West, The New Politics of Cultural Difference

Pall, The Do It Yourself Dealers

Goodman, The End of the Museum

Goodman, Art in Action

KC SEIFERT HAS GOT THIS ONE.

Eagleton, Culture Wars

Eagleton, Towards a Common Culture

Carter, The Museum as a Purveyor of Culture

PETER KAWALEK HAS GOT THIS ONE

Carroll, Mass Art and Ideology

Bordieu and Darbel, Cultural Works and Cultivated Disposition

Bennett, The Political Rationality of the Museum

Eagleton, The Idea of Culture

Bustard, A New Deal For the Arts

Weil, Tax Policies and Private Giving

Stephen Weil “Tax Policy and Private Giving”

Introduction:

Chapter is founded on basic assumptions: 1) the arts constitute an important public good which can not be found in the market place and 2) the federal government should furnish the arts with monetary support

Addresses how the arts world is funded by looking at tax codes as incentives for private giving

The article covers the current plight and process of direct federal funding and examines the theory of tax policy as an incentive to give

Arts of Two Kinds:

Weil defines works of art into two categories: 1) agents of social cohesion and continuity or 2) agents of social disruption and change

Arts as an Agent of Social Cohesion and Continuity

Arts are a principal mean by which society binds itself and transmits its beliefs and standards from one generation to another p. 155

“Provide a kind of social glue but furnish a mean by which a society can identify and distinguish itself from others” p. 156

Works that promote cohesion and continuity are able to support themselves through market demand- some art in this category are organized for-profit and are self sustaining

Grants (from agencies like the NEA) work in conjunction with for profit orgs. to further facilitate the promotions and continuity of art

Direct Funding and the Arts promoting Cohesion

Two main questions arise: Why should taxpayers have to pay for art that the majority of them find repugnant? Why should this country support art that seeks to undermine its values?

Responses to these questions from the art community

In a democracy public monies wind up being spent on many things that one taxpayer might find repugnant or at least of no interest

The grant making process produce a bell curve of results in terms of public acceptability-Van Gogh fallacy- the greater the initial rejection of a work of art, the more wholehearted will be its eventual acceptance

Castor Oil Response- Even though the public hates the taste of something it should nonetheless swallow it for its own damn good

The proportional representation in grant making: the public has a wide range of preferences and the minority has rights too---- this is rejected because in reality the majority gets all the spoils.

Non- Profit Sector

Arts activity is supported through the ways mentioned above but primarily through thousands of privately governed, supported, and unrelated nonprofit organizations

Example- symphony orchestras, experimental theatres, dance companies—all have tax exempt status

The Charitable Deduction in Theory

The contributors to tax exempt organizations are entitled to deduct the value of their contributions in computing the amount of income that will be subject to federal income tax

Idea is to make the federal gov’t a co-contributor: if there is a 1,000$ contributed by a taxpayer with a tax rate of 31%, the after tax cost of such a gift to the donor is only $690, the remaining $310 represents revenue forgone by the govt.

Art as an Agent of Social Disruption and Change

Works of art that use a variety of strategies to challenge the dominant culture and the prevailing ideologies in areas of human activity

Equally vital as art which builds cohesion and unity provides a stimulus to grow

These arts support themselves through market demand/ for profit and federal subsidies- indirectly through tax incentives and directly of direct grants

Ideally- the freedom of the art system should be parallel the tradition of academic freedom

In this system, funding agencies maintain a neutral stance, this brings up the distinction between sponsorship and endorsements

Purposes of income tax deductions: 1) may be compensatory for a portion of an otherwise payable tax or 2) serve as a stimulus toward some activity that those who formulate tax policy consider to be socially desirable

How strong a stimulus it might be depends on the tax-rates in effect- the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986 reduced it to around 30%

The value of charitable deductions as an incentive to private giving has been eroded simply by the ongoing reduction in the maximum marginal tax rate after this act was passed

The next portion of the article offers an objection to why the current system of charitable tax donations should be performed

The Charitable Deduction in Current Practice-

- This section examines the effect that the Tax Reform Act had on charitable donations using various sets of data, it’s a little unnecessary.

Conclusions Reached:

Direct federal funding may be severally threatened in its ability to support the whole spectrum of the arts and the limitations/ timidity of organizations like the NEA.

The system of indirect federal funding through tax incentive have been weakened to a degree over decades

Indirect funding, i.e. tax incentives may be slowly eroding as the Congress reshapes the tax laws toward something administratively simple

If the arts community wanted to strengthen the tax incentive might include finding other allies to allow gifts to be written off at their fair market value, not just a percentage

The arts contribute a public good and they contribute in a vital way to the quality of our national life and thus both direct and indirect funding must be strengthened and new avenues still need to be explored.

Weil, The New Politics of Cultural Difference

Transforming the Museum

Intro

Means new museum shift to being concerned with educational services to public;

Author believes museums can contribute to the “well-being” of human communities

States what museums contain can change with people as time goes on

1

States museums should serve the public; previously museums concerned with collections and not visitors

States the more museums rely on sales the more concerned with museums are with satisfying public interest to gain a high audience for sales

Education should the primary purpose

Before accreditation consisted of whether exhibits were crude or amateurish; now, a “good” museum is one which develops public programs, educates, and “communal empowerment”

Cites a “good” museum in Brazil which employed social change (236)

Professional associations such as AAM, ASTC, and AYM now stress public service

2

Stresses a new museum is a local one

Congress now is concerned with museum performance and actual outcomes

States innate difference between profit and non-profit

Non-profit has no economic motif

Thus, funding will no go to museums which demonstrate a positive difference

Yet, museums should be realistic; often will not dent the universe”

Museums also should not dumb down exhibits; hence, outcome evaluation must be moderate

3

Cites, Dog Day Afternoons

Exhibit which was successful because addressed local interest in dogs

American museums would likely not have such a community based exhibit

Should have multi-disciplinary museums

Cites heimat

German museums which pressed anti-Semitic propaganda

Good because focused on public service

Also, discusses Anacostia’s Rat exhibit

Addressed local concern with rat problems

Believes, should have museums which talk of civic discourse issues (H.I.V., Cold War, etc.)

4

Talks of change in how staff is trained

Should work with community, and have combination of skills and attitudes

Much work to do for museums

Likely will not have huge impact, instead hopes for subtle changes

One sentence summary: Museums should have relationship with community and enhance communities well being instead of being old and stagnant.

Piper, Government Support for the Unconventional Arts

Alright, as a precursor to this, I think this guy is totally nuts. Anyways, I'll still write an unbiased summary of his work.

Piper's work is short, and it's to the point. He wants the government to fully support "unconventional" arts. He says that if the government didnt support unconventional arts, they simply wouldn't exist -- in the capitalistic world that we live in so called "unconventional" art wouldn't be able to exist. Piper explains how large corporations like Phillip Moris control large exhibiting institutions, and therefore don't allow unconventional art into the main stream. If it wasn't for government support, no one would be able to see unconventional art, and that would be bad for society as a whole.

