Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26414116
label
Arts and Humanities [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26414116
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Arts and Humanities [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Christine Macy's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26414116
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-18557099-20130936S-002-001-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
48577254ed6f0c57
ocrText
-
arts / deman
LISSA 3/25/98
millennum -
greet adverte fe public
fundred of and + h -
it! upertance -/ advanted
public funden -
and this is why. -
forement expal 5
democrary -
-) allergy is milennium -
- why
as engine 9 callen- —
colgrel of surlenare
shageter of denears. -
not magral/luary -
really do mho up foh
of Cull / Somety
pluden
have part
impine future -
I
1
imagination - freedom
went to kene foot
to Myr magine futures -
how cen you create ≥?
cl cand Umagen it it- 1 Stretcl ideas
-
pap culture verses experiment / explax
stalie perchased
apacaly phi vesen S
nature
the future - health
biser of paper - how
to charg- -
divisity
]
celebrating it -
POTUS-
I
a + H - -
Underlashing difference
in cide to fed can bends
Share m =
places she visit
menchaster Fued /Pillaby
Bill Student
manet school
Duhe Ellergton
school
hen to pppers
Relaway
sharing callere the not
chodating,
D wish everyon who
doest want to fuel the
who J Socher w/ch
/
ped - fand
2
listened he sely - pacting
a + - net descurenting
3
watched became not feels
B
journed funded - pigent of
chu clen to
delumt 9
why Scared 9 ch ?
new has ben
g new to Rhal, and
Sulph Even of a margin
cen if on mayor - it aftend
offerd an tab sen taste
plugh-
Sensebile
/
Sheryos-
in
1
I saw herp had
"Benches" - Chicago
art Resect 37- -
School pyrem -
art shall
behicle / to lean + expression
Duhe Ellings School ,94
Ja the and 1
school
**
X
1
muchym contribution
2
Lee Bdige - 1st amers
Spead achen - affination
3
Public Jundry
why
/
She interibe 1
millennum -
Hawhing / Bagh 1
at an steeting
- presery treesms
-> as then of you know —
ant + h are about ta
mal the then Spen
byse the any of us_ -
febic of denecray
sheything G/- -
- civil Samel
Callin of engine
back Gone
demear
I
(dad)
- what you meed
3. ep 4 start-
in
Public private mhet pleo
nen proper ( Oxcess
ath 2) of
[
apadysic visin US
pulice funds
why people S a afraid
limited falm
why so dangerou?
slan wa
terminates
disentached
- to cart 9 ca
of sods
vision be
fa cur
kids ??
= eretin a
covertment
why peple
ag anst ct >>
merches
- places viriled
L
Gued
Hea
Chugo school_
White Hame
3
at Mish
4
12d
privants reper - - 396
Chila at
rish- -
Katy = camplete
folds -antin
humanity -
shore peer beness
Sortune
creatin cut certs -
not 1.
SUNTUM M @ A1
04/08/98 09:39:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: 1998-4-8 remarks at Mellon dinner
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 8, 1998
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT ANDREW MELLON DINNER
National Gallery of Art
Washington, D.C.
9:15 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Laughlin. Mr.
Powell, Mr. Smith, members of the Board of Trustees, members of
Congress and our administration, members of the Mellon family, ladies
and gentlemen. It's a great honor for Hillary and me to be here
tonight to honor this great legacy of Andrew Mellon, and to honor all
of you who do so much to carry on that legacy.
I first came to the National Gallery over 30 years ago
when I was a college student at Georgetown. Over the years I've come
back as often as I could. When I came here from time to time as
governor of my home state, I confess that on occasion I sneaked out
of the meetings of the Governors Association and came to the National
Gallery, where there was less noise and more light. (Laughter.)
Hillary and I have been privileged to be visit here in the last few
years, to tour the Vermeer and Picasso exhibitions, among others.
It's hard to believe now that the National Gallery is 61
years old, founded when our country was in the grip of the Great
Depression and the world was slipping inexorably toward World War II.
But Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon knew that our nation's work lay
even then not simply in our monetary strength or our military power,
but in the value of our ideas, the creativity of our spirit, the
power of our common culture. So he and a group of passionate men and
women gave this great gift to the nation, and established a tradition
of partnership that endures down to the very day.
There is no question that Paul Mellon carries on this
tradition. His generosity has helped to invigorate and sustain our
entire nation's cultural and artistic institutions. Having already
won the National Medal of Arts in 1985, last fall he was awarded the
National Medal for the Humanities, which Robert Smith kindly accepted
for him.
So tonight I want to thank him again, and all the
members of his family who have participated in giving other
Americans, who could never have afforded these things on their own,
access to this wonderful world.
When President Roosevelt dedicated the National Gallery,
he said, "The dedication of this gallery to a living past and to a
greater and more richly living future is the measure of the
earnestness of our intention that the freedom of the human spirit
shall go on."
Today, at the dawn of a new century and a new
millennium, it falls to us to continue in that great tradition.
Hillary and I have launched the White House Millennium Program to
encourage all Americans to honor our living past with all its
treasures, and to imagine our even more richly living future, with
the creations and the discoveries yet to come.
I hope that all of you will find ways to join us in your
homes, wherever you're from, in the coming months and years as we
celebrate and commemorate the new millennium. But most of all,
tonight, I just want to thank you on behalf of a grateful nation for
your dedication and your commitment to our common cultural and
artistic life.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
9:24 P.M. EDT
Message Sent To:
500,00m soo, ver 1991
1977 1997 me
had
9 required
is
1 check
"
Broadway
I mabled
1.
Public/private partnerships bringing art into the heart of urban areas to revitalize.
Encouraging community art to help beautify abandoned spaces which encourages kids to
feel ownership over the space in which they live.
2.
Studies have shown that involvement in worthwhile civic activities encourages people to
be good citizens - nurtures the spirit and allows them to feel a part of a larger whole.
examle
3.
Fareed Zakaria makes the point that government shapes society not the other way
around. If that is the case, shouldn't government lead by example in setting up a
framework in which arts are prioritized? Does she think this?
