The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?
by Patrick CourrielcheI recently wrote a critique of the art community’s lack of dissent in the face of many controversial decisions made by the current administration. Entitled “The Artist Formerly Known as Dissident,” one of the key points argued in the article was the potential danger associated with the use of the art community as a tool of the state. Little did I know how quickly this concern would be elevated to an outright probability.
Sometime between when I finished the critique and when it went live online, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries “to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.”
Now admittedly, I’m a skeptic of BIG government. In my view, power tends to overreach whenever given the opportunity. It’s a law of human nature that has very few exceptions. That said, it felt to me that by providing issues as a cynosure for inspiration to a handpicked arts group – a group that played a key role in the President’s election as mentioned throughout the conference call – the National Endowment for the Arts was steering the art community toward creating art on the very issues that are currently under contentious national debate; those being health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation. Could the National Endowment for the Arts be looking to the art community to create an environment amenable to the administration’s positions?
Before arguing why I see this as a gross overreach of the National Endowment for the Arts and its mission, a brief background on the conference call is needed.
On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!”
I learned after the conference call that there were approximately 75 people participating, including many well respected street-artists, filmmakers, art galleries, music venues, musicians and music producers, writers, poets, actors, independent media outlets, marketers, and various other professionals from the creative community. I suppose I was invited because of my work in creating arts initiatives, but being a former employer of the NEA’s Director of Communications was probably a factor as well.
Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.
It sounded, how should I phrase it…unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me.
The people running the conference call and rallying the group to get active on these issues were Yosi Sergant, the Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons.
We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us. The now famous Obama “Hope” poster, created by artist Shepard Fairey and promoted by many of those on the phone call, and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song and music video were presented as shining examples of our group’s clear role in the election.
Obama has a strong arts agenda, we were told, and has been very supportive of both using and supporting the arts in creative ways to talk about the issues facing the country. We were “selected for a reason,” they told us. We had played a key role in the election and now Obama was putting out the call of service to help create change. We knew “how to make a stink,” and were encouraged to do so.
Throughout the conversation my inner dialogue was firing away questions so fast that the NRA would’ve been envious. Is this truly the role of the NEA? Is building a message distribution network, for matters other than increasing access to the arts and arts education, the role of the National Endowment for the Arts? Is providing the art community issues to address, especially those that are currently being vehemently debated nationally, a legitimate role for the NEA? I found it highly unlikely that this was in their original charter, so I checked.
The NEA published a book entitled National Endowment for the Arts: A History 1965-2008 early this year. Combing through the 40+ year history of the NEA, I could not find a single instance of the agency creating or supporting a national initiative that encouraged the art community to address current issues under contentious debate.
The NEA was created by the Congress of the United States and President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 as “a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.” The issue of health care is curiously absent from this description on their website.
So I’d like to start a little debate and ask you, the reader, the same question. Do you think it is the place of the NEA to encourage the art community to address issues currently under legislative consideration?
And before answering, let me give you my take.
The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation – a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?
Discussed throughout the conference call was a hope that this group would be one that would carry on past the United We Serve campaign to support the President’s initiatives and those issues for which the group was passionate. The making of a machine appeared to be in its infancy, initiated by the NEA, to corral artists to address specific issues. This function was not the original intention for creating the National Endowment for the Arts.
A machine that the NEA helped to create could potentially be wielded by the state to push policy. Through providing guidelines to the art community on what topics to discuss and providing them a step-by-step instruction to apply their art form to these issues, the “nation’s largest annual funder of the arts” is attempting to direct imagery, songs, films, and literature that could create the illusion of a national consensus. This is what Noam Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent.”
Now, if you are for the issues being pursued by the current administration, you may be inclined to think favorably of what I am labeling “overreach.” What a powerful weapon to fight those that are opposed to our ideas, you may think. For those in this camp I ask you this – will you feel the same when the opposition has access to the same machine? If history is any indication, the pendulum swings both ways. Is persuasion what the originators envisioned when they brought the legislation that created the NEA to the floor of Congress?