His last sentence pretty much sums up his main argument: "Unconventional works of art are in the public interest -- hence deserving of government support -- because they promote coordinating conventions for the inherently unconventional, i.e., for fully realized individuals whose preferences and tastes are peculiarly their own." Basically this guy thinks the main stream art gets enough funding, and that it's crucial for societial development that the government support unconventional art.

That's really about it, the article was only like 2 pages.

Sullivan, Artistic Freedom...

Kathleen Sullivan: “Artistic Freedom, Public Funding, and the Constitution.”

Notes: Works of art and art in general initiate legislations. The major concern of author is whether an artist can do whatever he/she wants with the grant or must he follow the instructions from the ones who gave the grant. The debate also touches on the artist’s First Amendment Rights. The author believes that the solution to the debate lies in the middle. Artist has rights of expression which are guaranteed to him by the First Amendment. Privately produced art can not be constitutionally restrained on the basis of its content. On the other hand, private patron as full right to judge and restrict any work of art that he paid for.

Should government act as a private patron, meaning that the political majority should fund the arts it likes? The argument for this would be that government may but need not fund the arts; if it chooses to do so then it can decide what art it will fund. The artists’ First Amendment Rights are not restrained because he is not coerced into making something he does not like (after all he can refuse the grant), and as long as there is the private sector he will be able to derive funds elsewhere and government won’t establish a monopoly.

Another argument was that the First Amendment be somewhat ignored that the government takes the more narrow and specialized role. This means that if you got something unpopular to “say,” say it on your own property. The argument about this has echoed trough-out the workforce and public domain and in all cases the Supreme Court has voted that the First Amendment rights stand, even if the property is public. The government’s discretion is restrained by the First Amendment when it comes to the arts. The Supreme Court recognizes that receiving money from the government is a bit of a coercive deal. Overall argument that public art endowment should be equivalent to the private art patron along with being unconstrained by the First Amendment can not stand. It is not fair to say “It is taxpayers’ money and we can do whatever we want.” However it would be as equally wrong to say that the First Amendment applies the same way in its entirety to the government funding and regulation alike. Government can’t fund everything and thus it must be selective in choosing what to fund. Thus it may discriminate in ways that the First Amendment would forbid. Government may not be able to regulate any private art but it certainly may choose to decide which art it will fund. It may not ban bad art but it may choose not to fund such work. The question that follows then is how to establish criteria of judging art.

It is very hard to establish a standard for judging which project receives the public funding and which does not. However there are possible measures that can be established to determine what gets funding and what does not:

1. Artistic excellence: government is bound to pursue the funding of art that is recognized as good. Just as the speech might be curtailed as incomputable with the operation of the public facility, so may the art grants be limited to the meritorious art. While it also might be the case that determining meritorious art is subjective that problem can be solved just like it is solved in case of science. The simple solution to keep government from politicizing this criterion too much is the peer review by artists.
2. Obscenity: Although it is defined by the Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, this issue continues to pose uncertainty and problems. The author cites number of examples but overall agrees that there should be discrimination but that so far it has been random, influenced by the circumstances, and most of all very hard to determine.
3. Subject Matter Restrictions: The bottom line is that the government may make some selections regarding the particular subject matters. Some things are given priority over others, however, others must be somewhat acknowledged as well. Overall, while government may favor one over the other, it certainly has no right to ban an entire category of art, as Hitler did at one point.
4. Viewpoint Restrictions: The government has no right to choose viewpoints to fund under any circumstance as it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Government may not exact adherence to one viewpoint over another, even as a condition on granting funds. Evenhandedness is the governments obligation. William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has several times emphasized the point that “Congress [may not] discriminate invidiously in its subsidies in such a way as to ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas.’ ”


So far the discussion was focused on art that artist produces anonymously and who retains the ownership of the artwork. Situation is different when an artists is asked to produce a work of public art, an art piece for the government. Here, government has full discretion in what is to be done. A WWII memorial can’t have “They died in vain” sign. Although it might look like that, the artists working for the government is not a government artist. US has no National Health Care as well as no national art therefore, while artists is under some contract from the government, he is an independent entity.


NEA Reform. Because of the controversy there has been a movement to abolish National Endowment for Arts and take government’s hands of the arts. Opposition claimed that abolition is a bad move because of the significant role that agency plays for the American. The author agrees with this opposition because she believes that public funding of arts is very important and essential for the arts.

From the Constitutional side, there is no clause that claims the establishing arts is required. Nor is there anything that obligates any branch of government to provide funds for the arts. Congress does that at it’s own dicression. If it does choose to fund the arts, the First Amendment will provide number of restrictions. There are two types:
1. Oscenety restricitions: Here NEA holds dicression because it is established that it will not fund any art that it finds obscene since the law of 1989. However the wording of the law is relatively vague and leaves room for discussion. And there has been discussions all the way up to the Supreme Court. In 1990 the law was revisited and defined better bet the problem stil exist.
2. Hate Speech Restrictions: Congress has considered but not enacted the number of bills that would have proscribed the use of public funds to revile and humiliate symbols and members of various groups. In 1989 congress eliminated language from a coirtain bill that would prohibit use of NEA funds produce or desiminate art that denigrades and humiliates any group on the basis or race, religion, etnicity, etc. If this was the debate over a criminal law that law would be enacted that day. But with arts it’s different and it’s because of the right to free expression, the First Amendment. The funding ads a new edge to the whole argument because it would imply that the government, in addition to the fact that it can not stop such art, it is siding with it as well and thus going against what it stood for in the past. The author believes that this argument is a bit inflated. Most people do not associate govermnet with the messages displayed in public spaces (?!). There is no imprimatur or approval on pro-life or pro-choice rallies on the Washington Mall. Why should it be different for speech substadized not by a grant of space but by a grant of funds.


Authors Conclusion: The best way to accommodate the public funding of art to the values of the First Amendment would be to continue an NEA that operates the way it did before the crisis of 1989: mainly, with a mandate of commitment at artistic excellence, but subject to no content restriction beyond that. The best public art will be that with the least strings attached, for promoting the creativity and innovation in one of the NEA’s major reasons to be. In a free society, artists do best when they are not governments puppets, but dance rather each to his or her own tune. The solution is not to abolish the NEA, but to unfetter it.


• Just to menton that these are straight out notes and not a paper so forgive me for any grammar and spelling mistakes. Also gender equality is a given here and acknowledged by all means, however, inclusive language is not used thought the whole text for practical purposes. I hope you are open-minded and understand this.

--Nice note @ the end of that Stefan..very 2006 of you.

Olson, Arts, Aesthetics, and...

