A View From Stage Right; Part 2
by Larry O'ConnorPart 1 of what I half-jokingly called my “Manifesto.”
In a fiscal conservative’s utopian dreamworld, there would be no federal funding for the arts (or so many other government agencies or programs for that matter). This has been our position since the inception of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the early 1970’s. We’ve been saying that if elected, we would abolish these misguided programs and departments and bring our government back to the bare-bones constitutionally described role that it has and leave everything else to the states.
We’ve held the influential bully pulpit of the presidency for twenty of the past twenty-eight years, and what has happened to the NEA? It has grown. While we have stood on principle, we have also stood on the sidelines. The founding fathers would be outraged that the federal government is funding art with taxpayer money, but because we are on the sidelines standing on our principles, all of that money is going to the people creating art with messages that undermine our very existence.
But, I will also say that as long as the NEA exists, and as long as art is to receive funding by the government, we conservatives are on the wrong side of the argument. There is no way to combat the perception that we are “anti-art” or in favor of closing down the local museum by taking away its funding. I know, there ARE logical arguments to combat that perception, but again I ask: How have those arguments been working out for us?
The “Fairness Doctrine” for arts funding.
At the risk of enraging my fellow conservatives and all of you libertarians, I propose that we re-think our position on the NEA given the realities of the past 35 years. The NEA is here and it’s not going anywhere in the near future. And instead of ceding the cultural ground in our country to the leftist voices and artists who have won the lion’s share of all of that funding over the past three decades, it is time for conservatives to get our asses into the game. It’s time for a “fairness doctrine” of sorts when it comes to arts funding.
It’s the stated policy of the NEA to not discriminate due to the content of the art, so I say we make them put OUR money where their mouth is: Start doling out grants to playwrights and organizations who speak to so many Americans who are disenfranchised at the theatre.
The ESTABLISHMENT is the vast network of institutional theatres who have been living high on the hog in their publicly owned “Performing Arts Centers” or “Civic Theatre Complex” and managing their multi-million-dollar budgets under the guise of the altruistic and benign mission statement of “Bringing theatre to the community.” The Lincoln Center Theatre and The Public Theatre and the Center Theatre Group and the Seattle Rep and The Arena Stage and the Goodman theatre… those guys are “The Man” and I’m tired of “The Man” keeping my people down!
A few decades ago, there was a perceived crisis in the American Theatre for the lack of “voices” from black playwrights, Asian playwrights, female playwrights, Latino playwrights and gay playwrights. Almost every single college and major non-profit theatre dutifully set up specific, targeted programs to nurture these playwrights from these target groups, in the name of diversity.
Well my friends… what voices are missing in non-profit, regional theatres today? OURS! We need to demand a full-throated, passionate and intelligent depiction of the conservative “experience” in America. Also, don’t tell me that a revival of “Carousel” counts as a production reflecting “traditional American values.” The crises the theatre community in America faces today is not that there are not enough revivals.
The Audience is staying home.
Go back and look at the comments from my first post on this subject. You will hear from many people who say they are no longer going to the theatre. And, unlike the conventional wisdom we’ve been hearing at non-profit regional theatres for the past thirty years, it is NOT because of a lack of arts education in the schools. It is NOT because theatre is too inaccessible. The people are choosing not to go to the theatre because of WHAT is being produced. Because, believe it or not, my liberal friends, an adult person does not like to spend over $50 to sit in the dark and get yelled at or called names for two hours.
Unlike any other business, the theatre people who inhabit your local non-profit regional theatre do not look at their PRODUCT and wonder why people are not buying it. They first wonder what is wrong with YOU. I wonder how many folks in that regional theatre in your downtown actually reflect on the content of the plays they are producing and wonder if perhaps the answer to their “audience development” needs lies in the simple fact that about half of the people who live in their area are not interested in hearing the preaching contained within the stories they are telling, no matter how talented the people are in telling them.
For those of you who still find yourselves patronizing the regional non-profit in the major metropolis near your home, I bet you experience something like this: You get to your seat and open your program and three or four pieces of paper fly out. One is an envelope suitable for a donation. One is a letter from the development department or artistic director decrying the current state of funding for the arts. Maybe it mentions that audiences are declining because of the lack of arts in the schools. Another sheet is a survey they want you to fill out (they never give you a pen or pencil). The survey asks questions about your race and age and income and TV or film habits. You look around…. all of these pieces of paper are littered about the floor under the seats around you. Clearly part of the theatre’s green initiative.