As a member of the art community for the past 14 years, I raise these questions only after careful consideration. Many of those on the call are from my hometown. My position here should not be construed as a personal attack on the call participants. Many of those on the call worked tirelessly on the Obama campaign and are proud of their victory. They look at this as an opportunity to be involved directly with the White House, which is an exciting prospect to many in the art world whose experience with the government may be limited to paying taxes and voting.
But the art community must put this excitement aside and ask itself about the proper role of government agencies created to promote the arts. And if put in the wrong hands, could a message machine built by the NEA be used in a nefarious manner not currently foreseeable?
In an attempt to recapture the excitement and enthusiasm of the campaign the organizers of this conference call have entered murky waters, a strait that the NEA cannot afford to swim. Previously shackled with the controversy over the Serrano and Mapplethorpe images of 1989 that escalated to a debate over its very existence, the NEA needs to stay far away from any questions of impropriety.
There is no shortage of problems within the art community that the NEA could tackle. Museums across the country have been hit hard by the financial crisis. Their trusts and portfolios have seen massive declines. Donations, attendance, and memberships are down. Many have had to reduce exhibition hours due to staffing and budget reductions. And countless art galleries, the lifeblood and revenue stream for many artists, have closed or are on the brink of closure. Rallying the art community around these issues seems a more appropriate use of its resources.
I’m not a “right-wing nut job.” It just goes against my core beliefs to sit quietly while the art community is used by the NEA and the administration to push an agenda other than the one for which it was created. It is not within the National Endowment for the Arts’ original charter to initiate, organize, and tap into the art community to help bring awareness to health care, or energy & environmental issues for that matter; and especially not at a time when it is being vehemently debated. Artists shouldn’t be used as tools of the state to help create a climate amenable to their positions, which is what appears to be happening in this instance. If the art community wants to tackle those issues on its own then fine. But tackling them shouldn’t come as an encouragement from the NEA to those they potentially fund at this coincidental time.
And if you think that my fear regarding the arts becoming a tool of the state is still unfounded, I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “
Is the hair on your arms standing up yet?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
1,077 Comments
Those are beautiful portraits of Obama.
I think I may barf now.
A resounding "NO!"
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
how is hell work out for you? I see you have internet access, I hope it is dial-up.
This is both an enlightening and disturbing post, Patrick. Lili Riefenstahl came to mind. I also noticed you added the qualifier "I'm not a right wing nut job" like a pre-emptive strike. You must know by now, Patrick, that just by taking the position you did, you are by default a "right wing nut job" to the Left, and NEA will despise you for exposing them.
Like you didn't already know, huh, you rightie wack job? Never mind that government policy and art should never mix. You pointed out the truth of the matter, and that's unforgivable to Left. On the bright side, you have chosen sanity, yet another unforgivable offense to the Left. Welcome to the ranks of The Hated and the Accursed
This strikes me a idealogical WPA projects. It it doubtful that the art that results will be about American optimism, but about Democrat and Obama optimism.
The iconography of the leader is a scary thing for most Americans. True believers aside, the government has no business funding this stuff.
I think right-leaning artists should begin applying for NEA grants claiming they wish to create a series of works which will throw light onto the true spirit and character of our new president… all couched in glowing terms, of course.
They should then use the grant money to produce anti-Obama agitprop, bold, frightening, hollow-eyed images of a narcissistic cult leader.
Huh… who would have thunk… the federal government using the arts and it's foundation as a way to create propoganda… Hmmm…. sooner or later resistance will be futile….
This is pretty scary but not surprising in this day and age. And I wonder if you could ever reason with these people that this is completely inappropriate. I've decided for sanity's sake that you just can't reason with unreasonable people. Logic and common sense are not high on their list of attributes. My husband's grandfather was a folk potter. He received a NEA award years ago. A very humble & practical man (who didn't see himself as an artist), said he really didn't want the award – until they told him it included a cash award. He "weren't no dummy" as they'd say in his neck of the woods. It is shameful to see now that the NEA is just promoting propoganda now.
“This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “
is this robot-talk?! wait. obama-bot talk. there it is….
I know this is not completely true, but isn't this just making it official that artists really are a liberal propaganda machine?