• Arts and philosophy are similar in their attempt to continuously “bring one’s consciousness of the visible world” by cultivating and developing the mind

• The arts are appreciated through a mix of cognition and emotion, subjective and objective, etc, this is a Jungian model of analytical psychology because of the emphasis on relationships

• Arthur Schopenhauer, the philosopher, has some thoughts on art

music is a matter of the mind

art is an experience which can lift you from your individuality

music is the highest of the arts b/c it reflects life’s 3 stages

*struggle or survival

*temporary satisfaction

*satisfaction or boredom

• Perception allows you to draw similarities between different genres of music, opening broader areas of “understanding and enjoyment”

• Check out the chart on pg. 66

• Two definitions of art: 1) art is intelligence playing over a natural scene, has to do with the mind; 2) art is a personal expression made permanent

• Artists “create something available for others as well as himself to perceive and reflect upon at future moments”

• Art picks up where the search for material happiness and scientific knowledge leaves off – looking for “more obscure methods of understanding [existence]”

• Art does not necessarily express beauty, it can also express the grotesque so the definition of art as beauty is far too simplistic

• Different societies throughout time have placed conflicting values on what is considered beautiful

Hokema, Artists, Humanists, & Society

This article has very small text and a lot of it is illegible. But I shall do my best with the summary...

David A Hoekema, or Hokema as the syllabus says, seems to be arguing a more moderate position on art. His subtitle is "Why Conservatives have the wrong answers to the right questions while Liberals bark up the wrong philosophical tree". His main argument is just that: conservatives have the right idea; they've just gone about it in the wrong way. Essentially Conservatives favor too much government involvement in art, while Liberals favor too little. He lambastes both sides with criticism.

He begins with a summary of art in Plato's "Republic", that is, the perfect society that Plato envisioned. He sums up Plato's ideas by saying that (1) artists imitate the natural world which is itself only a pale imitation of the true reality (think of the forms from intro to philosophy) and (2) art corrupts -- it undermines social order and plants the seeds of disobedience.

Aside from that he comes at the idea of governmental funding of the arts from the modern conservative and modern liberal viewpoints on the issue. The conservatives, whom he associates with Senator Jesse Helms, he says, are right in their belief that the arts have social responsibilities and societal effects. As a response to these responsibilities, the author says, the conservatives would like to leave it up to the government to censor art -- and that is not right. So while the conservatives have the right idea, they have taken the wrong approach.

The liberals take the other extreme, that any government involvement restricts artists and is essentially bad for society.

The author then takes his stance that when governmental funding is involved there needs to be a well-researched peer review process to ensure the funds go to the proper places. As he says in the last paragraph of the article, "yet the conservatives who fear the corrupting effect of offensive art fail to realize that - in our era, in our society - art contributes to society in part by challenging and unsettling us." So while art may not be the status quo, it is beneficial to society. But he continues "In administering federal programs, there is no substitute for careful peer review." That is, when government money is involved, it's important to ensure projects are reviewed carefully and that there should be some filtering process.

Griswold, The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial...

GRISWOLD: The VVM and the Washington Mall: Philosophical Thoughts on Political Iconography:

* monuments in the Mall must be understood in a symbolic and social context

THE MALL ITSELF:

* even though the monuments were not created at the same time, together they are unified and symbolic of American history

THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT:

· is an obelisk which represents the greatness of Rome and Egypt and also masculinity (phallic in appearance)

· is the central focus of the Mall, the rest of the monuments seem to revolve around this statue

· looks exactly the same from all angles; represents stability

· serves as a space defining or orientating structure

THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL:

· its style alludes to the great architecture of the Greeks

· you must climb up to the statue like you are ascending to the Gods

· the heartbreaks of the Civil War are evident on his face and personal quotes cover the monument

THE JEFFERSON MEMORIAL:

· not representative of war, but instead of the philosophical aspects of our culture

· celebrates life and does not represent mourning

· also Roman in its architecture

· faces North on the South portion of the mall (North being the direction of philosophy and education)

MARINE CORPS MEMORIAL:

· this monument is not one that commorates individuals but instead a certain sect of the army

· also important to note that it is not for those who fought but for those who died

MEMORIAL TO THE SEA SEABEES:

· the “giving war myth”

· again focuses on a particular sect of the military

· also heroic in nature like the previous monuments

MEMORIAL TO ULYSSES S. GRANT:

· more ambiguous in nature than the above monuments

· does NOT glorify war

· does NOT convey a moral message

· looks West in the Western front of the capitol (supposedly West symbolizes the “conflict of opposing forces via the sunset; conveying the bitterness of this particular war)

THE NAVY-MARINE MEMORIAL

· most like the VVM due to the lack of literal reference to the monuments theme or purpose

· symbolic of lost souls

THE VIETNAM VETERAN MEMORIAL:

· simple and symmetrical in design

· no classic references in its architecture

· note that there are no steps, it makes it easily accessible

· it hits the viewer as a gradual experience as you take the names and meaning in

· 58,000 names of dead or MIA Americans

· faces south (Direction of warmth and light) on West end

· the list of names both begin and end in the center of the monument; could be symbolic of the fact that there was no simple or true end or beginning to the war

· this is a living memorial, it honors all who fought…not just those that died

· chronology of the war is marked by the names; 1^st name is the first who died, the last name marking the last American to lose their life in Vietnam

· there are no heroic images…..no swords or flags or anything of that sort to distract from the monument

· NO OVERT POLITICAL STATEMENT…

· Allows the viewer to ask painful questions about war, our culture, and values instead of having ‘answers’ conveyed upon us

· The granite also serves as a mirror….forces us to see our reflection amongst these names…..(interpret as you will)

· Allows Veterans to be proud of their service and country

So guys this article is actually pretty interesting and not to mention lengthy. Although a lot of what this Griswold character is saying makes him seem a bit like a whack job he has some interesting points. I think it would be worth your while to at least skim it on your own as there are a lot of small details with all the symbolism and shit. Not to mention, I am the only asshole in the group that has actually never seen any of these memorials so my personal insight may be a bit lacking……

Greenberg, Abstract Art

quick summary:

This article is essentially a quick overview of the development of abstract art and why the author believes it is the form that will dominate the art field in the future. A few main points:

1. The first great revolution in Western painting was the introduction of 3-d art of the Renaissance.
*depth and volume became important
*the corresponding political/social idea was man's conquest of his environment

2. the end of the 15th century to 16th century saw the perfection of 3-dimensional work(painting).
*focus on the illusion of depth

3. 19th century began the age of specialization and limited intellectual objectives.
*corresponding social/political idea here was that the earth could no longer afford indefinite space to man

4. Impressionism: direct interpretation of visual experience must be 2-d
*flatness in painting begins to come back

5. This trend continued so that today, flatness dominates. emphasis is on the literal plane surface.
*distortions begin to be used

6. 20th century: cubism becomes popular. the focus is on disposition pure and simple of color and line.
*if one wants to portray the
3-d, become a sculpter.
*appearance is only one context among many and not necessarily all that important.
*because art cannot represent the exterior world suggestively enough, it represents what is in the self.