Then the house lights dim to half and the excitement builds, it’s curtain time… get ready for the magic of theatre… I love the excitement of that moment, here comes the…. pre-show curtain speech? Oh no! The artistic director or a board member or someone from the theatre staff bounds onto the stage and starts the spiel. First, they describe all of the items that just dropped out of your program and they beg you to read them, fill them out and stick a check in them. These days they throw in a line like: “Thankfully, we now have a president dedicated to supporting the arts and theatre, but we still need …. blah blah blah” – It never occurs to these folks that half of the people in the seats didn’t vote for President Obama. And they often say in their speech some patronizing line like, “We are your theatre, we are a part of this community, we want to hear from you, please give us your feedback, theatre is a living breathing art form and your participation is vital to our growth…”
But, I have a secret to reveal to you: They don’t really think that. Oh, they want you to participate, by subscribing and donating, but it ends there. If you want to meet with someone and express your distaste with the artistic choices, good luck. If you want to complain that too often they bring left-wing politics onto the stage, you’re given lip service. Send a letter asking for an uplifting play that reflects the good in America or perhaps the heroic deeds of our military or perhaps a play reflecting on the negative consequences of the misogyny and patriarchy in the hip-hop culture, and the letter will be treated as a joke from a right-wing wacko bigot. Sometimes the letter is shown around the office and laughed at. They don’t really want to hear from you unless you are calling to make a donation or to tell them how great they are.
If it ever crosses the minds of the artistic decision makers at the major non-profit regional theatres that there may be something about the content of their plays that is negatively affecting their subscriptions or their single-ticket sales, they never consider that it might have to do with the overall message or themes of their plays. They think it’s because they are choosing plays that are risky or edgy and the older, conservative folks out there are just not ready or sophisticated enough to appreciate it. And then they dig in and take an artistic stand. But the problem with the plays has more to do with the themes and the political message they are trying to communicate, not with the edgy characters or nudity or cursing.
Example: A theatre produces “Angels in America” and receives complaint letters about the content. The powers that be at the theatre write it off to homophobia or gay-bashing or just some intolerance from the religious right and they are emboldened with the knowledge that they have made a bold artistic choice and brought this fresh and daring message to their community. But the objection to “Angels in America” that I have and that I’ve heard from others is not that it is fresh or daring, it’s that it’s the same old “Reagan did nothing about AIDS” and “Ray Cohn was an evil closet-case hypocrite” and “Mormons are repressed homophobes” kind of story that we’ve been hearing for years.
But, what if a theatre commissioned a play about the life of the heroic writer Randy Shilts? Shilts was an openly gay journalist who wrote “And The Band Played On” which chronicled the early days of the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco. He rightly campaigned for the closing of gay bath houses as a logical way to help stop the spread of HIV and he was very vocal in his opposition of the trend to “out” prominent but closeted gay and lesbian actors and politicians. For his efforts he was spat upon on Castro Street. Bob Ross, editor and publisher of the Bay Area Reporter, described Shilts as a traitor to his own kind. This would be a play that deals with the same subject matter as “Angels” but it would take a different political perspective. Most of those conservatives complaining about “Angels” would not complain about this play, I guarantee you that the vast number of complaints would come from the LGBT community and GLAAD and all of those other acronym agencies paid to say the same thing.
Trouble is, this play does not exist. Nor does a play exist about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the single most significant international event in the past fifty years. Nor does a play exist about the heroism of our military fighting in Iraq, or about the negative repercussions of abortion in America over the past thirty years. Nor is there a play written in the past twenty years in America showing a member of the Catholic clergy in an unambiguously positive light (unless a drunk priest is there for comic effect). These plays don’t exist because the environment in the artistic corridors are not interested in telling these stories.
******
I promised a solution to this problem in my last post, and I have a few humble suggestions. I’m looking forward to the next round of comments, e-mails, and Facebook messages with your ideas:
A Modest Proposal
I maintain that at the root of this problem is a problem of equal employment.
I remember attending a symposium where a bunch of theatre professionals were getting together to talk about how to get a new audience or keep their existing audience and it was all about educational programs and free tix for children and adding more writing programs for African-American playwrights and I wanted to get up on the stage and say: “Please stand up if you voted Democrat in the last presidential election”… I had no doubt most of the room would stand up… Then I would say… “Look around you… the last presidential election (it was Bush/Gore) was almost exactly 50/50. Now, one of two things is happening here… either your organizations are not ideologically inclusive and that is reflected in your programming and how you represent yourself to your community of ticket-buyers, or some of you are afraid to sit down right now and reveal yourselves as Republicans… either way, we have a BIG problem!”
How can we truthfully say that we are a part of a community and we reflect the sensibilities and tell stories that emotionally move the members of that community when our organizations are staffed with people whose views only reflect half of the community? We can’t, and we don’t. And the results are affecting the bottom line.
Theatres should consider creating a special position, an “ombudsman,” who speaks for that 50% who might have a problem with the message the theatre is putting out. They can also respectfully and sensitively respond to the complaints that might come in and then actually communicate those complaints effectively to the powers that be at the organization. They could also set up after-show dialogues with the writers and encourage people to voice their annoyance at the preaching they are receiving from the stage. I guarantee you that after about a year after the silently suffering patrons are empowered, programming changes will begin to take effect.