Okay. We've got the big posters all over the place. Ramping up for the domestic army. Starting to run businesses. Healthcare next. Environmental purity? Check. Now if we can just elimintate dissent. How about a TV show or a new law regulating radio stations? Hmmm… What color shirts–Red, white and blue is so jingoistic. Orange and purple? Ooh. Brown.
I was never under the impression that the NEA was a politically neutral organization prior to the advent of the Obama adminsitration, so this doesn't seem that surprising. The fact that they are more openly voicing their agenda after the great leap left that this country took in Nov. '08 seems almost expected.
The lesson for libertarian-leaning people is that when we regain power, instiututional parasites such as the NEA, the ACLU, ACORN et al must all be defunded and decertified. Let liberals fund whatever private organizations they prefer with their own monies, but these elitists need off the government teat.
The more politically active an artist is, the less of an artist they are.
[...] post: The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Took me a couple of seconds, but that is a good one!
sounds good to me. It's the same way dems get into power.
The true conservative critique of "public funding for the arts" has always been based on the proposition that the iea is an absurdity. A true "artist" is an individual with a vision that he/she seeks to make real. Ideally there should be nothing between that vision and the realization. However when public funding is involved the initial purpose of the artist is not to create but rather to obtain a government grant. It becomes part of a bureaucratic process that everyone complains about but everyone accepts including the artists themselves. I know there are supposed to be safeguards to protect the integrity of the work but, as a former bureaucrat and grant-writer, I know that these can be easily circumvented by creative administrators. I suppose my question is why artists themselves aren't opposed to the NEA as an institution that is inimical to their own interests and creativity?.
White with the Obama wavy flag circle logo on the front.
and so begins the Official Ministry for Government Propaganda.
Well now isn’t that special. Like was stated up-thread all public money for the NEA, ACORN, PBS, NPR, etc. needs to be cut off. If these “artist” can produce something that make it in the Free Market have at it, if not get a job.
I appreciate your concern here Patrick, but if these artists are too naive or too in awe of "The Great One" to see that they are being used as simple tools of the state then who cares. Their blind devotion will bring about their own demise. As people tire of their politically driven artistic messages they will certainly lose the eye of the public, but more importantly to them, the eye of their colleagues. As the political climate in this country changes as you correctly stated it would in your article, so too will their opinions and thus representations of “The Great One”. All of a sudden the funding that was so easily attainable will dry up leaving these artists with no means of support or public venue in which to speak.
How many aggrandizing portraits of Obama can exist before things start to eerily resemble the public displays of state sponsored phony adulation for "Dear Leader" like we see in North Korea, old Iraq, China, Venezuela, and anywhere else tyranny has reigned over it's people? Eventually the public will recognize this and the artists will lose all credibility. The cynic in me wants to see this unabashed adoration for this man increased to ever-higher levels even as he further squanders America's wealth, power, and prestige throughout the world.
Being duped into your own self-destruction is a beautiful display of life imitating art, don't you think?
and now, are officially and openly on the government payroll…
This also begs the question if, when Bush was still in office, the NEA got together artists to create art in support of the Iraq war, or private health accounts, or privatizing individual Social Security accounts, that there would be such an outcry from the left that construction companies would have no shortage of bricks.
Also, I wonder if they'd fund an artist who created an Obama portrait covered in elephant dung.
What's being described in this article is so very, very wrong.
Is any organization politically neutral? I know organizations can promote they are non-partisan, or what ever cute verbage they can come up with. But its basest form, politics occurs when ever two or more people disagree, and have to come up with some way to decide what to do. National politics is just that contention at the national level.
And since people will always disagree, the question is who can convince the most people that their suggestion is the best option. There's a reason even garden clubs have bylaws and elected positions.
Here's some more art for you…
Why not? I can think of several far more egregious abuses of government funding that somehow slipped past them.
This sounds dangerously cultish. When government employees begin to talk like Scientologists, the time has come to be afraid.
"It is not within the National Endowment for the Arts’ original charter to initiate, organize, and tap into the art community to help bring awareness to health care, or energy & environmental issues…" Does anyone think this actually matters to this administration? Heck, they've already shown a complete lack of regard for actual law. Why should a little ol' charter for the NEA stand in their way?
There was a reason Obama's campaign posters so resembled the old Communist propaganda posters. Expect to see a lot more of it, comrades.