The author believes that traditional art will still be created, but most art will follow the abstract form.

--I like the way you talk, I like the way you talk, oh Suzie Q!

Gates, The Face & Voice of Blackness

Summary of: The Face and Voice of Blackness, Gates

Between 1710 and 1940 the images of Blacks in America were either slaves or an unimportant person in the background. This stereotype showed in all forms of art. White Americans created this image of Black Americans in art through a racist filter and expected Blacks to conform to this image in life. As Sterling Brown said, the representation of African Americans in art was usually limited by one of seven characters:

1) Contented Slave

2) Wretched Freedman

3) Comic Negro

4) Brute Negro

5) Tragic Mulatto

6) Local Color Negro

7) Exotic Primative

By using these, white artists failed to capture the black personality and create the African American as they saw him. Blacks were seen as simple at best, and dehumanized at worst.

By the begining of the 19^th century, some African Americans were able to gain access to the middle or upper class of society and commissioned paintings or photographs of themselves. This was the first unbiased representation of African American life and these works of art showed individuality and quality.

However, African American artists were only successful if they rejected their own ideas of art and subjected themselves to European based styles. Black authors (as early as the 1760s) wrote autobiographies and narratives about their lives, often about coming out of slavery, but were still constrained by the European styles of literature just like the visual arts.

The New Negro

Starting during the time of the Emancipation, a new image of Black Americans emerged. Education, especially in the arts and sciences, was the most important aspect of this new image. Refinement and money also added to this new image. Frederick Douglass was the poster child of the New Negro movement. Even though he lived a life unlike most African Americans, he represented them because he was presentable to Whites and eloquently rose public awareness of the new image of Blacks.

The reconstruction of the image of blacks from the “Black Sambo” to the “New Negro” or “African American” took place gradually in art as well as life. African American novels excelled during the Civil War when they were fighting for their freedom and during the early 20^th century at the height of racial hate crimes, but dwindled when African Americans were nominally free. From 1867 to 1876 only two novels were published by Blacks.

The New Negro Renaissance in the 1920s further bettered the image of African Americans in art. They wanted this change because it was believed that life imitates art; to manipulate that and recreate the stereotypic figure of the African American could then recreate how White Americans saw their Black neighbors (beauty and depth instead of sub-humananity and simplicity). Whites and Blacks should both revalue the Black contribution to culture and art.

Kristi Larsen...who I heard is making more tacos this week for me to eat...right Kristi...!!!!!????

Gomez-Pena, A Manifesto Against Censorship

Track I: Finisecularte
The final decade of the twentieth century had unprecedented changes in the world. The amount, complexity, and intensity of the changes made it impossible for us to decodify them adequately. We are living in a society that is defined by time and the world is in danger. We face a strange historical dilemma: we stand in the middle of utopia and Armageddon.

Track II: The Children of the first and third worlds
In the 1980’s, an increased awareness of the existence and importance of multi-centric perspectives and hybrid cultures within the United States made us rethink the implications of Otherness. The “West” is no longer the West, and the “Third World” is not longer confined to the South. We now inhabit a socio-cultural universe in constant motion a moving cartography with a floating culture and a fluctuating sense of self. Eccentric children of the First and Third worlds are sliding toward the center of society. The art and literature is reflecting this. With all this shifting, it is hard to sustain separatist or essentialists positions. We must look more towards the global side of things in all areas (i.e. history, art, politics, etc). The media is scared of these changes. They are currently doing everything they can to control the entry of the Other(minorities), and to re-conquer the not-so-New World, a territory that they feel by historical and cultural right belongs to only to them.

Track III: La Multi-Confusion Culti-Multural
We were able to steer attention toward non-Anglo European experimental artists but we were unable to reform the administrative structure of the art institutions. They remain largely mono-cultural. Responses to multiculturalism range from both extremes. He believes that some multicultural art is presented; yet, there is no mention of the historical crimes and social inequities that lie beneath the neocolonial relationship between Anglo-European culture and it’s surrounding Others (non-Anglo-Europeans) . Artists and writers of color are losing patience. The enigmatic unwillingness of some “minority” artists and organizations to participate in the debate is also a matter of economics. They believe they will not get funding and sponsorship. We as a society need to readjust our old-fashioned national institutions and policies to the new social and cultural, linguistic, and demographic realities of this country.

Track IV: Performance Politics or Political Performance Art
Art is politics and politics is art. During the late 1980’s, politicians and activists borrowed performance techniques, while performance artists began to mix experimental art with direct political action.

Track V: Censura no es Cultura
During the 1980’s, art in the US became a highly symbolic territory of retaliation. Most of the artwork during that time that was labeled “controversial”, and was not coincidentally done by gay, women, African-American, and Latino artists. Censorship was part of a much larger spectrum. Symptoms of totalitarian state, the logical progression of a decade under the Reagan-Bush administration, were being felt everywhere. They were all different expressions of the same censoring mentality, and the fear of Otherness was at the core. The American identity, according to Gomez-Pena, has been defined in opposition to an evil Other. With the end of the Cold War and the sudden disappearance of the communist threat, new enemies had to be invented (i.e. Mexican immigrant workers). All progressive and disadvantaged others who weren’t born Christian, male, white, and wealthy seem to be, in one way or another, impeding the construction of this New World Order. Any artist who believes in and practices civil and human rights, cultural pluralism, and freedom of expression are voluntarily or involuntarily a member of resistance against the forces that seek to take the basic rights away from the Others.

Track VI: Responses to Panic Culture
People must step outside of the safe arena and attempt to recapture our stolen political will and mutilated civic life. They must speak from the new center and not the old margins. People must defend the survival of art as a demilitarized zone. Society must rebuild the community through art. Artists and academics need to work together.

Track VII: The Culture of the end of the century
The place of the artist by the end of the 1990’s should be one of a respectable social thinker. The art world is a dysfunctional family- a micro-universe reflecting the larger society. In America, artists and activists spend more time competing for attention and funding than establishing coalitions with other individuals and groups. Cultural institutions can perform and important role in that they can function as labs to develop and test new models of collaboration. They can act as “free zones” for intercultural dialogue and radical thinking. Society must bridge generation gaps. Everything is interconnected. All destructive and divisive forces have the same source, and all struggles for the respect of life in all its variants lead in the same direction.

Like Stefan wrote, these are just straight out notes. When he is refering to "the Others", I believe he is refering to Non-Anglo-Europeans. P.S. This guy is crazy!!

Garfias and Yoshitomi, Cultural Equity

First off, my apologies for how lengthy this is...i didnt want to leave anything out!

