Friday, January 08, 2010

Depoliticize the arts by de-funding them

CultureFuture had a post yesterday suggesting that, in large part, American governments haven't subsidized the arts in the way that many other nations do because Americans don't like political art — that we're uncomfortable with art that takes a political stance (somehow assuming that art, and journalism, too, should always and everywhere be "objective," as if that were desirable or even possible) and that we have conflated the two views: Keeping government out of the arts will somehow drain all the political content out of art — and that's a good thing, because we wouldn't want anybody portraying anything that might offend somebody.
I say, offend 'em anyway.
And first of all: why is someone who disagrees with me "offended"? Don't we just disagree? Have I done something morally objectionable by taking a position that a Republican might disagree with?
A case in point: Personally, I am strongly pro-gay marriage. I think it is a national embarrassment that this issue has not yet been settled at the federal level. I believe that even in my own lifetime, when I'm way elderly, people will look back and LAUGH at all those fools, circa 2000-2010, who somehow thought that pairs of married men (and women) would uproot our civilization.
Having said that, I would WELCOME a play that explored the attitudes of anti-gay marriage folks and (more or less) concluded that there was some merit to their beliefs. Would I be offended? No, but I'd sure be in disagreement.

We don't want to federally fund the arts because the arts might get too political. But why shouldn't the arts be political? Everything's political. And conservatives will lament how all the plays would have a leftward bias. Well, sez I, write some damn plays. A drama about how gun ownership should not be limited; about the dangers of Big Government; about the benefits of the American troops' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan; about liberals don't know what patriotism means; and so on. I'd absolutely go. If theater is too liberal, then conservatives should write some plays to correct that bias -- and liberals should have the integrity not to exercise "political correctness"* and engage with plays that present views with which they might disagree.
(*A term I disparage, because there's just as much partisan, sanctimonious thinking on the right as on the left -- in some quarters, if you advocate increased government in any connection, increased taxation on anyone, any form of gun registration, any kind of government subsidies of the arts -- well, then, you're just a Commie pinko.)

As a nation, we are afraid of controversial topics in the arts, because the arts arouse emotion, and people get riled up, but they — we, most of us — have retreated into our little partisan enclaves (I listen to NPR and read the N.Y. Times and want to hurl things at the TV when O'Reilly and Hannity appear, so I'm guilty, too) .. but we ought to break out of those isolation chambers and engage with the other side. Why EXACTLY am I liberal? Why EXACTLY do I disagree with conservative positions on X, Y and Z?

I strongly believe in being aware of conservative arguments on lots of issues; better to know what they're up to, and not just to know how to refute them -- but also to help myself articulate my own views. That's why Laura Miller's advice at Salon to "read a book you think you'll hate in 2010" is good.

Fewer people have meaningful training in debate-style, arguing-on-both-sides discussion. There's too much black-and-white, partisan oversimplification going on out there. Theater that leads to discussion and meaningful, respectful disagreement could increase our civic engagement.

Now that I think about my headline for this post: It's just like Reagan's plan to reduce government by starving it. I think there are powerful people who would prefer the arts to just go away -- certainly the controversial kind. Better to have just nice, pleasant, inoffensive plays and books and paintings. Better not to rock the boat. Times are so hard, you know.

Dominic Maxwell's analysis in the London Times of the success of Lucy Prebble's Enron makes some of the same points that I make here, especially in the section entitled "Do Republicans love their children, too?" (And see the comments below.)