No, not white. Jeremiah Wright and Skip Gates would complain.
So, in a nutshell, Team Obama plans on using the NEA for propaganda. And like the tools they are, they will probably march along to Axelrod's and Rahmbo's orders.
Defund the NEA now. Artists have to make their own way like anybody else.
BTW – If you have ever been confounded by the permutations of the art world try to find a copy of Tom Wolfe's masterly short book "The Painted Word" (1975). It's a little dated now but still a side-splittingly hilarious skewering of some of the more outrageous practices of the art world or "Cultureburg." I've always found it a comfort when I see some amazingly awful piece of "public art" being erected in a city center "made posible by the support of the National Endowment for the Arts." You'll never look at this stuff the same way after you've read it.
Oh right, sorry, since I oppose the President's socialism, I'm a racist. So it slipped my mind. In order to not be a racist, I need to spend more time identifying my racist tendencies.
How about rainbow? No wait. Then I'm a homophobe. Man, this is harder than it looks.
How much endowment money do you think I could get for the "Piss Obama"? I'd like to be an artist too.
I've already got the beer and the mason jar…
BIG FRAKIN BOWL OF LIB INSULT! Anyone recall German propaganda machine in the 1930s will see immediately what kind of absolutely arrogant and venal idea this is. Just the mere thought of the application to sponsor only ONE side of the partisan debate is not just egregious but horrifying. In the 21st century we ought to have learned our lesson — or at least, the administration ought to consider the slippery slope upon which they now walk. How DARE they!??
Artists will create regardless and this direct assault–and I choose the word carefully–is more than wrong, more than noxious: Insulting to any artist and to any audience! This maligns the very virtue of bi-partisan propoganda. It is hubris. It will beget nemesis. And if they try to censor the OTHER SIDES of the debate?
Hell hath no fury.
I think the biggest problem is defining ones self as an artist. I think there can be art. I think there can also be artist, but that title will be reserved for dead artist after thier work has stood the test of time. Anyone who describes ones self as an artist is doing so for reasons of ego alone. There can be painters, writers etc. but I think the term artist should NEVER be self imposed. If you are a painter, actor, poet etc label yourself as that, it is much more honest. This is not meant as an insult in any way, it is just my own humble opinion. I play several musical instruments(badly) but have never self described myself as a musician or artist.
Because the NEA will pay them thousands of dollars to indulge in their most solipsistic and juvenile urges.
I thought that was MSNBC's official title.
First you support and encourage the artists.
Then you cajole and prod them.
Then you bind them and twist their arms.
And if they still won't cooperate you censure and ban them.
There were a lot of puzzled looks on artists' faces on the march to the gulags.
Can we have some Entartete Kunst, please? Anyone?
Herr Goebbels is alive and well.
The art community (useful idiots) is now being used as a tool by this administration.
Art community can suck it.
Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement;
She sure gets around in this administration check out her bio sometime. There is a story to be told.
Yes, just lovely. And so inspiring. I would change the wording slightly, though. Instead of 'Hope' the titles should say 'Dope'.
Saddam my friend, those are indeed glorious portraits of dear leader Obama. I wonder if he uses the same artist as Kim Jung Il?
Rope-A-Dope don't give me Hope. Negative Change don't give me spare change. Lovely, I think most of the Obama 'art' is now being sold on the Home Shopping Channel. Very emotionally iconic and faux. Just like most of the products you see on TV shopping channels. So now they need a labeling enhancement "As Seen On TV" to be just perfect. I hear NBC also offers this 'art' in their online store. Billy Mays would be proud.
Patrick thank you for sharing this here. It has become creepily apparent that this Administration is sociopathic and will use whatever and whoever is needed on the march to destroying America. Yah the hair on my arm is standing up!! No I don't think the NEA should be engaging in this, but I believe the group has long been a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda.
Wow, did I get a massive blast of deja vu as I was reading this blog! The apparent philosophy of using artists as tools of the State, and the pictures used to illustrate the blog really took me back to when I spent a college semester in Moscow in the '80s (back when it was the capital of the Soviet Union, and seemed like it always would be). I think it would be *very* interesting to have some side-by-side juxtaposing of the Obama images with some of the Soviet era art – pictures being worth a thousand words, and all that. But in any case, the similarity is pretty creepy.