Cultural Equity by Garfias and Yoshitomi

Part I: Cultural Diversity and the Arts in America, Robert Garfias
1) No More Melting Pot
a) New cultural communities are growing too fast, and the idea that we can all melt into one cohesive and American entity is now illogical.
b) People do not have to give up their culture and history to become American. This is agreed upon.
i) The difficulty is in agreeing on who decides what is civilized, who need to be civilized, how people should be civilized, etc.
2) Community vs. Absorption
a) Smaller cultural communities feel that they must “absorb” and “be absorbed” to survive in a new environment.
i) This is not the case for larger cultural groups (such as Latinos or Asians) because their communities help them go through the transition of immigration. Also, people are comforted by what they know (that’s nature). It is difficult for these groups to break out. The large size of these cultural groups is what slows the transition.
b) New cultural groups are reluctant to participate in the arts.
i) The art environment appears hostile and unwelcoming
ii) “…our cultural institutions seems to say, ‘You must belong to enter,’ and, ‘You must know what you are doing here.’ For these immigrants…there is little or no incentive to respond to the challenge.” –Garfias page 185 (bottom)
iii) There is an impression of exclusivity or elitism (even though it may be unintended).
3) A Place to Start: the Board and the Staff
a) The governing boards and staffs of many art institutions do not mirror the diversity of the population.
i) More can be accomplished in diversifying the support staffs.
ii) The “private club” atmosphere of many boards can be an alienating factor.
4) A Corporate Solution?
a) The main problem with this solution is that when minority groups ask for funding they are criticized. Many feel that funding should go to a mainstream group because they represent everyone whereas a minority group only represents a single group.
b) Many minority communities do not have the funds to help art institutions because what wealth there is is being used for social needs (which the arts are not looked at as a significant part).
5) Responding to the Challenge
a) Many mainstream groups believe that if they can reach the alienated groups that they can convince them that the European tradition is superior to others. It is believed by the mainstream institutions that assimilation is the answer.
i) Assimilation is NOT the answer. Even though man minority groups have assimilated to the “American way,” they do not participate in mainstream art organizations.
6) The Barriers to Change
a) Even as the population diversifies, the attitude of the country’s art institutions is still,”you can only enter if you leave your own culture behind.”
b) There must be understanding and conservation of other cultures, and an end to destruction and devaluation of non-European cultures.
c) “…America is white no longer, and it never will be again.”

Part II: Cultural Democracy, Gerald Yoshitomi
1) A Changing America
a) We are not shifting from one standard to another; we are shifting from one to many.
b) We must incorporate all cultural groups into a broader American culture and our laws.
2) A Country of Cultural Diversity
a) We cannot settle for making everyone accept American culture and forget their own culture and heritage.
b) Yoshitomi asks, “How do we fully accept each other without losing some of ourselves?”
3) The Language for Discussion
a) We must use language that we are comfortable with and accept each other’s language in order to accept one another’s cultures.
b) There is conflicting meaning.
i) Culture does not equal race.
ii) “Multicultural,” “ethnic,” and “minority” are not necessarily euphemisms for African-American, Asian, or Latino.
4) No Longer the Melting Pot
a) Stew, Bouillabaisse, or Mixed Salad – each culture stays intact but mixed with the influences of the other cultures and develops a culture that is the sum of all the parts.
5) Toward Integration
a) Majority of funds went to support European classical traditions. The arts in the U.S. should not be limited to the European and mainstream traditions.
b) In the 1980s efforts were made to democratize the Americans arts support structure, art institutions, and even art.
6) Access vs. Control
a) It used be sufficient to merely receive access (to a theatre or any facility), but now control is desired as well.
i) People want control of their culture and symbols.
ii) Example from the reading: Latinos received access to a theatre, but saw directors “rework” a Latino written production because the director did not understand Latino cultural traditions.
7) Democratization – “All of our children must hear the music of the world’s greatest composers played by outstanding symphony orchestras; yet we must also broaden our standard definitions of who is included in that ‘great composers’ list.” –page 206
a) We need to incorporate all cultures into what is considered “the best” and important.
8) Development of Culturally Specific Art Resources and of Cultural Policy
a) Culturally specific arts have reached the “glass ceiling.” Many institutions were funds to start-up a program and then to advance their pilot program, but they were never given the funds to advance even further to become a large institution. Access to funds was denied.
b) Our arts policy is based on the idea that the European culture is superior, and the mainstream definition of art is the only definition.
i) remember the example of the gospel choir, jazz music, or Japanese prints
9) Different Support Systems
a) Different cultures have different support systems. They are often nonhierarchical but can also be very hierarchical. Some cultures support their art the same as the mainstream whereas others use the church or for-profit organizations.
i) Example: a fellowship (in nonhierarchical) could be divisive or to remove religion would remove meaning.
b) Cultural centers (theatre companies, museums, etc.) preserve and protect cultural resources. They also serve as a “home” for members outside of the culture to share and learn.
10) Cultural Democracy – requires all of us to try to understand one another’s culture and to trust that different cultures are willing to share their culture.
a) “No one actually lives in one culture…all of us live on the borders.” –page213

Erjavec, Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition

Aleš Erjavec: Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition

Quick Summary of the article:
• There was an avant-garde art movement in China in the 1980’s but had trouble getting off the ground due to political pressure.
• The first attempted exhibition (referred to as the aborted exhibition by the author) was going to be held in the National agriculture Gallery. This seems like an odd place, but by holding it there the Ministry of Culture could not control the gallery. Meetings for the preparations of the exhibition had to be held like underground meetings. Most of the preparatory work had been completed, but the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party prohibited the exhibition so it was cancelled.
• The China/Avant-Garde exhibition was the first nationwide and unofficial exhibition in China since 1949, but was controversial because of its inclusion of Western modern and postmodern styles. Because those art styles were considered heretical by the government the exhibition faced harsh censorship. Even if a museum were to decide to show the exhibit the government could override that decision and cancel it.
• The goal of the organizers was to show the exhibit in the National Gallery. This would typify the suppressed and skeptical identity of avant-garde art. More importantly it would challenge authority and boost the avant-garde movement. Organizers received support from three major Chinese institutions, but the National Gallery declined the proposal for the exhibit because of the artistic orientations and potential political consequences.
• They were finally able to win over the National Gallery, but not without compromise. To gain permission for use of the gallery the organizers had to agree to not allow three types of pieces to be in the exhibit. The exhibit could not include art that opposed the Communist Party or the Four Fundamental Principles, pornographic images (any display of sexuality), or performance art/action pieces. All pieces in the exhibit had to be approved by the authorities (censorship law).
o Performance art was not allowed because it was provocative and allowed individual freedom. Officials felt it would be too easy for performers to transform the art into a political event (i.e. – demonstration).
• There was absolutely no government funding of the exhibition, and it was very difficult to receive public support due to the nature of the art and the political sentiments towards it.
• At the opening of the exhibition there was a surprise shooting that was supposedly part of a performance piece. A few days later there were bomb threats made against the exhibit. The exhibition had to be temporarily shut-down after both incidents.
• This whole chain of events is referred to as the end of idealism in China. It is also a result of the post-Cold War outside pressures of worldwide materialism.
Conclusion:
Personally, the main theme in this article is government censorship of art. This group struggled to show a different genre of art. Art in a Communist society is much different from that in a Democratic society, and this article can be used comparatively.