4.
The connection between state and civil society - which is more dependant on the other -
what's their connection and how do they influence one another. I think this needs to be
established at some point in the speech.
5.
In his book, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Francis Fukuyama
argues that the art of association is good not only for democracy (Tocqueville) but for
capitalism as well. Fukuyama makes the argument that in a society where people trust
individuals outside of their families, "social capital" is generated, which is as useful as
financial capital to a society's economic well-being. "Social capital is critical to
prosperity and to what has come to be called competitiveness," he says. She probably
isn't going to want to make the argument that art is good for the economy, but one could
Itreet
link the connection between art as a unifier and universalizer (is that a word?) of the
human experience and its strength in bringing people together in a society, which helps
make the society function better in the big picture. The "most important consequences,"
he writes, "may not be felt in the economy so much as in social and political life," Civil
society breeds sociability, community and citizenship, and bolsters liberal democratic
w/n
government.
Sariaty
6.
The arts are civil society's foundation, they are the key to its creativity, its diversity, its
what
imagination and as a result its spontaneousness and liberty. Just as democracy depends
buld
art
on civil society for its liberal spiritedness, civil society depends on the arts. A
government that supports the arts and the humanities is not engaging in philanthropy, but
assuring the conditions of its own flourishing. Our support of the arts is not for the sake
sare
of the arts but for the sake of democracy.
7.
I thought this quote was great, not really for her to use but to speak to some of the
movements in American history and the arts and how they have impacted us as a society
and play an integral part in the way we define our history and ourselves as Americans.
has has
"The Southern novel did not fragment America: it helped define an American
perspective. The Hudson River School of painting represented an emerging American
Shapia
taste in the nineteenth century, just as New England transcendentalism helped create an
American philosophical perspective. Jewish culture in New York helps tie the city
a
together even as it gives special expression to particular identity. African-American
Peeple
music and theater have offered American blacks a unique avenue for particularistic
cultural expression and at the same time stamped our national culture with much of its
common identity. Jazz, tap, and blues at once define American and define the special
contribution of African-Americans to America." Art has a way of providing a voice for
those whose voice was muted in the past, and through this voice their experiences or
expressions are universalized and shaped into an inclusive common culture.
8.
IMAGINATION as the tie in between democracy and the arts and the millennium
(Honoring our past. Imagining our future) Connecting the role of imagination in
democracy "It is the faculty by which we stretch ourselves to include others, expand the
compass of our interests to discover common ground, and overcome the limits of our
parochial selves to become fit subjects to live in democratic communities." Connecting
the role of imagination in the arts, "the artist needs critical imagination to ward off
Bale
convention and defend creation. Ideally, in serving imagination, the arts serve democracy
and democratic citizenship; and ideally, in supporting the arts, democracy serves itself --
event where the arts it supports defy convention, outrage taste and flaunt democratic
mores. It is only a mature democracy that fully appreciates these linkages It has been a
mark of America's maturity as a free society that it has sustained a supportive arts policy
without becoming either proprietary or censorious." In a 1995 speech delivered at the
Met HRC said in response to those who oppose public funding of the arts, "they fail to
appreciate what every generation of Americans have intuitively known, that our artistic
imagination is critical to our civilization and our democracy." She also said on June 15,
1994, " Where there is imagination, there is always hope. Where there is potential for
creative expression, there is always the possibility for human progress."
9.
Common themes that run throughout BC and HRC public statements on the arts:
The arts encourage us to celebrate individual identities while reminding us of all
that we have in common. By sharing in one another's expression, we learn to
understand the universal commonality of human experience. "In so doing we gain
a greater appreciation and understanding of the breadth of human thought and
emotion. And we gain a more profound sense of our common purpose as
Americans. But if the arts and humanities are essential to appreciating and
preserving our culture, they are also essential to our growth and renewal as a
people. For it is only by deepening our understanding, unleashing our
imaginations, and enlarging our capacities to see and to feel that we can envision
a better future for ourselves, our communities, and our nation."
Art as public domain -- for and by the community. They speak out against those
who say "Public support for the arts is a luxury we can no longer afford", by
insisting that it is a necessity for "the continuing strength and vitality of our
community of culture in this country."
Our "moral strength" as Americans is in our appreciation of our rich cultural
traditions and our appreciation of our diversity.
NEA -- Public/private partnership. Makes art accessible to all sectors of our
country.
CHILDREN. In HRC's June 21, 1995 op-ed in the NYT she writes, "Too often,
we seen children who, instead of discovering the joys of painting, music,
sculpting or writing, express themselves through acts of frustration and even
violence. The arts offer an alternative to the more disturbing elements of our
popular culture, and a safe haven that allows children to explore their creative
potential, transporting them beyond the bounds of their difficult circumstances.
Their exposure to the roots and diverse richness of human civilization will
enhance their understanding of their own heritage and the world in which they
live I hope we will remember that public support for the arts is a down payment
on our future. It is an investment in the values we claim to honor and in the
cultural traditions in which democracy has flourished for 218 years. Now is no
time to turn our backs on that legacy or its promise."
Themes of Ann Arbor:
Expression an democres devicent
start out with images of impact of art on our lives; art shows; poetry readings; scientific
discoveries; cultural heritage; music; dance; children drawing; greatest artists; murals; etc; jazz;
when we look back at the history of civilization, and the defining events, ideas, and movements;
we rely on the paintings, sculptures, books and writing of the men and women of those times;
It's not a luxury -- not marginal: but an integral force in sustaining and enriching democracy;
creative thinking/the arts the spark behind every invention; every movement forward;
trailblazers; change our very notion of progress; we can imagine what's possible; freedom that is
at heart of our democratic system has unelased the creative spirit of America.