[...] Read the rest here: The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion? [...]
Creepy crawly classic totalitarianist tactics. Those who do not study history, and all that . . .
You took the words right out of my mouth, John. Patrick, regardless of your actual political positions, you've stepped over the line and questioned the administration of The One, so the facts of the discussion no longer matter. You are now a racist, right-wing nutjob. All that remains is for your new label to be declared official by the media.
I don't think I necessarily agree with this statement, but I would argue that the more politically active an artist is, the less of an artist they *need to be*. I've seen some truly awful artists, people significantly lacking in skill, but because their artistic statements resonate with the correct crowd, they are celebrated.
NEA: END. IT. NOW.
Patrick, I really appreciate this thoughtful article. As an art school graduate myself, the question of the NEA's role in our society and with regards to our government is a matter which is of interest to me. I appreciate the role of an entity within the government that sponsors the creation of high quality artwork. Unfortunately, the sort of work I would imagine enhancing American citizens' lives is not generally the sort of work which seems to earn the NEA's attention.
I make no bones about the fact that I am aesthetically and philosophically opposed to a great deal of Modern and Postmodern Art, partly because it tends to specifically and exclusively cater to those with an art education, the only people equipped or inclined to appreciate the work in any sense; I am far more a fan of the Art Nouveau ethic, which sought to enrich the common person's daily life with things of beauty. These are generalizations, of course, and I admit to my own biases in regards to abstract work, which many people likely do not share (and have, and will debate with me). I would prefer to see the NEA funding projects which would elevate our gaze to the nobler aspects of humanity, celebrate the beauty inherent within Creation, and beautify our public buildings, parks, and other structures. While the definition of "beauty" is undeniably somewhat subjective, I think it can successfully be argued that many public art structures created under the auspices of the NEA are an eyesore rather than a benefice.
In any case, I agree with your assessment. I believe that the role of the NEA should be cultural, with an eye toward supporting art education and the like, but not political. Judging from the language you quoted in that proposal, it sounds highly doubtful that they would have supported any artwork which was critical of the current administration's position on any of these debated topics. I am wholeheartedly in favor of political artwork, but when the government is the one making the commissions and writing the checks, any pretense toward "supporting the arts" is simply a cover story for a propaganda arm of the government.
As you rightly point out, even if I were a staunch supporter of President Obama and his policies, I would have to worry about how such an organization would be used by the next Administration, or the one after that. I personally believe that one of the Left's problems is a refusal to examine the long view of things (or, at the least, to take an overly optimistic view of human nature), so I worry that even this point of reason would be disregarded in the enthusiasm of the moment. But I hope that many more on the other side of the political fence (which, regrettably, the vast majority of my fellow artists seem to inhabit) will come to the same conclusions that you have.
This just gives me the creeps. Most of the artistic community are liberals and they are smitten with BO. What are the chances of critical thinking in that love affair? BO has broken many promises to them and they still think he is the ONE. They will do anything for him. Yuck! The best idea has already been stated by Squires….infiltration by the few, but proud conservative artists.
Sorry. That's LENI Riefenstal. For some reason, I keep getting her mixed up with Lilly von Shtupp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-pmpgrYQgs
Great article, Patrick.
Besides the charter of the NEA missing the "promotion of healthcare", how about the absence in the US Constitution of Congress' ability to create and fund the NEA to begin with?
kadaka, many here at Big Hollywood are artists. The author of this piece is as well. But I see a difference between artists and tools. Those guys are tools. We are artists. Ya got all that now
Satan has me riding down a waterslide with broken glass on it into a lake of fire over and over again. Not quite the paradise as advertised by my muslim brothers. By the way, Satan has a T3 connection.
Not only has the hair on my arms stood up, my stomach just turned over. God, what a Frankenstein has been created. Sounds like a subject for a painting!