Danto, The Art World Revisited

Arthur C. Danto – The Art World Revisted

How do we determine what constitutes art and who makes these determinations? Danto begins his article with a discussion of the reassessment of supposed Rembrandt’s such as The Polish Rider. If determined to not be a Rembrandt, The Polish Rider (an oil on canvas depicting Bart Baran leading the Polish cavalry into battle against the Luftvaffe) would dramatically lose its value. There have been scientific teams, employing X-rays, molecular resonance tests, and more to determine if a piece of art is or is not a Rembrandt. You may ask the question, “Why all the fuss?”. The piece of art does not change at all – so clearly it is not just what is on the canvas that gives a piece of art its value according to world.
Danto then discusses the Studio Furniture movement in America, a movement that sought to erase the distinction between craft and art. Many were unimpressed by this “art.” In terms of a stool produced by a machine or created by an artist, Alan Turing claimed that if we cannot tell the difference, then there is no difference and that humans and machines can produce an equally valued output. Wendell Castle did not agree with this criticism, for “everyone allows that sculpture is art. If a jury of experts cannot tell a piece of furniture apart from a piece of sculpture, there can be no difference between a piece of furniture and an artwork.” Castle is describing the Institutional Theory of Art, which states that which “makes something art and something else not is something the art world – i.e. the ‘experts’ – prescribes.”
To illustrate the problem of determining who belongs to the art world and therefore determining what is art, Danto takes up the issue of Warhol’s Brillo Box. Andy Warhol’s Brillo Box appears to be nothing more than, well, a Brillo box. When a Toronto art dealer put together a show in 1965, Warhol’s Brillo Box was stopped by Canadian Customs and deemed to be merchandise, not “original sculpture,” and therefore was subject to a duty in crossing the border. Not just the Customs officials, but those at the art show could not call Warhol’s Brillo Box a piece of art. The director of the gallery “hated them.” So is this art? This reveals another important point: the art world is clearly not a body which acts as one. Some so-called experts could not proclaim Warhol’s Brillo Box to be art, while others certainly did. Danto expands the art world not just as experts who assign some objects as art and other objects as junk. The art world is the “historically ordered world of artworks, enfranchised by theories which themselves are historically ordered.” The theory that says that something is art when declared to be art by the art world misses the point. (warning: this gets confusing. read pages 38-41 for clarification on this somewhat philosophical discourse). Something being art is not so by virtue of its classification by experts. Something is art because it is art. The art world serves as the interpreter of these works. The art world understands the theories, the historical perspective, and the world from which art is born. It is not by their decree that makes something art. An analogy I came up with is that of a football referee and a penalty. In a football game, a defender commits a pass interference penalty on the wide receiver. The referee throws his flag and the defense is penalized. Now here is the question: did the penalty exist because the referee threw his flag and declared it so OR did the act of pass interference take place without acknowledgement of the referee and it only became clear to everybody when the referee made the call? Danto’s argument is that the referee is like the art world. They know the rules, the context, and can identify a penalty (in the case of the pass interference) or a work of art (in the case of Warhol’s Brillo Box).

Danto continues the essay with a few concluding examples. As evident by the misguided criticism by some of Eva Hesse sculptural abstraction, the art world does not respond as one. One critic called Hesse’s work a failed secondhand attempt to give Pollack’s drip paintings a third dimension. This critic thought he knew the context, but had no idea what Hesse’s art was really all about or that Hesse meticulously drilled panels, rather than just throw his sculpture together in Pollack-type form. Critics can easily overanalyze or misinterpret an artist. To understand the art, you have to understand the context. The context includes the historical perspective, the artist’s perspective, and the critical perspective.

The art world is the discourse of reasons institutionalized, and to be a member of the art world is, accordingly, to have learned what it means to participate in the discourse of reasons for one’s culture. Only where there is an art world is there art.

Dworkin, Can A Liberal State Support Arts?

Can A Liberal State Support Art?

There are 2 approaches to how far the public should support arts and humanities: economic (arts are valued at what a community will pay to secure them) and lofty (concentrates on what is good for people, not what they want) .

According to the lofty approach, the state must provide arts to the degree of sophistication and culture that the public wants. The market is the most effective instrument to decide how much and what kind of culture people will have.

Charging admission to museums that includes opportunity costs and the “true value” of the art inside would naturally rule out public subsidy. People who would most benefit the most from subsidies to museums are people who are already well off enough to go to the museum. Maybe that money should be used for something that would benefit the entire population, like healthcare.

Market prices don’t always reflect what the entire community wants.

Arts and humanities are public goods, therefore must be supported by the public treasury. Public goods can’t be produced efficiently through the market because it is nearly impossible to exclude free-riders. The best remedy for this is for the state to calculate how much people would be willing to pay if necessary and spend that much themselves with the taxes paid by the public.

But how would you calculate this hypothetical price? There are too many factors that cannot be measured or determined to answer this question.

Some arts are clearly not public goods, like the opera, because you have to buy a ticket to see it. So maybe we should consider art as a semi-public good; the benefits of art don’t directly affect all people, so free riders are limited. “Art makes a general contribution to the community as a whole, not just to those who enter into special commercial transactions to enjoy it.” However, some people are only affected by someone else who has been affected by art.

Art and culture have intrinsic benefits for all because everyone is linked to them. High culture and popular culture are essentially the same because benefits from high culture spill over into popular culture and vis versa. People are better off if the opportunities their culture presents are more complex and diverse.

Since our value of art is seen through the lens of our culture, we have no way of knowing how other cultures (or our own culture in the future) will value art. Therefore, we should identify our cultural structure and protect it.

Language is the structure of our culture – it is shared and people can’t be excluded. Arts of all kinds depend on our language.

To conclude, even though the economic approach isn’t perfect, its better than the lofty approach. The lofty approach couldn’t work because of paternalism and elitism. Arts can be funded/protected by the government, but only if that funding is focused on the cultural/artistic structure, not individual works.