Another crucial role for the “ombudsman” would be to solicit plays from a conservative point of view, identify a handful of them that are worthy of development and work with those playwrights to have, at the very least, a main-stage staged reading open to the public so that the artistic decision makers could actually see these plays up on their feet and in front of an audience. Put them in the position where they must justify why they are not producing these plays so we no longer hear quotes like this:
André Bishop, artistic director of Lincoln Center Theater for 16 years, said he reads about five plays a week, and from thousands over the years he could not think of a single one that would fall on the right end of the spectrum. “I’m trying to think if I ever read a play that I would call conservative,” he said, pausing a few moments. “I don’t think I’ve come across one.”
Mr. Bishop, if you agree that this is a problem, hire someone to actively find and nurture these plays. If you had gone two decades without ever seeing a gay play or a black play or a Latino play or a feminist play it would not have been acceptable. So, now what are you going to do about us conservatives?
The Artistic Director and the Board President should introduce this conservative watchdog with their arms around him saying “this is our guy and a valuable member of this team.” The Jackie Robinson of conservative theatre could emerge hence.
The above concept is modest because it really amounts to token change, but, it’s more than we have now and it’s pretty easy to achieve. The ideal situation would be to achieve a little more than just an evening of staged readings with the hope of getting a full production. Ideally, the plays in question would be developed and mounted in full production from the get go.
******
So, beyond my “Modest Proposal” I also have a “Not-So-Modest Proposal” and I have “A Guargantuan Proposal.” Looks like there’s gonna be a Part 3!
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
60 Comments
Very well thought out and reasoned argument. Unfortunately, in our wonderful stimulus (or 'spendulus', or 'porkulus'- whatever you care to call it) there is hundreds of millions for NEA funding; plus more $$$ for PBS- which of course would NEVER be covered by Fairness Doctrine (or the even more onerous 'local content and diversity ownership' clause, compliments our own Il Sen. Durbin) so while the taxpayer pays, the content will always be secular, atheistic, and socialistic… love the proposal, though.
Never see the light of day.
The NEA is here and it’s not going anywhere in the near future.
There was a recent British libertarian who gave a speech similar to the Rush one but with fewer punches pulled. He strongly advocated eliminating the BBC – completely. His point was that sooner or later, a government funded media outlet is going to revert to form. The government is paying their salary, they become representives and advocates of the government and those who themselves promise more government funding. Getting PBS, NEA or the BBC to play some of your programs is a huge mistake. They are the enemy of people who do not want a larger more intrusive and greedy government. If someone came into your house and stole your child's food/toys/books you'd make sure it didn't happen again, well that's what big government does. Government media sources must be destroyed completely. Even putting them in the private sector can allow contributors to keep them alive until the next election, where like zombies they will live again.
it's nice to see the Brits finally coming out of the ether- better late than never. Oddly enough as Europe
('Old Europe' as Rummy called them) is more or less tacking to the right- Cameron's Tories most likely will unseat Brown's Labor party, and of course Merkel and Sarkozy… while the beacon of freedom for the world becomes statist. Go figure…
The NEA hurts the art by paying for bad art to thrive.
The NEA hurts the arts by paying for bad art to thrive.
I like fantasy as much as anyone I guess, but this will never happen. The dowagers and angels won't appear to be stooping down to lift up the lowly if they start funding conservatives. It won't reflect on their munificence and grace to be seen helping someone who's not downtrodden and abused.
i've long dreamed of being named head of the NEA. i would lead the agency into the future with expansive new ideas of what constitutes art. $50,000 for the best carved ivory pistol grips. $100.000 to maya angelou if she promises to never write anything for an inauguration again. and an even million to christo for every bystander killed by one of his installations.
any monies left i'd take in singles and use to fund "dance" down at jumbo's clown room.
this is the way to get the NEA dismantled. just use it to it's logical extreme, and even the left will admit that it's a dumb idea.
But, in the meantime. Why should we stand back and let all of the funding go to one side of the argument? This is what we have done for the past 30 years and what has it gotten us?
Joan… we need to demand it in and shame them into it in the same way they were shamed into creating positions to represent minorities, women and homosexuals. We have to hoist them on their own petard. We need to play their game and be smarter and better.
I don't literally mean a fairness doctrine. I need to force the recipients of these grants to give voice to those in the country that are ignored right now. And, political pressure needs to be put on the NEA itself to seek out a more fair and balanced approach to their funding choices.
Stage, great article, interesting proposal.
One thing I noticed about the left's response to the Bush admin, was that they HATED the idea that he was using the levers of power they had created in a way they never expected — to promote conservative pet projects. In the past, we've satisfied ourselves by merely opposing their power grabs. That's a war they kept winning because they would demand 100%, we'd say 0% and then everybody settles at 50%. That's a win for them.