The great Russian classical dancers, (including the "Big Three", Baryshnikov, Makarova, and Nureyev) as well as the impresario Diaghelev, and the founder of the NYC Ballet, Balanchine, got themselves out of Bolshivik and Soviet Russia precisely because of the artistic straight-jackets the politburo imposed on the entire cultural community. Imagine being the Artistic Director of the Bolshoi Ballet, the largest dance company in pre-glasnost times, (275 dancers) , and being told to compose a ballet celebrating the fact that the government has built and opened up a power plant on the Angara River! Whoa! What are we going to do over here? Make a ballet celebrating the installation and operation of a new set of wind turbines off the Florida Coast?! Gee whiz! Sign me up to make some fashionable hemp and bamboo tutus while your at it…Good Lord have mercy!
P.S, Thanks for a clear and unvarnished article, Patrick. You are speaking Truth to power.
It amazes me that the people most likely to accuse the political right of conspiracy and propaganda are the exact ones most likely to enthusiastically and unabashedly participate in their own version of it.
I am a sculptor of marble and there are very few of us left to pass on what we know. I work for myself and for my own reasons and while the temptation of 'free" health-care seems nice, I'm no fool. None of the artists I know have health care unless they work as instructors in a university or some other institution or are covered by a spouse and their job, they just don't make that much money by and large. I will add that the NEA doesn't fund any old "I'm an artist", they fund brand name artists who don't really need it anyway and a handful of the up and coming in-crowd and are thus considered irrelevant by most of us. The NEA is not just a traditional visual arts entity either, they fund scribblers, dancers, singers and actors far more than sculptors and I would argue that none of that has anything to do with Art. I am a sculptor of marble and I have no problem whatsoever spending months or years completing a piece because I am not making it for the NEA or anyone else,.. Ever..
Here's my take on the HOposter
Might I recommend to NEA and United We Stand et al the famed liberal artist and major Dennisk Kucinich fan, Faris Alkhateeb, to contribute to the ObamaMania cause?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/0...
The Government should not be funding art or media, NPR and PBS included.
As an artist and someone who received an art education from a major university, I can tell you that the most vocal people in the art world are simply dishonest. The phrase "self delusion" wouldn't be accurate, since most of these people know that they're lying. They are lying about promoting "progress", challenging the status quo, and the pursuit of heightened understanding. I have only found a handful of people out of the art world who are genuine and who actually value the things that I mentioned above.
Why the lie? They need purpose in their lives, and to be a part of something. They are not truth-seekers; they are joiners. The largest influencer of this need is the 1960's counter culture and the professors produced from that era. By romanticizing the height of counterculture, the art world has embraced an unstable, counter-intuitive dogma, and their reasons for doing so can be reduced down to the fact that artists have very needy egos.
Hmmm……………..another takeover. "Art was considered to be one of the most important elements to strengthening the Third Reich and purifying the nation. Political aims and artistic expression became one. The task of art in the Third Reich was to shape the population's attitudes by carrying political messages with stereotyped concepts and art form. "
Well said!
So I guess the NEA wont be giving out grants to performance artists burning an Obama/Fairey poster on video while the old Soviet anthem plays in the background?
You'll have to give it another name, or at least not mention the title you have in mind, on the application.
Hmmm… "OuiOui Obama!"
I don't know if I'd worry too much about a Republican administration using the NEA for nefarious conservative causes because Republicans haven't a clue as to how culture drives politics. Democrats understand this dynamic because the cultural influence professions are what they used to get themselves the keys to the kingdom. Republicans think that if you write fat checks to Heritage Foundation that great art, great films, great novels and serious journalism will fall to the earth like manna from heaven. Republicans would be scratching their heads, wondering why the NEA isn't making grants to AEI, Manhattan Institute or CATO, never realizing that some people don't see a treatise discussing Calvin Coolidge's domestic policies as art (though Manhattan produces a mighty fine journal with excellent contributions on art, not the least of which comes from Andrew Klavan).
What Republicans might do is raise a fuss about the NEA's existence. They would properly raise some well reasoned arguments, supported by plenty of historical research that the NEA is beyond the Constitution's scope. Then they would be beat into submission by all the folks on the call Patrick wonderfully described, and they would crawl back into their legislative offices, go back to the AEI, Heritage & CATO conferences and keep the taxpayer's dollars flowing into art programs that depicted America's existence as a blight on the world.