Cummings, Government and the Arts

Government and the Arts: An Overview by Cummings
• Throughout the early years of America, like England, the government hasrelatively little direct government patronage of the arts.
• It was frequently contrasted with the European lavish state support for thearts, where patronage of the arts is a normal government responsibility.
• Americans were busy with other things.
• Many great Americans like John Adams worried that a strong focus on the artsmight be linked with an excess of luxury and corruption of the citizens.
• Early government leaders had considerable knowledge of the arts.
• American leaders became involved in decorating the new public buildings in DC.
• John Trumbull’s paintings in the Capitol lacked quality, thus defeating allattempts of future American artists in decorating the Capitol.
• Horatio Greenough, commissioned to create a sculpture in the honor of GeorgeWashington’s centennial birth year, was very controversial and essentiallyremoved from Capitol grounds because in it, Washington was seated in a godlikepose with the lower half of his body covered only by a drapery and the upperhalf was naked.
• In the 19th century, the government left the arts alone.
•At the beginning of the relationship between government and the arts, a numberof Americans began to record some world class achievements in the arts.
• James Smithson left 100,000 British pounds, enabling the government toestablished the Smithsonian, which began the cultivation of the arts andsciences.
• Great family fortunes started accumulating, so this led to the development ofgreat private art collections, and the establishment of museums to where theprivate collections eventually made their way.
• In the late 19th century, private philanthropy for the arts began.
• After the Civil War, many immigrants came to the US, and brought with theminterests in different forms of art.
• The government played an important role in maintaining the legal framework ofthe arts in terms of direct subsidy and the promotion of the arts.
• Moderate federal tax rates provided for some additional incentive for privatedonations.
• The New Deal was the first comprehensive federal arts program in the US.
• It was the largest public arts program in the history of the world.
• It was a radical change from previous government relations with the arts.
• During WWII, the first federal arts program was dead.
• At the end of WWII, the Dept. Of State established the American Commission forthe Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas,which ordered American military forces to save the art collections that theNazis stole and returned them to their museums.
• In the 1950's, artistic activities continued to be supported primarily at thebox office or in the marketplace, and by a remarkable system of privatepatronage.
• In the 1950's, the government was interested in international culturalexchanges, the design and decoration of public buildings, governmentcollections such as the National Gallery of Art, and the design of coins andstamps, since art was largely used as a tool of US foreign policy in the ColdWar.
• Compared to European governments, the US government had a limited involvementin the arts in the 1950's.
• The lack of involvement was a result of the view that the arts were notimportant enough to spend tax dollars on them, philosophical opposition togovernment involvement and possible interference in the arts, and the questionof what kind of arts would receive the appropriate funding.
• In 1959, an argument in favor of creating an arts foundation was made popular.
• The John F. Kennedy administration made a case for a greater federalgovernment role in the arts, however JFK was cautious about getting too farahead of Congressional opinion on arts policy issues.
• August Heckscher became the first special consultant to the president for thearts.
• After JFK’s assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson supported legislation renamingthe National Cultural Center to the John F. Kennedy Center for the PerformingArts and providing up to $15 million for its construction.
• Roger Stevens was appointed as the special assistant to the president for thearts, and helped introduce legislation which created a Federal Advisory Councilon the Arts.
• In the 1964 election, many members of Congress who opposed federal artslegislation were defeated.
• In 1965, the LBJ administration submitted a legislative proposal to create aNational Foundation for the Arts and Humanities and the bill was passed.
• The Arts Endowment’s funding was decreased in the late 1960's due to the warin Vietnam.
• When Nixon became president, he doubled and redouble the budget of the Artsand Humanities Endowment.
• The Ford administration also provided budget increases for the arts.
• After Reagan won the presidency and Republicans captured control of theSenate, many anti-arts program views were present.
• The Reagan administration called for a 50% budget cut of both the Arts andHumanities endowments.
• The President’s Commission on the Arts and the Humanities, however, issued areport that said that the arts needed the full financial support of theprevious administration.
• The 1986 Tax Reform Act sharply curtailed charitable private donations.
• A National Endowment program was created in 1986, which stressed the importantof art education from kindergarten through the 12th grade.
• In the 1980's, artists were concerned that the publicly funded arts tended toreflect the social and artistic values of mainstream, upper status, whiteAmerica, and neglected minority communities.
• The newly elected Bush administration in 1989 appointed John Frohnmayer wasthe chair of the National Endowment for the Arts.
• The works of Andres Serrano contained controversial photo of a crucifixsubmerged in urine.
• The Corcoran Gallery of Art cancelled the Mapplethorpe exhibit, whichcontained a number of homoerotic photos.
• The House voted to reduce the Arts Endowment funds by $45,000 whichrepresented the amount of money linked to the funding of the Serrano andMapplethorpe exhibits.
• Some conservative members of Congress condemned the National Endowment for theArts for funding with taxpayers’ money on art that most taxpayers considerobjectionable, arguing that such art opposed the moral sentiments of manyAmericans.
• Taxpayers should not pay for support of pornography or offensive art.
• In 1989, the House barred the funding of art that is obscene.
• In Cincinnati, the director of the Contemporary Arts Center, Dennis Barrie,made sure that his gallery did not have federal, state, or local governmentfunding and thus presented the Mapplethorpe exhibit.
• Barrie and the gallery were indicted by the city on obscenity charges.
• A bipartisan commission recommended that imposing restrictions on the contentof works of art supported by the Endowment is unnecessary, but at the sametime, declared that obscenity is not protected speech and the NEA is prohibitedfrom funding obscene works.
• In 1990, the Senate Labor and Human Resource Committee voted in favor of afive-year reauthorization that would leave the question of obscenity up to thecourts.
• The House Postsecondary Education Subcommittee also left it up to the courtsto define obscenity, but also gave states more power to allocate arts fundingwhere it deems best.

Carter, Sculpture as Public Art

One of sculpture's most important features is its public nature--"Public art in the public sphere."

Different from architecture because it does not compartmentalize space for functional purposes.

Audience does not have choice to experience it or not...
-it persists in fixed and determined space
-accessible to all people using the environment

The concept of "public space implies also a public sphere."
-Problem with the terms 'public' and 'public sphere'--dependent on political and local settings
i.e. public sphere::monarchy=property ownership under control of the reigning monarch
public sphere::democracy=ownership and access reside in the hands of the people, or a representative government acting on their behalf

Democratic perspective includes several segments of society, such as classes, media influence, interest groups, political parties, govn't bureaucracies, and the legal system.
-Competing interests of the segments lead to different requirements for public sculpture
-ex: Sculptures of former communist leaders in Russia or Sadaam Hussein in Iraq that are now toppled.
-Public art will be called upon to serve various audiences within the public sphere

Distinction must be drawn between public and private sphere.
-Private=sphere of individuals and families, ex: family/individual portrait, etc.
-Public=sphere in which all stakeholders in a community have an interest and are entitled to a "say," either directly or by proxy, ex: US Congress or other govn't agency commissions a scultpture to honor veterans of a war.

Must look at the role of the artist in public sculpture.
-The sculptor who is commissioned to make public sculpture is acting in the name of the community
Often, an important role is to mythologize history.
Also, the aim may be to foster unity by idealizing shared sentiments or an area of common agreement. i.e. Sculptures featuring national heroes used as means of social control to instill patriotism/national unity
-However, in an age of anti-heroism, a different approach is called for.
Ex: The Vietnam Memorial necessarily had to address coflicting sentiments regarding an unpopular war. Despite initial public outcry, the Memorial is now a symbol of "national mourning and reconciliation," as well as a "critical parody," reversing the usual role of war monuments. The Memorial has obviously satisfied the needs of many diverse groups "resulting in a stream of visitors who often participate...by leaving gifts..."

