I had to tackle this one. Couldn't let it slide; it
stoked too many fires that I've let go cold.
This
Gawker article was published today imploring people - potential
donors, I guess - not to contribute any money to the floundering New York
City Opera. The tone of the article is incredibly moralistic and condescending
towards art and artists. The author dresses it up as if he is only referring to
this specific opera company, but his faux-Libertarian rejection of donor
support for the City Opera conceals a greater contempt for so-called
"unpopular" arts. By unpopular, I mean artistic endeavors that do not
make anybody insanely wealthy.
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the
City Opera to comment on their financial status and whether they NEED $20
million to stage three productions - I'm looking at a larger issue here. The
City Opera is just a convenient catalyst for this example of cultural malaise
towards the arts in general.
The author's argument is this: We should not
contribute money to the City Opera because that money could be used helping
starving children or malaria victims. He writes, "in a world of limited
money and resources, we must make choices. A dollar given to one cause is a
dollar not given to another cause." For this argument to hold any water
whatsoever, charitable giving/philanthropy must be a zero-sum game, ignoring
the myriad ways in which philanthropy ITSELF has ripple effects far beyond its
individual cause. The author is essentially saying that no money should be
donated to the arts until...worldwide hunger, disease and poverty are
eradicated? It is utter contempt for art and artists, cloaked in moralistic
preaching. This guys KNOWS that people will be disinclined to argue with him if
he pulls the "Think of the starving children!" angle.
I often see this kind of argument dressed up in
culture war language. It's a common tactic of people who are offended by an
artwork, therefore they campaign for all art to cease to exist (see the
right-wing attacks on Robert Mapplethorpe). If they permit it to exist, then it
is forced into a limbo where it relies on outside support from patrons to function.
And if you can't get the money together to make art, too bad! The free market
has spoken! It must not be as valuable as you said it is, dirty hippie.
Because we all know the only things are worth having
are those that make someone rich. After all, who needs art? Art won't feed
anybody. So say we take the author's dubious advice and withhold all patronage
of art until all global catastrophes are solved. No one is hungry, no one is
sick, no one is poor. Yay! What happened in the meantime? Well, there's no
culture. Sure, there are television shows about rednecks and housewives, but
that should be plenty, right? That'll keep the masses suitably intellectually
sedated so the power elite can continue consolidating their grip on humanity to
drive up the price of their stock shares.
Because - and this capitalist loathing of art
emerges as a distinctly American cultural quirk - art has self-reflective
qualities. Art makes you think about things. It often reflects universal
struggles in abstract ways that generate introspection. It is absolutely easier
and simpler to just consume the irrelevant "struggles" of the
Kardashians, because that won't challenge any beliefs you hold. Art, on the
other hand, ENCOURAGES people to consider the society they live in with a
critical eye. Authoritarian types do everything they can to keep art away from
the lower classes for this very reason.
When composers started writing operas about something other than mythological heroes, they wrote about common, shared experiences that people from all walks of life endure. In particular, the lower classes attended the opera because they could identify with the struggles of the characters in some way, and composers would often throw in jabs at the aristocracy that the lower classes would understand. Opera has always been, in various ways, critical of the society where it lives. Opera and hip-hop are often about the same things; it's just that one genre requires more instruments.
The author of this article is, of course, fishing for controversy (read: PAGE VIEWS), but there's no controversy here. He's taking people to task for giving their money to artists. He wants to tell us that the "best use" of our money would be to THINK OF THE CHILDREN. My contention is that by permitting the arts to flourish, you are stimulating society to think critically about WHY there are pressing social problems in the first place. This in turn creates human beings who are more likely to engage with the world around them...and maybe even contribute cash money to other causes.
I am a musician and I make art for a living. I will never be wealthy doing what I do. But damn, I can't imagine my life without art. Studying music in its various historical contexts has molded me into the person I am today - it is the reason I can synthesize information and ponder WHY.
These are my charities of choice. I give a little bit to both organizations each month, and then I go out and make music as a calling. Perhaps you too would like to prove to Mr. Nolan that you can support the arts and other causes simultaneously? What a concept!
Human Rights Campaign
Oxfam America
I mention this not to boast but to illustrate how my exposure to art has broadened my worldview to where I actually give a shit about things that are basically completely beyond my control.
Art is not expendable. It is not frivolous. It is vital to the emotional and spiritual health of a society, and necessary for developing psychotic apes into thoughtful human beings.