1) Art expression of our diversity; reflection of multiculturalism; appreciation for other's
culture; vehicle for learning; engine of culture; pluralism; expands the marketplace of idea;
dialogue; creative expression; Bridge between cultures; races; neighborhoods; must be able to
understand differences in order to find our comon bonds; can bring us together across barriers
that separate us;
( race
2) for children -- a particularly strong impact on their lives; the arts help them discover their
crative ptoential through art, words, ideas; positive alternatives to violence, destruction, despair;
(President's Committee's "Coming Up Taller" report -- compelling evidence that arts and
humanities provide young peopel with creative, productive, safe outlets for their enrgy; kids who
have been written off -- discovering the job, fullfillment, discipline, self confidence through own
artistic and intellectual expression;
Rita Dove: If children are unable to voice what they mean, no one will now how they feel. If
they can't imagein a diffeent world, they are stumbling through a darkness made all the more
sinister by its lack of reference points. For a young person growing up in America's aliented and
disparate neighborhoods, there can be no greater empowerment than to dare to spak from the
heart -- and then discover that one is not alone in one's feelings. Once hope and self esteem have
been engendered, the work of redefining the future can be gin."
Favorite movie: M. Holland's Opus; remembering when poorest schools had art, and orchestras,
and drama classes; now no longer; what a loss;
2) integral force/engine for susaining democracy, enriching civil society; 3 legs of the stool; all
have a role to play; -- and all benefit; enriches/srengthens civic bonds, i.e. community projects;
town and gown (U of Michigan); also challenges democracy; pushes the boundaries;
2) Can't be allowed to be experience of the elite; importance of public funding for the arts and
humanities; what are people scared of? When she was growing up, art, music, dance part of
school; now not so; it's been cut as "marginal" -- huge disservice to kids, and to the nation;
3) concrete applications of arts: transform lives i.e. at risk kids; (Strickland -- Pittsburgh;
Manchester Guild: started kids out in pottery; now a major arts center; it gives kids the
confidence of expression; their self esteem grows; their grades improve; School for the arts in
Chicago; poetry classes in Anacostia, DC; freeing up experssion -- and helping to solve
problems;
examples HRC gives in "At Risk" kids event at White House; children thrive when engaged in
activities that teach new skills, build on interpersonal relationships; safe, stable, supportive
atmosphere;
4) the arts as catalyst for bringing communities together; U of Michigan model of that role;
university academics working with contractors to envision site enhancements of a
bridge/community project; state humanities council gave grant for students to work on site with
U of M teachers and students, local high school, to use bridge site and surrounding neighbohrood
as place of curriculare experimentation in teaching; summer workshop -- to produce new kinds of
writing programs; students doing historical fictions of Ann Arbor; a lot of civic excitement; s;
4) practical applications; through the National Endowment for Arts and Humanities
collaborations between the Justice Department, HUD, HHS, Corporation for National Service.
5) HRC examples; her reflections as she travels around the world; the rich expressions of a
nation; a culture; a people's dreams; experssions of universal yearnings;
5) U of Michigan: model -- mocrocosm of how the arts broaden experience;
4) enter millennium: must be able to imagine the future; people must be able to set their minds
free; free to imagine through the arts; to imagine, and the build a new future; a new nation;
children, particularly -- helping them discover their creative potential through art, words, and
ideas;
5) so many of our images of th future today are apocalyptic; static; hierarchical; scarey;
impersonal; star wars; terminator movies; disembodied; it's not the future any of us wants; must
be able to imagine a postive, brigher future;
8) time to make priorities for the 21 st century; where to put energy, commitment, funds;
investing in the arts is downpayment of the future; not only for children, but in the values we
claim to honor, and the cultural tradit ions in which outdemocracy has flourished for mor ethan
200 years.
6) millennium lectures; honoring the past; (so must preserve our local traditions history,
folk creations; "What my grandmother Taught me" -- but also to imagining the future; history;
the arts; science; tied to imagination; they are bigger than any of us; only when we can express
what we feel, believe, and gain hope in ourselves, can the work of redefining the future begin. A
better, more opstimistic, confident future. As we prepare for a new century, arts and culture even
more essential to to the endurance, survival of our democratic values of tolerance pluralism,
freedom;
7) if we care about civility; character; democratic freedoms; then we ought to support federal
agencies and institutions whose misssion it is to make American culture available to all children;
goverment must play leading role; but it must come from all of us; we are are all the
beneficiaries;
PAGE
24
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1998 The Kansas City Star Co.
THE KANSAS CITY STAR
January 30, 1998 Friday METROPOLITAN EDITION
SECTION: METROPOLITAN; Pg. C1; BARBARA SHELLY
LENGTH: 662 words
HEADLINE: Learning the art of citizenship
BYLINE: BARBARA SHELLY
BODY:
They came from Mexico, Singapore and the nations that used to
make up the Soviet Union.
In all, 66 persons became citizens of
the
United States last week at a ceremony at the federal courthouse in
Kansas City, Kan.
Behind each beaming face - everybody beams on these occasions -
lie some common themes. Everyone struggled. They wondered whether
they were doing the right thing. People helped them out. They got
lucky.
Among those 66 new citizens were Kwan and Ling Wu, immigrants
from China.
Their story has all the familiar elements. They struggled to
choose between their homeland and their new land. They had help. And
they were lucky - luck in this case being the intersection where
talent and opportunity cross paths.
The story of Kwan Wu, who previously used the name Xin Kun Wu, is
not unfamiliar to many in Kansas City.
He is the artist selected in 1991 by federal judges to design and
sculpt the 14-foot bronze sculpture in front of the federal
courthouse in Kansas City. The sculpture was created as a frame for a
plaque inscribed with the Bill of Rights.
At the time, Wu had been in this country just more than two
years. An informal arrangement to act as a visiting professor at the
University of Kansas had evolved into a wish to remain.
Wu's reasons were many. China's crushing of the democracy
movement at Tiananmen Square was a big one. He and his wife had one
child, all they would be permitted in their homeland. He liked the
freedom of an artist's life here - he didn't need official permission
to design a sculpture.
Ling Wu - who also is an artist - and their son, Lon, joined him
in 1990. They applied for permanent residency.