When Bush started using the same powers to promote conservative ideas, he changed the equation. Suddenly they faced the real possibility that the government would promote conservative causes. Amazingly, this caused the democrats to rediscover states rights and "abuses of executive power" — something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime!
Your idea is a variant of that. When they realize that the government will start funding conservative productions, they will be outraged. But their only choice will be to allow funding of conservative productions or to stop funding all together. That's a brilliant idea!
Smarter and better would mean that Conservatives would have to deign to spend money on the private funding of grade schools instead of hopelessly throwing their money to tenured profs in the Ivies. Grade schools carry no prestige for the donor. If we're lucky, maybe an upper grade Magnet School could be managed. But Conservatives take so much for granted. We have credit-lined our way into a two-income necessity for family survival, while pubic schools indoctrinate our kids with tripe and perfectly equips them for dependency and failure.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Too many Conservatives weren't home rocking the cradle, they were busy getting ahead. Hard truth of the matter, and I'm not condemning anyone for it. It is what it is.
Moreover, those now deeply indoctrinated and vengeful managers of NEA programs will never be shamed, as it is extremely unfashionable to not love oneself and love every thing one thinks. (I should know, I'm a blogger!)
I take your point and your meaning, but Conservatives are going to have to fend for themselves. We may as well wear arm bands to identify us as the social and dangerous pariahs we have become.
Thank you! You get it. (Maybe I should have used your words instead).
Moreover, if people do start returning to theater (and they chose conservative theater), you might just spark an entire industry that eventually frees itself from the government. (Though, I would argue the success of classic theater already shows people's desires to see "conservative" theater.)
I don't know enough about the workings of theater to know if the ombudsman idea would work — I see no reason it wouldn't. But what I would recommend we do, as well, is appoint a body within the NEA that must approve all plays that will receive goverment funding (or that appear at government funded theater). Not only would this be onerous — and thereby discourage liberals from supping at the government trough — but we could make the board a political board by letting the Republicans appoint one member, the Democrats a second, and the President the third. Yes, we'd be down 2-1 right now, but not always. And when we did hold the White House, that would be four good years of 2-1 conservative voices. When the Dems hold the White House, things would be pretty much as they are right now — so we have nothing to lose.
Moreover, if people do start returning to theater (and they chose conservative theater), you might just spark an entire industry that eventually frees itself from the government. (Though, I would argue the success of classic theater already shows people's desires to see "conservative" theater.)
I don't know enough about the workings of theater to know if the ombudsman idea would work — I see no reason it wouldn't. But what I would recommend we do, as well, is appoint a body within the NEA that must approve all plays that will receive goverment funding (or that appear at government funded theaters). Not only would this be onerous — and thereby discourage liberals from supping at the government trough — but we could make the board a political board by letting the Republicans appoint one member, the Democrats a second, and the President the third. Yes, we'd be down 2-1 right now, but not always. And when we did hold the White House, that would be four good years of 2-1 conservative voices. When the Dems hold the White House, things would be pretty much as they are right now — so we have nothing to lose.
Please feel free to take any of my words you like, I'm just echoing your idea!! Thanks for the article. This is the kind of very constructive thought that I was hoping this site would turn out!
Actually, we should think about finding a Senator who could sneak something into a funding bill. That's how the other guys do it. Just saying…
Andrew, I am nothing, if not full of ideas and ways to refuse to be backed into a corner in my own life, and I suppose I can see what you and Stage Right are proposing. So I'm asking myself why it does not move me to hope or even interest in seeing such a thing happen. It's curious to me until I realize that Conservatives don't go on the public dole, as a matter of principle. Bad form I guess.
Plus, I think it would, like so many awful offerings from the Left, turn out to be so much affirmatively-actioned swill. (The Mexicans have a wonderful, wise saying that the pre-paid musician plays badly.) No, the conservative message is about overcoming, re-inventing. It would seem hypocritical on the face of it. I know if I were a Liberal I'd certainly toss that flaming cat into the debate.
I guess I just don't want to see us at the same trough with elitist parasites.
I am willing to see it differently, and I'll consider how much I don't know about theatre. Do you think that taking public money for our own propaganda somehow makes the public funding of propaganda more palatable?
No, but as a tactic, I think this is a brilliant idea for two reasons…
First, the "theater market" is entirely dominated by liberals… conservative voices need not apply. If we forced our way in, that would give us the potential to create the beginnings of a conservative theater market, from which a fully mature (private sector) market could form.
Secondly, I think that if conservatives started demanding an equal share of the pie, the left would become so incensed that they would start attacking the idea of funding the arts — just as they rediscovered states rights under Bush. For years, they sought to consolidate education in the Dept of Ed. When Bush ordered the dept to start pushing conservative ideas, the left suddenly discovered the "horrors" of letting Washington dictate education policy.
I think the same thing would happen to the NEA, once they started seeing conservative work being produced. Imagine, for example, if the NEA funded a piece that was highly critical of Barack. The Dems would do everything within their power to shut off the taps.