Labels: ,


At January 08, 2010 11:21 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with it all is that the parties are not representative of liberals and conservative points of view. Nor even of a majority of the US population. Let's not forget, that Gay marriage was permitted in California (a historically blue state) and the same public that voted in Obama, voted out gay marriage. How does that happen unless the parties are skewed? Democrats are hardly liberal on human, social issues as the vote in California proved. The only common liberal view point is a redistribution of wealth. A bunch of Robinhoods taking from the rich and giving to the hood. They may support minority races (hispanic and black in California) but those minorities apparently do not support the gay minority as a the vote also proved. Secondly, I doubt seriously that many of the Republican (fiscally conservative) agree with the Christian right and many do support gay marriage. Here's a shocker. Gay marriage is outlawed in California with a vote and approved in a strongly, historically Republican state in The Bible belt (Iowa). Liberals approve socialist behaviour (Unions, National healthcare, social security) and to an extreme communist behavior. Labor Unions encourage workers to vote democratic though I doubt the steel workers union join Gay Right rallies in overwhelming majority. The country needs the liberal party, the covervative party, the communist party, the socialist party, the Christian party, The Green party and get the fringe out of these two parties. Nothing hurts Republicans worse than the bible thumping right and nothing hurts the democratic party more than communists and over-breeding tree huggers. Who saves whales while pumping out six kids and trying to get more welfare and food stamps to trade for booze and cigarettes? Who needs an anarchist in a party, the democrats? And who needs Muslim bashers in a party, the republicans? No wonder nobody can agree on anything between Republicans and Democrats! The lines are not clear. And we're talking about the arts as determined by democrat and republican parties??? What? Hold on let me drink a few (burp) more beers before I even try to address funding for the arts by the government! Yeah, go Uncle Sam - borrow billions from the tax-payor owned banks at 4% and give it to inner city theatrical productions as unemployment spirals into the abyss (burp, slurp). I love a good Bud. This Bud's for you! I'm sorry - am I pontificating? If I am, (burp) well... shit!! I hope to hell I haven't fwording offended anybody. Damn, f beer! I need a shot after this. Oh, you thought I meant whiskey f-NO. Get me a shot of f-ing heroin on this note. Wholly shit!! Excuse this theatrical monologue. I sure as hell hope I haven't offended any caucasions with my drunken Asian rant. I mean everyone knows China's out to getcha, right? Now get out of here and go buy something at f-ing Wallmart. I'm out. Cold. But wait! Here's a great f-ing idea! All the gays in S.F., L.A., S.D. and Sacramento California should get the hell out of that Lib Ass California move their gay asses to freaking Demoine Iowa where they have f-ing rights (burp). That'll show 'em!

At January 10, 2010 9:27 AM , Blogger Bobo the Theater Ho said...

So I gather that Democrats are radical socialists who are hypocritical on gay rights. Ahem.
Anyway, on another note -- in Dominic Maxwell's examination in the London Times of a play that's coming to Broadway in April and may be made into a film, Lucy Prebble's Enron -- there's a section entitled "Do Republicans Love Their Children, Too?" that makes some of the same points that I was about the need for plays that explore both political sides of an issue. Prebble's play (which comes out in paperback on May 15) apparently doesn't just condemn in hindsight -- it tries to make Jeff Skilling look sexy, alluring. What if you were there and you were tempted by untold riches? Maybe you and I would have been sucked into the Enron cult, too.

At January 14, 2010 6:24 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahem! Spoken like a true democrat with blinders on! No question the Ho's a party man! It's funny how dems only key into the elements of a paragraph that offend their blinded beliefs and Republicans do the same. If you're going to make a political comment or deduce something from a rambling rant, for example: "So I gather that Democrats are radical socialists who are hypocritical on gay rights. Ahem." Back it with facts Bo Ho! Fact: Democratic California voted out gay marriage from the law. Fact: Democratic California did that in the same year they put Obama in office. Fact: Democratic California needs, requires, MUST HAVE the Hispanic vote to pass anything. Fact: The vast majority of the California Hispanic public don't give a shit about gay rights or would they call them Maricón rights. Fact: the Republican State of Iowa allows and recognizes gay marriage. Fact: Even the most obnoxious and foul of Republicans endorse gay marriage (Cheney). Okay, blame his lesbian daugther, but it's a fact Jack none-the-less. Do more in your blog than just make blanket generalizations without facts. Don't just deduce what personally offended your democratic sensibilities. I thought you said you would welcome conservative points of view???? NOT. And that wasn't even a conservative POV. It was more of an anarchist POV.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home