[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [microsound] the political economy of patronage



On 6/6/02 at 10:06 AM, David Fodel <DFodel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I would love to see more discussion on this. In particular the
> relative degrees of support here in the states vs. elsewhere.

David-

I don't have much knowledge here, which is why it would be great to hear
from of friends across the Atlantic.


> How does the lack of public support here effect artists?

Not sure whether you mean support as in "money" or support as in
"suspension of disbelief." I think they're related although different
topics.

I had heard a very interesting analysis of the "jobs programs" of the
1960's, LBJ's Great Society, which years of Republican propaganda has
convinced everyone were a failure. (LBJ also brought into being the NEA
grants programs as we know it, at least until Jesse Helms met Karen
Finlay and friends.)

Turns out the programs were a tremendous success in training unskilled
workers, but America's unions were actively invovled in PREVENTING any
of the "graduates" from getting any work!

This came from the unions' abandonment of the goal of full
representation for all working Americans. Their leadership had been
bought off by post-WW2 business interests, who seduced them with higher
wages for a select few. In essence, unions transformed themselves from
democratic entities into "clubs" for the select in the steel, aerospace
and etc. industries.

So there are 2 lessons for the arts here: the potential for
"clubbishness" in public support and the danger of the support leading
nowhere. If artists don't eventually connect with a larger public as a
result of the support, we're sort of like farm-raised Salmon. Just how
"wild" a taste are you gonna get?


> Does too much support create a "glut", lowering the overall
> quality of of artistic output?

The NEA "Peer Panel" system did a pretty good job of awarding monies to
the deserving. The mechanism is pretty thoroughly detailed in Michael
Brenson's _Visionaries and Outcasts_, at least for visual artists.

I have to wonder what the "danger" would be in funding a few too many
folks who crotchet pot holders? If it's a question of wasting money, how
many smart bombs were wasted in Afghanistan? You could fund a lot of art
on that basis.

If it's a question of confusing potholders for "art," I would say that
it's more a political danger than a financial one. I'm sure many of our
lawmakers, who imagine their role to be one of enforcing taste, would
love to fund only composers of national anthems rather than microsonic
ditties.

I might also mention our government's support of Abstract Expressionism
and overseas Jazz concerts as Cold War "propaganda." So not all the
"lowering of quality" is of the family values variety...


> Does too little support relegate artists to
> being sidelined in the game of cultural advancement?

The sculptor George Segal supported himself as a school teacher well
after he had achieved notoriety in the New York art world. This was the
status quo in the 50's and 60's. (Sorry to keep citing visual works, but
I'm more familiar with the history.)


> Does competition for scarce public support make for better art/music?
> Or does it merely create a structure of elitism and priveledge
> excluding all but the most "credentialed" academics.

The idea behind the NEA panel system was that artists were judged by
their peers, who were in the best position to know who was deserving and
who not.

The panels were fairly successful in distributing money because the
membership of the panels changed each year, which served to distribute
the "elitism and priviledge." So over a few years, your buddies were
bound to be on a panel and approve your NEA grant.

I think the notion of credentials and specialization is part of the
larger bureacratization of our society. Doctoral degrees in Microsound,
anyone? I think I'll write my dissertation on the history of the sine
wave...


> Does this lack of publicly available funding force artists with less
> access, to produce more mainstream output if they hope to support
> themselves financially solely on their art?

I think some will sell out and some will starve. Different personalities
have different relationships to their work.

It might be interesting, though, to look at the notion of the
professional artist: a question, again, of specialization. The African
continent has left us with an amazing body of recorded traditional music
that was mostly performed by "amateurs."

The traditional African "public" was also more supportive of "amateur"
music making. You can still see this in the New York subways on a
Friday, with large crowds surrounding a couple of guys beating rhythms
on a 5 gallon spackle bucket and refrigerator shelf. (They make OK
money, too!)

-------

I made some mention in an earlier email about public funding for
distribution of cultural works. I think the other goal forfunding would
be promotion (i.e. advertising).

This is the other thing that the music industry has a lock on. It exists
as a conscious barrier to entry for those "outside the industry" who
don't have the bucks to create awareness.

Gotta go!

Tad