1/25/09

A National Arts Adviser?

Buster's talking about the Office of the Historian has gotten me to thinking: why in the world doesn't the US have anyone officially in charge of our arts policy? And looky here: a thoughtful piece arguing in favor of a national arts adviser to coordinate the different agencies involved in America's arts programs. Green is not talking about just funding the arts (yes, we do have the National Endowment for the Arts), but somebody actually coordinating strategic efforts to direct arts policy, from diplomacy to education to regional arts intiatives, preservation, etc etc etc. I am especially enthusiastic about the idea of somebody in charge of advocating more ardently for arts education, addressing visa issues for cultural exchange, and (Green doesn't mention it, but...) some kind of national database of visual, print, and film material in public institutions and in the public domain (kind of like the Archives of American Art or Canada's National Film Board, but you know, bigger and better and integrating all American public museum collections).

I have to admit that when I first saw the title of the piece, the first thing that came to mind was the Cold War attempts to use avant-garde art as a form of soft power to buy the hearts and minds of Communist citizens. Look! Abstract Art! Freedom! (This is was a pretty trendy line of art history scholarship a little while back.) Clearly, though, there are many other ways in which cultural policy is relevant and necessary, and this piece outlines a whole slew of them. My only criticism: he leaves out any discussion of whom we might entrust with such an important post. This person would have to be familiar with both international diplomacy, domestic (particularly local) policy, and the private and public art worlds, which are all some specialized, cliquey realms. In Europe (at least in France), they've long had someone like this. But an American André Malreaux*? I can't even imagine.

Art Students League Class, ca. 1885. (Source: Archives of American Art)

*Well, except for that whole stealing bas reliefs from Cambodian temples thing...we have our own problems with repatriation of cultural objects of dubious provenance, thank you very much.

5 comments:

Buster said...

This person would have to be familiar with both international diplomacy, domestic (particularly local) policy, and the private and public art worlds, which are all some specialized, cliquey realms.

I NOMINATE MASTERGOTE!

kg said...

Um, you might wanna look at what Rebecca De Roo has to say about the Left's view of Malraux's maisons de la culture under De Gaulle and consider the way his museum without walls totally flattened out all historical context... Malraux also proudly marched with the silent majority in 1968. I don't know that he's the person we wanna be looking up to here...

MasterGote said...

kg - Thanks for that reference, her book looks super-interesting. I agree with you that Malraux's brand of universalizing national culture is not something we need right now, for sure. (And I don't see the US pretending to any such thing anyway. We seem, at least on our good days, to admit that we're a country of mongrels with a diverse set of cultural memories and experiences.) But I'm thinking of Malraux more as a model of a politician, someone well suited to dealing with the hornets' nests of government and museum, a smooth talker on the side of Art (though I stress that we need someone who's on the side of art with a little a - art education, local initiatives, etc).

On a related note, though, my cursory glance at De Roo's book got me to thinking: what about Obama's rhetoric of togetherness, the emphasis on the shared American experience, the common struggle? Does he go too far in advocating for the unified national experience, perhaps as a result of trying to deal with his own diverse history ("I may have come from all these different places, but I am a model American who has achieved the American dream")? I wonder how this rhetoric will reflect in practice? Will there be a turn to more representations of a unified national culture, or will Obama's focus on local initiatives shape the discussion in that direction? (I guess this is his whole balancing act, in a nutshell, not just with art.)

MasterGote said...

Buster - Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't think my brand of diplomacy is well-suited for such a position. On most days, (and probably to kg's horror and dismay), I wish art institutions just didn't exist at all so that we didn't have to deal with them. Plus, I'm not sure how I would explain Lamar during the confirmation process...

kg said...

It's hard for me to tell, since I'm so outside the loop of American culture even when I'm in the States, but so far, based on what I see coming over listservs etc, I haven't seen anything like a unified "national" art scene suddenly come about. Everyone still seems to be speaking to the same niche audience to which they were speaking before (I mean within each community, though may be I'm too cynical). In a way, I'd really like to see what a new version of the WPA could do for the arts (I think you know how I love 30s U.S. social realism, right?), but I just don't see it happening...