Now they have it. And unlike most newly naturalized citizens,
Kwan and Ling Wu were toasted at punch-and-cookie receptions in two
PAGE
25
THE KANSAS CITY STAR, January 30, 1998, Friday
U.S. courthouses.
The first was after their ceremony in Kansas City, Kan. : The
second was Wednesday in Kansas City, in the (offices of U.S. Judge
Scott O. Wright.
Wright loves naturalization ceremonies.
by
far
the
most
pleasurable thing we do in this business,
said
He dearly wanted to preside over the rites for the Wus.
But
they
live in Olathe, and Wright doesn't handle affairs in Kansas.
As noted above, every new citizen has gotten help along the way.
Two of the persons who helped Kwan Wu were Wright and his wife,
Shirley, who was one of Wu's first sculpturing students.
It was Shirley Wright who recommended that the judges consider Wu
to create the Bill of Rights sculpture. A committee of lawyers raised
money for the project.
The Bill of Rights sculpture opened up other opportunities. Wu
designed a sculpture of Phog Allen for KU, and another for the Negro
Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City's 18th and Vine district.
Kwan and Ling Wu attended the reception Wednesday with 5-year-old
Lee and 3-year-old Cindy - the son and daughter they wouldn't have
been allowed to have in China.
As friends and court employees crowded into the room, Wu's
English, which is good, faltered a bit.
"I feel I am part of the country now," he said. "Before, I
didn't feel the same. I still feel like a guest."
As a U.S. citizen, Wu, 46, can practice art without interference
and follow any religion he chooses. An army will not arrest him, as
it did some of his former students in the Tiananmen Square rebellion.
If he chooses, he can bear arms.
A guest no longer, he can claim all the privileges on the plaque
he encased in bronze.
To leave a comment for Barbara Shelly, call (816) 889-7827 and
enter 1017, or send e-mail to [email protected]
LOAD-DATE: January 30, 1998
Dec 31 wom movemt
250 N60's 2.5 mell
an is
of Ugade
} grant-
wome
mrs. Rollems
Eshigrenens-
Day cane ch
crtaent -wide
51 NGOs N
( whelle
cy)
3-4meas min
child care an
techno sem
Esed -
Pere cups
Reason -
TO: Patti
Melanne
Ellen
Pam
FROM: Lissa
RE: Invitation to HRC to speak at the University of Michigan
DATE: August 12, 1997
Enclosed is a copy of an invitation from the president of the University of Michigan
for their "Arts of Citizenship" lecture series during the coming academic year. Another
copy was sent directly to HRC, but I don't know if it's found its way to scheduling yet. This
is something she wants to do and should do, particularly given her role in the millennium
stuff. The lead guy on the faculty who is coordinating the whole thing is a very old and
close friend of mine so I'd be happy to help out in any way I can.
consesteen
-
creative
fulure
-
)deminion
"the anto of
alys shy
millines}
Ln
David scohey
maer 561625
5396
Jeuns User got 3'
for
and
&
N
}
62640
Radic Load atus
Sent by: UP RESEARCH
3137630085;
07/23/97 5:08PM; Jetfax #559; Page 3/4
y
Ellison
LEE C. El
PRESIDENT
THE U:
2074 FLEMING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1.11 ARBOR. MICHIGAN
FAX
July 15, 1997
Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mrs. Clinton:
It is my great pleasure to invite you to visit the University of Michigan during the
coming academic year as the keynote speaker of our "Arts of Citizenship" series for
the University's Year of the Arts and Humanities.
"YoHA" is a campus-wide initiative aimed at fostering research, teaching, and
practice in the arts and humanities across the University. Two aspects of the project
may be of special interest to you. First, YoHA seeks to encourage institutional
support and policy innovation for the arts and humanities of a sort usually
reserved for the natural and social sciences. YoHA was inaugurated this year with
a symposium on arts and cultural policy that brought National Endowment for the
Humanities Director Sheldon Hackney and other leading cultural policy-makers to
Ann Arbor. Secondly, the Year of the Humanities and Arts is meant to build
bridges between the University and the general public, offering programs that put
academics and artists in dialogue with the larger civic culture.
]
The "Arts of Citizenship" program is oriented toward that goal of public-academic
collaboration. It will bring to our campus artists, humanists, intellectuals, and
cultural advocates who have made important contributions to public culture and
political conversation through their artistic and intellectual work. The program is
intended to explore the role of the humanities and arts in sustaining a democratic
public culture - and the role of a vibrant civic culture in renewing the arts and
humanities. Some events in the year-long series will feature academic discussion of
public affairs; others will feature public art, poetry, video work, and other
performances, accompanied by conversations with the artist.
Given your advocacy of public support for the arts and humanities, we believe that
your visit would make a perfect keynote to the "Arts of Citizenship" program and
the U-M's Year of the Arts and Humanities. The organizers of YoHA envision your
giving an address on the role of the arts and humanities in civic culture, but the
University community would be responsive to whatever focus or format you
preferred. We would, of course, accommodate your scheduling requirements.
Sent by: L'? RESEARCH
3137630085;
07/23/97 5:08PM; Jetfax #559; Page 4/4
Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
July 15, 1997
Page Two
It would be a great pleasure to welcome you to the University of Michigan and to
hear your ideas about the arts and humanities in American public life. I hope that
you will be able to visit and participate in our conversation.
Sincerely,
Lee C. Bollinger
UNIVERSITY THE OF MACHIGAN
THE UNIVERSITY ()+ MICHIGAN
OFFICE ()F THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH
Pan FLEMING BUILDING 30 INTREET
AA ARBOR MICHIGAN
D
"
1817
FAT to melane
19 December 1997
Patty Celise Doyle
Director of Scheduling
First Lady of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington DC 20500
Dear Ms. Doyle:
I am sorry that I was not able to reach you by phone this afternoon. In order to
provide you with some supporting documentation, I am sending you an array of
materials about YoHA--the University of Michigan's 1997-98 "Year of
Humanities and Arts." We think that this program can provide a national model
for integrated, cost-effective cultural program development, especially that
involving collaborations between universities and their neighboring
communities. The enclosed posters and flyers should provide you with the full
context for the invitation to the First Lady from University of Michigan President,
Lee C. Bollinger.