By the way, I think that the prospect that a private sector market would develop, would largely overcome the problem you mention with the Mexican proverb. Because, unlike the liberals Stage mentioned in part one (who I think are quite happy on the dole), I suspect that the goal of most conservatives would be to move on to a profit making venture.
Andrew,
While I find your argument very well reasoned I am skeptical that it might work out that way for one reason. I think the fight would not be about "funding" the arts. Rather the tact liberals would take is to state that we are censoring the arts. I know that this i counterintuitive since it is not arguable that they in fact do censure the arts but here is how I think they'd try to play it. >> Sorry next post
I donno…I thought it was a pretty good play. Politics aside, Angels in America is very well written and the HBO version had great visuals.
I am going to say something here that might not be too well recieved but I certainly mean no insult to anyone here by this. It is my contention that there are no artists only art. Picaso was a great Painter and most of his work can be considered Great Art. You see the term Artist to me is just strokes the ego. Anyone can call themselves an artist, but does that mean what ever he produces is art? There are writers galore but only a few that produce work of any real worth. This is just an opinion of one of the great unwashed masses and certainly not meant to belittle or insult anyone here. I am interested on your opinions though as you actually work in the arts.
A good start, even short of the ombudsman position, would be to find plays that don't vilify conservatives outright. Plays that take in to account conservative views and allows the audience to judge. A good example of this is the television show The Wire. It does not preach conservatism, or liberalism, but both views are treated with respect. I don't think it's a coincidence that it is considered one of the best tv shows ever.
Ack. I'm almost afraid to respond to this because I'm likely to fly totally and completely off the handle.
I believe in a level of government funding for the arts, and the level I believe in is ZERO! I will not compromise on this position for some "fairness doctrine for the arts" – even though I would ALMOST CERTAINLY personally benefit FINANCIALLY from such a development – because such a thing could be used as a bat to beat us over the heads with. And, not just from one direction, either. First, there would be the inevitable. "without a fairness clause for the arts, so-and-so wouldn't even have a career." It would be the same principle as the behind-the-back office talk about affirmative action for minorities. Then, there would be the, "well, if fairness is good for arts funding, why not for the airwaves" as yet another attack on… wait for it… here he comes… the number one libtard bogey man… Rush Limbaugh.
Look, what conservatives and libertarians need to stop being afraid to do is to make concrete MORAL arguments. Progressive taxation is wrong because it is IMMORAL. Affirmative action is wrong because it is IMMORAL. Government funding for the arts is wrong because it's IMMORAL. As Ayn Rand said, any coercion against the citizen by a government is IMMORAL.
Compromising on moral principles leads to certain doom, which we may be witnessing right now if the flag is not pulled away from the fire soon.
/rant
By demanding a particular play with a conservative viewpoint they would focus on some play that specific theatre could not show. They'd explain how conservative interests forced their play onto them using bullying tactics. They'd state how "all" real theater critics state the NeoCon play was terrible, not well made and offensive to list your interest group here. Said paid spokesman of such interest group will make public statements to confirm this. Of course these same theater critics would defend their "fairmindedness" and nonpartinship and insist the plays about stripper murdering/soldier rapists being healed by Jane Fonda were not political at all. Whose points do you think the press will publicise.
How do you propose the to fight the false charge of censorship? If you have a good idea and you might I am all ears.
An important debate worth having, SR and all you fellow posters. As a longtime theater reviewer myself, I'm sick of the glib new crop of plays just assuming that American values are corrupt; idealism is a form of hypocrisy somewhere below paganism; Christianity and creationism are simple-minded concepts that are nothing but the symbols they use; and suburbia is a hotbed of daffy, gun-loving bigots.
Trying to get equal representation in contemporary plays is a losing proposition for one reason: Liberalism is not just the default position adopted by people in order to avoid conflict and thought — it's a pacifier. Conservative ideas (and, by extension, plays) are antithetical to one's self-administered narcoleptic trance. We don't get plays about the realistic psychological consequences of abortion. Why? Not because artists and producers are incapable of tackling the subject but because everyone senses that audiences — literally — won't sit still for it.
Write a play, for example, in which a middle-American couple invites their respective parents over for a big party and when the older folks get there they learn it is being thrown for the 18th birthday of the embryo the couple long-ago had aborted. The happy couple carries on with party hats and empty photo frames and coming-of-age songs, until the "grandparents" fly into a rage at the cruelty their kids are exhibiting.
It's a situation no more surreal and unsettling than similar situations written by Pinter and Albee and Sam Shepard. The plays by those three, however, usually come down to ambiguous "feelings" that can be exhaustively debated without coming to any moral conclusions. If they do provide a "back story," these often come down to designer troubles like incest or malignant delusions. One could say Pinter and Shepard's uncomfortable situations are acceptable to audiences precisely because they have so little to do with most folks' real lives.