The critical function of public sculpture is increasingly important
-In the critical function, public sculpture is a type of symbolic intervention that treats history, politics, and society, often forcing a reexamination of painful moments in history.
-SEE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 19 OF CARTER ARTICLE FOR EXAMPLE!

Incidents of public outcry against public sculpture raise broad questions about the artist's role.
-"Should artists simply absorb and represent the views of the community in non-controversial ways" or do they "assume the position of social critic and proceed accordingly?"
-In an increasingly diverse and idealogical society, sculptors who become spokesman/commentators for the community have a more difficult task before them.
-Do artists posess the necessary knowledge and qualifications to dispense "truth"? Are they immune to the influence of govn't that may try to use them as instruments of propaganda?
-The circumstances call for a rethinking of the processes guiding public sculpture.
Public sculpture is not about artists working in isolation, but about a collaborative work of art between artist, govn't and society at large. SEE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 20 OF CARTER ARTICLE FOR EXAMPLE.

An approach that addresses the need for community participation is demonstrated by Joesph Beuy's social sculpture that signaled a major shift in thinking about public sculpture with his 7000 Oaks work in Germany. SEE ARTICLE FOR DESCRIPTION.
The process of Beuy's sculpture extends the process toward community involvement where their participation in effect becomes part of the sculpture.

There is a final issue--What is the relation of public sculpture to mass art?
Initially, some features are demonstrated as defined by Noel Carroll: it is produced for, and consumed by, many people and brings aestheric experience to a mass audience; it is class indifferent; is readily accessible with minimum effort to large numbers of people. Moreover, public sculpture, in its most successful forms at least, shares with mass art a distrust of avant garde.
Public sculpture is different from all forms of mass art, as defined by Carroll, in that it is one singular work of art, as opposed to cds, movies, tv shows, etc, that are mass distributed.
Public sculpture fails to satisfy Carroll's requirements of being a miltiple instance or type artwork ...distributed by mass technology.

SEE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE FOR SUMMARY.

--Not gonna lie, this one was awesome. I was on the edge of my f#@kin seat!...

Carter, Art, Technology, and the Museum

Art, Technology, and the Museum – the one and only Curtis L

This article discusses the tension between functional art and representational art. This tension arises out of the differences in the purpose of the two types of art. Functional art can be beautiful but its main purpose is to help mankind adjust to nature, and representational art is meant to cultivate the mind. People question whether or not these two types of art require different sets of aesthetic values because functional art is so different from traditional art. We do not need to change the values, but we do need to change the way we think of an art museum. It should be thought of as an environment for interpreting art in many different forms rather that a place only for rare treasures. Carter argues that it is the job of the museum to present and interpret the best art irregardless of its form (painting, sculpture, film, or products of technology and design). He says that both fine art and consumer products (industrial design) are functional but in different ways. To do their job an art museum must be open and inclusive for all art. To bridge the gap between fine/traditional art and industrial art, the aesthetics of the two types of art must be linked. In this respect, good design not only serves it practical purpose but it also, “expresses in its visual design the way of life that invented it.” A positive effect of including industrial design in art museums is that it will break down the elitism that has developed. New audiences will be attracted that may have previously found art as unapproachable but will be able to accept this industrial art and appreciate it. The art museums are a place for the exploration and experiencing a diverse array of artistic achievements. The museum is a place where people can encounter cultural symbols, and while the symbolism of a painting may be quite obvious there is still the opportunity for interpretation in industrial design (Carter gives the example of a speaker). While functional art may not address the human concerns that a painting might, but industrial art does exhibit human creativity and achievement. To bring these two types of art together in the museums we must find common ground but also differences so that they can be fully appreciated.

Benedict, Final Report

Final Report of the American Assembly – Benedict

*This article was written to summarize the changes that the NEA needed to take in order to change arts in America.

Six recommendations were made to “reform” the NEA:

1. Art and artists contribute to the nation’s identity, and therefore the private sector and government at all levels should work together to improve the art world and access to it.
2. Excellence and its defining standards should be the criterion of government funding.
3. Because freedom of expression is essential in a democratic society, government policies should never restrict artistic freedom or expression.
4. Government funding should support all art, including art that is unpopular or controversial.
5. Public funding must be administered with the principle that no artist’s work can be changed or suppressed because of race, gender, religion, etc.
6. With public support there is public responsibility. An artist should work to produce the highest quality that they are capable of. Organizations should carry out their mission statements and work to make the public more aware.

The Assembly found five things that the NEA needed to do:

1. Strengthen the institutions that produce and present the arts.
2. Promote greater access to the arts in new and undeserved communities.
3. Continue to support artists through grants, fellowships, and any other assistance irregardless of the form of art being produced (traditional, non-traditional, etc.).
4. Work to increase appropriations to the NEA so that it can be restored to its original buying power in the 1980s.
5. Exercise leadership be strengthening research, funding private research, and assembling conferences on important policy issues.

State and Local Arts Support: This level of arts support has increased over the years, and state contributions are now 60% greater than the NEA’s. This increases the risk of national leadership in the arts decreasing. State and local funding can increase but not at the expense of the NEA. The Assembly had two recommendations: the new provision to increase NEA funding should be reviewed (and possibly modified) by the next Congress; increasing federal allocations should not decrease state allocations (the states should have to match funds at least).

The Assembly developed 6 recommendations for improvement of the case for the arts and their presentation:

1. Art advocates need to improve communication to the public on how government funding of the arts improves the economy and quality of life.

2. Art supporters need to find ways to incorporate people at the grassroots level.

3. Art communities should closely monitor legislation at all government levels that could affect the arts.

4. Art communities need to build alliances with groups that work with the arts (religious organizations, unions, etc.).

5. Art advocated should work with CEO’s who understand the importance of art and will also advocate for art.

6. Art professionals need to develop a network to research, analyze, and continue to exchange information.

For the government to effectively address the cultural requirements of underserved communities:

1. The necessary steps must be taken by public art agencies to make sure that all cultures are recognized in our society.
2. Public art agencies should help artists from underserved communities develop professionally.

The United States needs to develop new international cultural policies. We need to encourage the free and full exchange of art and artists between countries. Exchange programs need to be developed that will take advantage of the abundance of the cultural resources from the increase in new immigrants.

In regards to tax policies the Assembly had two recommendations:

1. Look over the advantages and disadvantages for the arts of proposed and present tax provisions.
2. Identify successful use of tax laws by art institutions and agencies.

On Education: The NEA needs to expand its role in art education advocacy, and there must be equal access to arts education as well.