As you know from President Bollinger's letter of invitation, this year is the "Year
of Humanities and Arts" --or YoHA--at the University of Michigan. The YoHA "Arts
of Citizenship" initiative, directed by Professor David M. Scobey, is comprised of
several ambitious town/gown programs aimed at putting the arts and
humanities at the center of civic life. There programs involve integrating local
history and public art into a bridge reconstruction project, working with public
school teachers on a "Students on Site" curriculum, and sponsoring public
forums on public culture through our "Talking Bridges" lecture series, designed
J
to appeal to both academic and community audiences.
We very much hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton can speak in Ann Arbor as the
keynote speaker of the "Arts of Citizenship" initiative. YoHA has been
undertaken very much in the spirit of the White House Millennium Project, and
perhaps this would be the focus of the First Lady's speech. Regardless of
when she speaks, we would simply define her speech as the definitive "Arts of
Citizenship" event.
022
OFFRICE
02/25/98 WED 16:32 FAX 202 395 7234
We are happy to accommodate the First Lady's schedule in any way we can.
The University is on vacation from February 27 through March 8, and classes
end for the year on April 21. Within these constraints. we are quite flexible.
Perhaps the next step might be for you to contact President Bollinger's office to
propose a couple of tentative dates. Please feel free to contact me if you have
additional questions.
John
Professor of English
Associate Vice President for Research
YoHA Director
Enc.
Cc: President Lee C. Bollinger; Walter L. Harrison, Vice President for University
Relations; Frederick C. Neidhardt, Interim Vice President for Research;
Professor David M. Scobey
003
MILLENNIUM OFFICE
7234
3955
202
PAX
18:32
WED
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
WASHINGTON, DC
DECEMBER 2, 1994
TALKING POINTS
It's a privilege to welcome all of you back to Washington
and to hear about the progress you have made in just a few short
months.
There is much concern today about the future of federal
funding for our country's vibrant cultural life. I hope all
Americans will stop and think about what our nation would be like
if monuments, museums, theaters, libraries, and other cultural
institutions weren't available to us.
The Clinton Administration remains committed to the NEA,
NEH, IMS, and other federal cultural agencies. As the President
said this fall, government only provides a small measure of
support for the humanities and arts -- but it is a crucial
measure. Without that support, fewer of our cultural institutions
and organizations would survive or thrive, and fewer children
would know the enrichment that comes from cultural activities.
I know you have been hard at work advancing your ambitious
agenda. Harvey (Golub) and Irene (Hirano) are working with
Commerce to encourage cultural tourism. Cynthia (Schneider) and
Roger (Johnson) are looking at ways to improve excellence in
federal design. Bill (Ivey) and Quince (Jones) will be offering
ideas about how to use the media to widen people's appreciation
of our cultural life. And David (Gardner) and his group are
examining the important question of how to stimulate more private
philanthropy.
Of particular interest to me is how your work will affect
the lives of our children. As I said a few months ago when I met
you at the White House, this committee has tremendous potential
to provide hopeful and productive outlets for young Americans.
Peggy and Rich, I hope you can share some of your ideas about how
we can use the arts and humanities to give our children
opportunities for intellectual and creative expression that
generate self-esteem, hopefulness, and excitement about the
future.
[Peggy Cooper Cafritz and Rich Gurin will report for about 2
minutes each. If there is time afterward, Dr. Brademas will
invite questions and comments from committee members to you].
###
know that because we value our diverse cultural traditions and we take
pri. le in celebrating America's creative and intellectual genius that we will
prepared to make effectively the arguments that will need to be made, as to
/
the tradition of community, the institutions represented, and more
4
rtantly all of our institutions throughout the country need to continue to
hav the support of the federal government.
|ORE
**** filed by:RB--(--) on 12/02/94 at 17:32EST ****
**** printed by:WHPR(103) on 12/03/94 at 09:31EST ****
BC-HILLARY-ARTS SKED
The Federal News Reuter Transcript Service
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
REMARKS TO THE PRESIDENT'S
COMMITTEE ON ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
OLD POST OFFICE, WASHINGTON DC.
APPROX: 11:30 AM EST
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1994
TRANSCRIPT BY: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE
620 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20045
FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
COPYRIGHT 1994 BY FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE GROUP, INC., WASHINGTON, DC 20045,
USA. NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY BE COPIED, SOLD, OR RETRANSMITTED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE GROUP, INC.
TO RECEIVE STATE, WHITE HOUSE, DEFENSE, BACKGROUND AND OTHER BRIEFINGS AND
SPEECHES BY WIRE SOON AFTER THEY END, PLEASE CALL CORTES RANDELL AT
202-347-1400.
COPYRIGHT IS NOT CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A
ED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS A PART OF THAT PERSON'S
ICIAL DUTIES.
(Applause.)
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you. I want to tell all of the committee members how
pleased I am to see you here, and I have been receiving reports about the
exciting and in many ways ground-breaking work you are already doing, by
looking at the issues that we all believe need to be addressed. I'm also very
conscious -- as the chairman just referred -- to the questions that are in all
of our minds about the future of federal funding for our county's vibrant and
vigorous cultural life.
Obviously none of us can predict what will happen on this front and I know
that if we could we could be making predictions that we hoped would come true,
but I believe that as Americans understand what it means to them to have their
local monuments, their museums,' their theatres, their libraries, they will
understand -- as we do -- that all of our artistic and cultural institutions
are an integral part of what we call America, and a part that we must work
very hard always --
not only to preserve and nurture -- but to grow because of the impact that
they make on our lives.
Over the past 12 years, this committee, in a bipartisan way, has
:ously supported the arts and humanities, and I know that together we
work to continue that vigorous support. Throughout their histories, the
NEA, the NEH, the IMS, and the other federal cultural agencies have enjoyed
bipartisan deeply rooted support that extends into every community in our
country.