I'd love someone to show me I'm wrong. In the meantime, thank God for classical playwrights!
Huc, I'm with you… as nice as the idea on paper sounds, Stage… the whole process would be an eventual disaster in the making.
I told some guys their setup of one thing was completely unbalanced and unfair. Logic, reason, and the fact that I was experienced meant nothing. So I asked to use their thing, and I didn't even abuse it that much,and about an hour and a half later they looked at each other and said 'yeah, it is unbalanced.'
Hucbald needs to keep making his arguement. But not everyone on the Right needs to be using the same talking points.
Stage Right's arguement is a way to force a bad choice for the Left either way. Its a very clever attack. And sometimes experience of injustice is the only teacher.
I think you make an excellent point, here. Many writers/painters/sculptors are too quick to self-promote themselves with the title "artist," when nothing they produce really qualifies as art. It's related to the so-called "artistic temperament," touted by these same "artists." Someone who has a tendency towards melodrama is not displaying an "artistic temperament." More often than not, it's simple narcissism–which isn't artistic. Someone in love with himself may be prolific in his production of essays, paintings or whatever he enjoys producing without producing a single piece of true art. We cheapen the word "art" when we give it to everything a so-called "artist" produces (even in his sleep).
Even if Stage Right's plan is never implimented, this is the sort of thing that Conservatives can….write a play about!
I like theatre of the absurd. Even if the concept is pie-in-the-sky in terms of ever coming about, it still has a lot that you can do with it. It's similar to the tactic I used when I wrote my little novel "Public Transit" where I treated liberal ideas as if they were actually happening in real life with the implicit question: "Is this really what you want to have happen?"
I can see the same thing here with SR's proposal. So why not have someone who writes a play where this universe (the one SR proposes) actually exists? The story of a struggling playwrite who writes an anti-establishment play (because it's Conservative) and gets kicked to the side by "The Man", at which point he proposes the very solution SR has, manages to get it through, and we look at the consequences years later as Conservatives do to Liberals the very things Liberals do to Conservatives right now.
"You look around…. all of these pieces of paper are littered about the floor under the seats around you. Clearly part of the theatre’s green initiative."
While it isn't directly related to the theme of the article, I just had to tell you that this line rang so true for me. It's amazing how many people seem to think the best way to save the environment is to litter my front door with fliers.
Not sure what to make of the idea of NEA funding conservative plays. Principle says no, but sometimes principle has to be compromised….
We conservatives are enterprising individuals. We can stimulate theater our own way. Those of you that care enough about this, buy some land, build a theater, hire like-minded people, and commission the arts, as it was done in the olden days.
My almost-two-year-old has a favorite movie: Cinderelmo. The fairy god-person Frank has this advice: If you want something, don't just talk about it, DO something.
We don't need NEA grants, those are for chumps who can't make it on their own. If there's really an audience for this kind of stuff, they'll make it worth your while.
The BBC is certain a major problem over here, one in fact so gargantuan that I cannot see the likelihood of a genuine right of centre debate happening until its wings are severely clipped (or preferably cut off- unfortunately it is such a sacred cow here, I can't see that occurring). The BBC totally controls the terms of debate in this country in a way that you cannot imagine over there (although, not un-coincidentally, the most admired programmes over here are American imports and have been for years).
Having attended various workshops in various theatres here in the UK, I can attest the situation is much the same here. One of the problems, it seems to me, is that although the Left been the media and academic establishment and controlled the agenda for many years, they still see themselves (strangely and illogically, but what has leftwing politics to do with logic?) as 'anti-establishment' and the 'counter-culture rebels' creating in their own minds a horde of 'rightwing' demons (rightwing is an automatic insult for them, something that must be studiously avoided becoming) for them to overcome. My hunch is, (over here anyway) that if you were to ask the audience to stand up if they voted for the political left, they would not see a problem even if everyone stood up. They would see the problem being the ignorance of others.
Individualist, consider these…
1. The way things are set up right now, we lose. The system is set up to hand out money. When we say the government should not fund these things, they point to opera, museums, and symphonies, and the vast majority of the public (which simply do not believe in hard core libertarianism) says, "yeah, I want that funded." Thus, the left wins the funding argument — the only question is the amount of funding.
Our standing on principle simply isn't working, we need to change the terms of the debate. So it's time for a change of tactics.
2. Even if what Stage suggest doesn't work, the worst that happens is that we still have the same system we have today. So what's the harm in trying this?
(continued)
3. On the one hand, I'm not worried about the screams of censorship or the reviews of the theater critics. It seems to me, that the critics have little power to affect the level of audience support when the product proves itself through word of mouth. Look at the example of Passion of the Christ. The critics tore it apart, hated it, attacked Gibson, etc. etc. But the audience he wanted looked beyond that and made it a huge success.
Also, when it comes to journalists, audiences are increasingly starting to believe only those journalists they agree with. Even if only Fox News watchers start going to conservative theater, it will be a huge hit and will swamp liberal theater.