Now if folks saw a concerted effort by those who identify with the Republican banner actually engaging the cultural influence professions, i.e., arts, entertainment, education and journalism then the threat of Republican control of a propagandist NEA would have some teeth. Otherwise, it is just a silly joke and the Left knows it.
The very first time I saw the HOPE poster, my aesthetic gut reaction was "fascist".
This article does absolutely nothing to ameliorate that reaction.
There is no justification for the existence of the NEA. None. And this proves only what I knew twenty years ago..
You must be tired.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion? bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche – view page – cached I recently wrote a critique of the art community’s lack of dissent in the face of many controversial decisions made by the current administration. — From the page [...]
[...] community consultant” Patrick Courrielche, who supports those Obama Joker posters, the NEA organized a recent conference call to assemble an army of artists who will maybe possibly (hopefully?) use their work to inspire service in key social arenas, such as health [...]
[...] community consultant” Patrick Courrielche, who supports those Obama Joker posters, the NEA organized a recent conference call to assemble an army of artists who will maybe possibly (hopefully?) use their work to inspire service in key social arenas, such as health [...]
John, I agree, but…. The further away you get from "practical art" like pottery, blacksmithing, and quilt making, the more solidly you are in areas where making the appropriate liberal noises is the price of admission into the "honored presence of your fellow artists." Notice how actors and actresses with at least some success may "come out" as conservative, but just try being known as one before you even get your first job. Background fill for a commercial, maybe, provided you look good and won't be saying anything.
Oh, you say you're a conservative painter? Are you bonded and insured? Oh nevermind, our gallery looks fine, but you can leave your business card if we need some work done.
Instead of merely having an NEA grant and/or some other form of government assistance.
All Hail Obama!
All Hail the State!
First let me say I am an artist. Not just that, but a political artist. I DO NOT support the NEA. If you can't sell your work in the free market, you need to get a paying job. Period., There is no justification in the Constitution for the government to fund the arts. NONE.
I am furious. The level of arrogance and deviance being displayed by this administration and its followers is unacceptable. There is only one reason this kind of project would be sponsored by the government: State Propaganda. Like the Nazis, and the Communists, and every other tyrannical state with a creative class under its control.This is why the government should not be funding the arts. EVER.
Everyone here should be absolutely furious. Write your Congressmen, call your talk radio shows, write your editors, email this to everyone you know. Then go out, find Conservative artists who are trying to fight this administration through the appropriate means, and support their work. We are on the verge of loosing everything we have as Americans because there is no Conservative voice in the arts. It's not because there's no one out there producing the work. It's because Conservatives, particularly those with money and influence, are doing nothing to promote the artists who share their views.
I know many of you are hesitant to get your hands dirty by promoting propaganda, or satire. You need to get over it. NOW. This, like all things politically Conservative is why we are loosing the future of our country. We stand around complaining and whining; yet do nothing. Stop worrying about their 'feelings' or your image. The Progressives behind this little stunt have no respect for you, your ideas or your life. You could cater to their every whim, and the Left would still revile and denigrate you.
Either stop complaining and do something to fight this, or step aside for those of us who will. I have spent the last 7 years of my life building a Conservative portfolio of political paintings. I have spent the last year working every spare hour to promote that work. I write letters and send emails to no avail; because Conservatives don't care about art. Now, yet again, we are left standing on the sidelines because the Left does not hold the same principles. You have freedom of speech too. Use it for something besides complaining.
frances@machinepolitick.com http://www.machinepolitick.com Liberatchik.com (If you are a Conservative artist, get in touch with me so we can fight this. I have already laid much of the groundwork to build a Conservative art Community. If Conservatives won't help us fund our efforts, perhaps we can come up with the means ourselves. If the government is funding art to promote itself, we're not far away from the government censoring work it finds 'objectionable'.)
I'm against most government funding for the arts. While it sounds good in theory, besides the obvious mishandling of funds that you mention, it's only the usual suspects that get the funding in the first place. An "artistic" in-crowd is the result and it should be anethema to any true artist. Bob Dylan didn't need no government assistance!