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
WASHINGTON, DC
DECEMBER 2, 1994
TALKING POINTS
It's wonderful to be with you again after our seeing you at
the White House in September. And I'm particularly excited to see
the momentum you have generated in finding new ways that the arts
and humanities can help expand opportunities for children,
strengthen our economy, and add new dimensions to our individual
lives.
At the same time, I've heard many of you express concern
about the future of federal funding for our country's vibrant
cultural life. Obviously none of us can predict what will happen
-- on any front, including this one -- in the new political
environment we find ourselves in. But I sincerely hope that in
the months ahead all Americans will stop and think about what our
nation would be like if monuments, museums, theaters, libraries,
and other cultural institutions weren't available to us.
Over the past 12 years, this committee has vigorously
supported the arts and humanities, and I hope we will work hard
together to continue that support. Throughout their histories,
the NEA, NEH, IMS, and other federal cultural agencies have
enjoyed bi-partisan support on Capitol Hill. And we all know why.
As a nation, we have always valued our diverse cultural
traditions and taken pride in celebrating America's creative and
intellectual genius. We have always relied on our artists and
humanists to strengthen the foundations of our democratic way of
life. And we have abided by the notion that all of our people
should have access to our cultural institutions.
As the President said to you earlier this fall, government
only provides a small measure of support for the humanities and
arts -- but that small investment reaps enormous rewards in human
terms. Without government support, fewer of our cultural
institutions and organizations would survive or thrive. Fewer
children would know the enrichment that comes from cultural
activities. And the democratic ideals we have defended and upheld
for two centuries years would be put in jeopardy.
*
I know you have been hard at work advancing your ambitious
agenda. Harvey (Golub) and Irene (Hirano) are working with
Commerce to encourage cultural tourism, which contributes so much
to our economic vitality. Cynthia (Schneider) and Roger (Johnson)
are looking at ways to improve excellence in federal design. Bill
(Ivey) and Quincy (Jones) will be offering ideas about how to use
the media to widen people's appreciation of our cultural life.
1
And David (Gardner) and Terry (Semel) and their group are
examining the important question of how to stimulate more private
philanthropy.
As you know, of particular interest to me is how your work
will affect the lives of our children. As I said a few months ago
when I met you at the White House, this committee has tremendous
potential to provide hopeful and productive outlets for young
Americans -- indeed to change their lives. Peggy and Rich, I hope
you can share some of your ideas about how we can use the arts
and humanities to give our children opportunities for
intellectual and creative expression that generate self-esteem,
hopefulness, and excitement about the future.
[Peggy Cooper Cafritz and Rich Gurin will report for about 2
minutes each. If there is time afterward, Dr. Brademas will
invite questions and comments from committee members to you].
###
2
Creative America
WORKING PAPERS
President's Committee
on the Arts and the Humanities
THE
PRESIDENCES r THE COMMIT COMMITTEECH
SERVING DEMOCRACY BY SERVING
THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
(Traditional Perspectives, Unique Modern Conditions)
BY BENJAMIN R. BARBER
PRESIDENT'S THE ANY COMMITTEE ARTS THE NN
Washington, D.C. 1997
An essay prepared for Creative America,
a report by the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities
describing the system of support for cultural life in the United States today
The relationship of the arts and the humanities to a free democratic
society -- its diversity and pluralism, its manifold liberties, its openness and
flexibility - is complex and often problematic. The arts can flourish in
democracy but have often developed with remarkable vibrancy as part of a
culture of dissent or rebellion in autocratic societies. Democracy needs the arts
(and the humanities which they anchor), for they constitute a crucial element
in civil society's cultural infrastructure. Yet the democratic impulse has
sometimes found itself at odds with artists and felt threatened by the avant
garde or anti-majoritarian or the aristocratic in culture.
Ultimately, democracy perhaps needs the arts more than the arts need
democracy - although there is an obvious and vital symbiosis between the two
in a well-functioning free society. For a free society gains its liberty and its
democratic vitality from civil society, and the arts and humanities invest civil
society with its creativity, its diverseness and its liberating spontaneity. What
complicates the relationship is the market, with which civil society is
sometimes conflated. The market offers free and private space to art and
culture and thus insulates it from official governmental direction and
censorship. But because market space is commercial space it draws the arts
into commerce and exchange and can imperil artistic autonomy from a
different quarter.
Historically, the relationship between the arts (which I will take here as
paradigmatic of the larger phrase "arts and humanities") and society has taken
1
a number of different forms: some of those forms have seen the arts as
mimetically reflecting society's norms and mores or even cheerleading for its
official conventions and ideologies; others segregate the arts from society or
give it a romantic rebellious character. Among the possible perspectives are:
THE CLASSICAL
THE ROMANTIC
THE REALIST (DISSENT VERSION)
THE REALIST (OFFICIAL VERSION)
THE AESTHETIC (LIBERAL)
THE ARISTOCRATIC (HIGH ART)
THE DEMOCRATIC (POP ART)
THE COMMERCIAL
THE CLASSICAL perspective treats the arts as a way of seeing (theoria
or spectatorship) that, because it competes with religion, philosophy and
political philosophy, either reinforces or rivals their visions of the social and
the political. The tragic poets saw themselves as allies of the new democracy,
for example, while the comedic writers of later Athens were critics of
philosophical aristocracy (Aristophanes ridiculing Socrates in The Clouds).
Aristocratic philosophy saw itself engaged in the same competition and so,
Plato felt constrained to ban the poets from his aristocratic Republic, protesting
that "artists craft phantoms" at a third remove from reality and are likely to
corrupt justice in a well-ordered commonwealth.
Crucial to this perspective is the insistence on the absolute interactivity
of art and politics. For better or worse, the two are regarded as being engaged
in a single enterprise: that of fashioning a common vision for a people to feel,
2
think and live by. In the Athenian world, art had explicit public functions and
was, for example, well represented in religious and civic festivals such as the
Olympiad -- the forerunner of today's more narrowly construed athletic
competitions. The great tragic trilogies of Aeschylus and Sophocles were
written for these festivals, and were regarded less as mere entertainments and
more as reflections on the civic and spiritual life of the Athenian polis.