4. More importantly though, the squeals of partisanship, censorship and evil are exactly what we need to get the left determined to "do something." The idea that the government was going to fund their enemies was the exact thing that forced the dems to redicover states rights under Bush.
(continued)
5. Finally, if you're really concerned that people will see this as purely political, then assign the three NEA seats as one to the President, one to the Congress and one to the Senate. When we hold two or more of those bodies, the program can match fowards without sounding like we set it up to guarantee conservative involvement.
My take on funding the starving artists is the same as yours. If they're starving, they should get a different job. The local print shops (FKA Kinko's) are pretty much always hiring, and if you work third shift, you've got free reign to print all the scripts you need. Governments kill competition, and competition is the only way to achieve success.
Thank you for this impassioned piece, Stage Right. You make many great points.
This is a great point. If standing on principle was going to work, Reagan, Bush, Newt, or Bush would have gutted the NEA.
Sure, but that doesn't do anything to stop the government from funding the liberal garbage.
ATTENTION UTOPIANS:
We are against the stimulus bill: Should only liberal contractors bid on jobs contained within it?
We are against the Federal Education Dept: Should conservatives not apply for any jobs of influence within it?
We are against MOST government funding: when it becomes law against our wishes should conservatives not participate in any way in the government jobs or contracts?
You would never say that a conservative owner of a construction business is not true to his conservative values if he takes a contract that was issued by a federally funded pork project. Why is it the same for a playwright or theatre professional?
Don't let the "Perfect" get in the way of the "Good".
Very well reasoned. How do we get this ball rolling? Let's actually DO something instead of endlessly talking about it.
I am not a utopian, I'm an idealist (If you were responding to me).
The way I put it is this: While being an idealist is no guarantee that you will be ideal – it all depends upon the intrinsic moral worth of your ideology and your level of discipline – not being an idealist is an absolute guarantee that you will be less than ideal.
But you nailed me there at the end: I am a relentless perfectionist. If you need confirmation of that, I can get you in touch with my ex-wife. LOL!
The bottom line here is that we each have to make our own decisions on this, and reasonable libertarians and conservatives can respectfully disagree and take totally different tacks. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think Peter Pike's idea of writing a Kafka-esque theater of the absurd piece on the possibility of fairness in arts funding is an excellent one. God knows we have enough spare talent lying around here.
Thank you. I would suggest drawing up legislation, picking a willing Senator, and then sneak it into some bill.
We might even want to lay some ground work –after talking to the Senator — by contacting enough democratic senators to tell them that we don't like the NEA being under the control of one arm of the government (which we "fear" the Republicans might retake), so we want them to put the NEA Board in place to "protect" the NEA for the future. With them holding all three bodies right now, they might not even be that suspicious.
What are your thoughts?
Huc,
"Respectfully disagree" — absolutely! I wouldn't want to come to a site where everybody has the same opinions.
That said, I share your idealism — honestly, BUT I think that sometimes, especially in politics, you need to do things that aren't ideal to achieve your ultimate goal. I think what Stage has recommended is one of those things.
This could be the perfect 'poison pill' for any fairness doctrine. Why stop at OP ED pieces on TV or the Radio. If his Barryness wants to restart the un-Fairness Doctrine, just say yes. Yes to Fairness on talk radio. Yes to Fairness on network TV news. Yes to Fairness on TV shows. Yes to Fairness on PBS. Yes to Fairness at NEA. Bi-Partician commissions should over see the fairness. And since we are protecting the rights of minorities, then a 33% vote that an outlet is politically biased (Hell, lets add discriminatory) then it is fined… no government subsidies (from government at any level) for the operating period of the offence. If Fox News' O-Rielly goes over the top and is un-fair or discriminatory to an un-documented immigrant, no government money for Fox. If PBS is un-fair or discriminatory to me, bye-bye subsidy. You want a picture of a crucifix in urine? Fine, better have a pretty nice crucifix right next to it. I think that the fairness doctrine will die quicker than the Taxation without Representation but without guns in DC.
Someone asked worse case what could happen, and their answer was that we'd be still where we are now. Worst case is actually conservatives and liberals both get addicted to gov't cheese.
But, if fear of bad outcomes keeps you from acting, you have too much fear.
We need to remain aware of our ultimate Hucbaldian goal while messing with the tiny minds of the Left in Stage Rigtian fashion.
And I'd like to see a contra-McCarthy Era of Terrah piece. Instead of 'Good Night and Good Luck' we could have a story about Big Hollywood writers in dark cloaks meeting in dark alleys with password and countersigns drawn from classic movies to exchange scripts and get editorial feedback while a George Clooney look-a-like in a seven hundred foot long limo orchestrates the search for them a la the anti-Joe the Plumber tactics that were used, and he busts into stars trailers looking for contraband like a signed picture of Reagan. But even though he spots a copy of "the Road to Serfdom", he's not smart enough to realize what he's seeing….