William F. Buckley once made a point to the effect that "Any organization that is not openly conservative in nature will be taken over by liberals". Organizations have bylaws and elected positions to steer them in the direction toward achieving their mission. Why should the mission of every organization be hijacked to advance the political beliefs of the elites running them? A garden club needn't have a political agenda, it's mission should be about gardening.
Isn't the head of the NEA a Republican?
AS an artist who wishes many of her artist friends were lucky enough to afford health insurance, I believe said artists can make the effort- without the aid of the government- to create their own dialogues. A friend of mine was bitten by a wild animal a couple months ago, and had to pay $2000 out of pocket to pay for the battery of rabies and other shots. If she had health insurance, it would have been far less. I would think that health care for people who typically couldn't afford it (cough cough artists, who often work in low income jobs like many other people in the US) would be invested in getting it. No one's forcing those artists to sign up for this, the artists are happy to do it because MAYBE it's something they believe in.
I think making a Call for artists to make propoganda can be a dangerous thing, but if you think about about it, there is already a huge, loud media machine (TV, radio, interwebs) working for the opposition, spreading fear and craziness about PROPOSALS that need to be DEBATED in a REASONABLE WAY.
Isn't it a little late in the day to argue that the NEA is "beyond the Constitution's scope"?
Our Federal Government has created a extra-consitutional system of taxation that acutally takes your money directly from your employer before you get it!. It's created a nationalized retirement fund that forces you to have a national ID number, and again conficscates your money before you receive it. Our Supreme Court has decided that local governments can confiscate your property, hand the title over ot another private citizen so he can develop it into a use that will generate more tax. Our Federal Govt. is controlling what wage you can agree to work for. Money for schools. Money for roads. It just took 750,000 million dollars from your grandchildren and gave it to the world's bankers because they made bad loans.
The NEA? That ship sailed a long time back
Perfect. It's even French…
Stan I agree with cutting off funds to NEA, PBS, Acorn, etal but I firmly believe the whole Non-profit tax exemption should be completely stopped/investigated before allowing NP/Tax Exemption for anything including religion and Trust Funds.
a c-o-l-d chill goes down my spine….
the specter of….19..
the official 'Fine Art photography' of the Dresden Flower Show…
the posters, sculpture, and venues of the Olympics…
The film….'Triumph of the Will'
all in the service of the state
The NEA is quickly (if not already) becoming the propaganda department of the Obama administration. That should be no surprise to anyone since all Marxist/facist/totalitarian regimes have one.
My tax dollars at work? Promoting agendas that I am opposed to?
The NEA should be abolished.
they're one of the wings. before this election, it's all been unofficial. Now they've stopped pretending.
didn't she use to slay vampires?
indeed, now they are getting direct marching orders.
ooo, I know, they can all wear propeller beanies to symbolize the wind turbines!
it's a standard tactic of the left. Accuse opponent's of the left of exactly what the left is doing day by day. Of course it helps when the MSM is in their pocket.
Sir – I respectfuly take my hat off to you. It's incredibly gratifying to see that someone understands what real personal "Integrity" actually is.
Hmmm! Let's review. Artists usually work alone and very few have health care coverage unless through a spouse or have another fulltime job, or belong to a union (musicians, actors, etc) and often the employment situation is spotty and coverage is not continuous. Non-profit arts groups that may or not receive grants from the NEA have small staffs, often cannot qualify for group coverage that require 3 or more employees, or that work part time and do not meet insurance criteria.
Health care is critical especially for the older artists and performers who actually need coverage.
Artists and the arts should engage in the issue – it's neither propaganda, spin, or politics. It's self preservation
[...] column at BigHollywood, by Patrick Courrielche is exceptional and thought [...]
I was talking with a friend of mine before the election and he said, "Have you seen those anti-Obama posters? They look like old Communist propaganda posters." I had to explain to him that those were PRO Obama posters. He took a second look and realized was right. He was shocked that the campaign was using that "look" to sell their candidate. He was also amazed that nobody seemed to notice the resemblence to the Communist propaganda. I told him "Oh, they probably notice. They just don't care."
Here's some side-by-side for you (along with some funny satirical posters as well):
http://rjart.blogspot.com/2008/05/political-poste...
"A government supported artist is an incompetent whore."
-Robert A. Heinlein
You must be logged in to post a comment.