The neo-classicism of the Enlightenment reflected the same intertwining
of aesthetics, politics and truth. It supposed the three to be bound up together
in much the same fashion. Keats' certainty that "truth's beauty and beauty's
truth" and Shelley's wish that poetry might be the world's true legislator were
nothing if not Athenian in their unitary aspirations.
THE ROMANTIC perspective lies at the other end of the art/society
spectrum, although it also posits art as a profound form of power. It treats it,
however, as an expression of inner vision - a journey to the interior of the
soul -- that is necessarily at odds with the norms of conventional society and
its officialdom, whether they are democratic or autocratic. As a function of
radical individual imagination, especially as it emerged immediately before
and after the French Revolution, romantic art implacably opposed the ordinary
and mundane. Because its sense of justice was personal and individual, it
rarely could make common cause with social movements, even when they
were conducted in justice's good name. Society could appreciate the products
of the romantic imagination, but got no quarter from romantic artists who saw
3
themselves not as society's true teachers but its eternal rebels - its outlaws and
outcasts.
A revolutionary democratic society may be assisted at its birth by
romantic culture, but almost as soon as it becomes institutionalized and
constitutionalized finds itself the target of its erstwhile romantic allies. Byron
may have hoped to liberate Greece and put into practice Shelley's dream of
poetry as the true Legislator of the world, but romanticism has succeeded as
society's conscience and prod rather than as its constitution.
Eric Bentley referred to artists, approvingly, as "desperate characters,"
while John Cage has defined art as "criminal action." In the romantic vision,
the artist is an outlaw of the mundane who pushes against limits, revolts
against convention, and makes war on reality itself. "The weapon of poetry,"
wrote Ortega y Gassett with only a hint of hyperbole, "turns against natural
things and wounds and murders them." Romantic artists are thus often
viewed by society as self-lacerating madmen; they in turn treat social reality as
a form of conventional madness (see the charming inversions of the film King
of Hearts). No wonder that such artists may feel homeless in the mundane
world, and see their journey (Eliot's words) as one of "continual self-sacrifice, a
continual extinction of personality."
THE REALIST perspective (in its dissent version) has much in common
with romanticism, but is outer- rather than inner-directed: rooted in a
4
sociological concern with justice in the real world and concerned with the
individual as a member of communities of class, race and gender. It is thus
fix d on reforming the world and its actual constitutions even if that means
the refashioning of human souls. In writers like Ibsen, Zola, Shaw and Brecht
the world's injustices are uncovered and revealed. Art's program here is
liberation, not just of the unfettered imagination but of individuals as social
beings. Nora's plight in Ibsen's A Doll's House models realism's concern with
coercion and freedom and its quest for a way out. Like romantic art, realist art
has a hand in democracy's generation. Unlike romanticism, however, it is less
skeptical of the social products of its imagination - which leads it sometimes
into imprudent alliances with states putatively founded on social justice,
realism in its official version.
THE REALIST perspective in the official version - realism after the
revolution, as it were - portrays culture as a critic of corrupt, autocratic
societies but as a friend of democratic or socialist government or national
socialist governments. Indeed, it is their handmaiden since, when successful,
such governments supposedly incorporate the ideals in the name of which the
revolution has been made and liberation won. The stubborn rebel may here
become the mindless cheerleader. A visionary realist like Gorki thus becomes
a supporter of the Soviet State after the Bolshevik revolution just as a realist
critic of bourgeois society like Brecht becomes a cultural apparatchik of the
East German State after the Communist accession to power there.
5
If justice and liberation are the true aims of art, the realist argument
insists, then a "just" state legislating for a supposedly liberated society can
presume to call upon artists to legitimate and communicate its ideals and
order. Socialist as well as national socialist realism made exactly these claims.
Even genuine democracies have enlisted artists in their cause. Democratic
artists like Whitman, Frost and Langston Hughes, even as they protested the
unjust and thus "un-American" features of the United States, have written
"patriotically" about America as a potential land of liberty.
THE AESTHETIC perspective assumes the traditional liberal separation
of private and public that insulates art from official society. It has no truck
with officialdom, whether democratic or tyrannical. It assumes that art has
private, aesthetic ends that are neither for or against democracy (or any other
regime form) but simply irrelevant to it. Art is what artists do. It is to be
prized for its integral aesthetic standards and its universal effect rather than
judged on its relationship to the politically particular. "My art," said Nabakov,
"bears no messages. I am not a postman." Irving Howe, often regarded as a
moralist, nonetheless wrote: "There are kinds of beauty before which the moral
imagination ought to withdraw." Even the realist Brecht decided, towards the
end of his life, that art finally could have no other justification than itself, than
Spass or simple fun (entertainment). In this liberal view, the only
responsibility democracy has for art is to guarantee it private space in which it
can flourish. The only thing art demands from democracy in turn is to be left
6
alone. True liberals are unlikely to think state subsidies for the arts are any
more legitimate or desirable than state censorship. A high wall between the
two that guarantees art security from the democratic "tyranny of opinion"
(Tocqueville) and guarantees society security from political and propagandistic
interventions by politicized artists is, from the liberal perspective, the only
prudent policy. When at the end of his life Joseph Papp of the New York
Shakespeare Festival decided he could no longer accept funding from the
National Endowment for the Arts and preserve his aesthetic liberty, he was
adopting a classical liberal posture.
THE ARISTOCRATIC perspective (defending high art) takes art to
have an aristocratic function in a democratic society: to preserve the finer
things in a vulgar world, to represent the taste of the cultivated minority in a
mediocre majoritarian arena. Here beauty and truth are thought to represent
independently grounded standards that can be used to mark off and judge the
practices of a democratic culture (there is thus an element of neo-classicism
here, since the high art perspective is not indifferent to the society by which it
feels compromised and demeaned). Journals like The New Criterion have
purveyed this aristocratic perspective with verve and Allan Bloom made it the
keystone to his arch critique of democratic culture in his The Closing of the
American Mind.
