provides additional perspectives on the
growing division between Europe and America.]
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040112&s=sartarelli

*Richard Florida, “Bohemia and Economic Geography”* *Journal of Economic
Geography* (2002). [The underlying hypothesis is that the concentration of
bohemians in an area creates an environment that attracts other types of
talented or “high human capital” individuals.]
http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jecgeo/v2y2002i1p55-71.html






****


---

Romy Ilano
Founder of Snowyla
http://www.snowyla.com
romy at snowyla.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130329/5f56daf6/attachment.html>