"… Hucbaldian…" ROFL!
You know what you did with your last paragraph there, don't you? You set up the inevitable Big Hollywood Regional Bratworst and Beer Bashes! Think of it: Giant Energy Guzzling Plasma Screens with nothing but Conservative Favorite Films and a bunch of Greedy Capitalist Libertarian-Conservatives Eating and Drinking ALL THAT IS BAD FOR YOU!
I, for one, am in.
The fact of the matter is that if people really want to see something, they'll pay to see it if they have to. Good art doesn't need to be subsidized; it will be profitable in some way or another. That means it has to appeal to something falling anywhere between a large mass of people who each pay a few bucks, or an individual rich old fart's particular eccentric tastes. It does not need to be funded through taxpayer extortion.
To improve the quality, and relevancy to the public, of productions (assuming that most of them are intended to attract the purchase of tickets) what is really necessary is to devise a way to start pitching ideas directly to the potential audience– such as have a theater, or a TV or film studio, set up a website where fans can sign up and vote on things in the pipeline. Rather than make it a purely democratic process, give double voting power to those who pre-order tickets or DVDs or whatever.
Because the biggest mistake is letting people who aren't paying part of the bill think they have an equal say. No representation without taxation, if you will.
As long as I get to cook in my typical Mad Scientist fashion, I'm in. I think we need four giant TV's, one for each room, and a central kitchen, and then a grilling area out back, and if good weather, a TV out back as well. One TV should be set to football. And a small pumpkin throwing trebuchet would be ideal.
Andrew,
Don't get me wrong I agree with you 110%. I understand that if the government is going to hand out this money we have to make sure that it does not fund their propaganda. We have to play their game.
My point is that while the screaming of critics could not stop the "Passion of the Christ" this was because it sold on the market . Sorry next post again
When it comes to government funding however it will be another matter entirely. You are going to have to fight these people in the bureacracy to force them to accept your play, you are going to have to fight these people in the playhouse to actually show your play and not some liberal mockery they call a conservatibve play, then you'll have to fight them in the media when they begin the assault.
All the while the decision will not be madeby what the public wants to see but by government lackeys and Neofascist stooges of the progressive movement who will use deception, slander and obfuscation at every turn.
When it comes to government funding however it will be another matter entirely. You are going to have to fight these people in the bureacracy to force them to accept your play, you are going to have to fight these people in the playhouse to actually show your play and not some liberal mockery they call a conservative play, then you'll have to fight them in the media when they begin the assault.
All the while the decision will not be madeby what the public wants to see but by government lackeys and Neofascist stooges of the progressive movement who will use deception, slander and obfuscation at every turn.
I know I am playing Devil's Advocate here but I would like to see this work. I am on board with Stage Right on this. I am just trying to point out the pitfalls that will have to dealt with. We need a plan to fight every step of their playbook because if there is one thing I know about a liberal is they never fight fair. This is their turf and they won't go down easy.
Be prepared.
SmokinT,
I will make a probably "hapless" attempt here but let me try anyways. If I make a fool of myself I can console myself that I am not alone i the world.
The problem I see is with the basis of your play. Parents having surreal sweet 16 parties for the fetus the adopted with the grandparent going bezerk follows a formulae of angst that liberals like which quite frankly turns off most conservatives. I find I don't like "liberal" art not for its political content but because it is negative and depressing. Please see net post
The conservative play would start with the teenage parents in the planned parenthood clinic with a couple of angels watching on with the power to invoke a day dream but only if it is based on a phrase or comment just said by someone in the real world. The angels would wait and each person the mother and father would be subjected to dreams about their prospective life based upon a comment by others in the waiting room.
At the end of the play the couple would leave and decide not to abort. The last act would be the sweet 16 party and end with the father dancing with the daughter he did not abort. See one can challenge someone to think about things and still be positive and uplifting.
This is the point I am trying to make but I am sure there are those who can tell the story better then I. What do you think?
All very good points. With regard to the bureaucracy, you would want to set it up that once the NEA Board approves the project, the bureaucracy can't interfere.
With regard to the theater people, sabotage could be a problem. I would hope either that conservative theater people would be attracted to conservative work (and thus sabotage goes away as an issue) or that the leftists would be more interested in earning the paycheck than sabotaging the project. After all, the leftists do work on Andrew Webbers stuff, even though they apparently dislike him.
Maybe Stage can give us more details on the inner workings of theater — I'm no expert by any means. Would an ideological affirmative action be necessary for crew, or could directors/producers control that sufficiently through careful hiring?
Hi, Mr. I. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I'll think about your refinements, though I think "our" play has to have more tension early on, and I can't imagine how all that exposition about the "rules" will be worked in. I stand by my main point, though.
Smokin T
Good for you. I am sure you are more competent than I. I just have ideas and have to communicate them is all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.