The art for art's sake complaint against government subsidized art is
less the liberal fear of censorship as it is the aristocratic fear of a levelling
7
mediocrity. To yield to a democratic government's well-intended cultural
ministrations is to acquiesce in what Tocqueville called the powerful "empire
of opinion" that can only corrupt a pure cultural vision. The aristocrat
eschews government "meddling" in the arts not out of respect for the liberal
wall between private and public but out of disdain for a (by definition)
"debased" democratic public realm.
THE DEMOCRATIC or popular art perspective is in some ways the
mirror image of the aristocratic perspective. It takes art to be an expression of
the dominant popular culture, and thus privileges as art those forms of
popular expression that best reflect the majority's tastes. Art is not something
distinct from or "above" society but society's aesthetic expression. It represents
not some elite's abstract standards but whatever artists -- understood broadly
as anyone who is engaged in self-expression and communication -- do. There
is no distinction here to be made between pop art and high art other than the
"pretensions" of those who purvey the latter.
In concrete terms, this perspective appeals to the "artist in everyone,"
and leads to "democratic" arts policies aimed at arts education and programs
of fair distribution that spread the cultural wealth - art and art subsidies -- to
every part of the country rather than leaving them to a narrow coterie of so-
called "elite" institutions. Its egalitarianism (depending on your point of view)
both popularizes and vulgarizes art. Some claim that it also relativizes art by
equating one "taste culture" (Herbert Gans) with another and, in the post-
8
modernist fashion, declaring all aesthetic visions and all cultural texts equal.
In a popular arts perspective, government intervention is a natural outgrowth
of art's public and popular character.
THE COMMERCIAL perspective treats art as a commodity no different
than any other commercial product of the free market. To the degree
democracy is reduced to free market philosophy, the commercial perspective
may appear as an economistic version of the democratic perspective. It
measures art by its capacity to attract consumers and pay for itself in the
market's hard currencies. In doing so, it blurs distinctions between art and
entertainment, between culture and commodity, and between self-expression
and consumption. It treats popular (pop) art as conventional: fully embedded
in the market. The commercial perspective can be understood as one
particular dimension of the democratic perspective, but because it has serious
consequences for policy (the commodification of art), it requires its own
category and has policy entailments that may differ from those of the pop art
perspective. Government, from this viewpoint, may wish to offset the
constraining effects of markets and try to guarantee diversity against the
market's uniformity, for example.
Historically, few societies have represented only one of these ideal
types, least of all, the United States. In practice, they overlap and intersect.
9
Most polities are characterized by some variable and evolving combination,
often in contradictory ways. In America, there has been some movement
historically from liberal and aristocratic perspectives (in the nineteenth
century), through romantic and realist/dissent perspectives (from the twenties
through the sixties in this century), to a rough dialectic of aristocratic,
democratic pop art and commercial perspectives in recent years. However, it
would not be hard to demonstrate that aspects of nearly all of the perspectives
noted above can be detected today in American struggles over arts policy and
discussions of censorship, funding and arts education. Is there a state council
for the arts where aristocratic advocates of pure art do not confront democratic
advocates of art for everyone? where zealous supporters of culture's
necessarily subversive (romantic) role are not arrayed against patriotic boosters
of an official art sanctioned by and supportive of conventional cultural norms?
Indeed, these ongoing arguments are themselves an expression of the
pluralistic character of the "culture of culture" in the United States.
Like other observers and critics, I have my own generic views about the
relationship between art and politics generally, and the arts and humanities
and American society as it exists today. I suspect in general that art and
culture are a good deal more resilient than most worriers allow. Absent
subsidy, absent even democracy, and in the presence of the conformist
pressures of either political autocracy or majoritarian mass opinion, the arts
survive. For they are rooted in indelible human genius and an irrepressible
10
need for authentic self-expression and communication that surface under
almost every imaginable condition, including the Gulag and the extermination
camps of Nazi Germany. They are as difficult to root out and destroy as the
human spirit itself.
At the same time, there are important and quite distinctive practical
consequences that flow from the several perspectives portrayed above. The
ultimate survivability of art is not an adequate reason to avoid addressing
tough questions of arts policy in a democracy. Perhaps most importantly, the
common linkage of democracy and the arts to a robust civil society demands
careful attention. Democracy is not just a matter of formal governing
institutions and a constitutional framework of popular sovereignty. A free
press and a ready sense of rights are necessary but hardly sufficient conditions
for democratic practice. As Dewey noted, democracy is as much a way of life
as a form of government, and its success rests on the existence and heartiness
of the civic domain - understood as distinct both from the government and
the private commercial domain.
Civil society is constituted by free voluntary institutions that are also
public in nature. Foundations, civic associations, charities, schools, religious
institutions and the free media are all part of this domain -- along with the
arts. Indeed, the arts are civil society's driving engine, the key to its creativity,
its diversity, its imagination and hence its spontaneousness and liberty. As
democracy depends on civil society for its liberal spiritedness, so civil society
11
depends on the arts. And in this manner, democracy ultimately rests on the
arts' commitment to free creativity, liberal diversity and unfetterred
imagination. A government that supports the arts and the humanities is not
engaging in philanthropic activity but assuring the conditions of its own
flourishing. This is perhaps the most important single argument in favor of a
democratic government playing some role in the arts: not in the name of the
needs of the arts, but in the name of the needs of democracy.
Under normal circumstances, however much a democratic way of life
depends on the creativity and critical imagination generated by the arts and
however much it is enhanced when it rests on a robust civic infrastructure
nourished by the arts, the arts can survive without democratic support --
indeed, without a democratic constitution. Our circumstances today are not
entirely normal, however. Under the adverse conditions of pervasive mass
commerce, and as a consequence of our growing ambivalence about diversity
and pluralism in what some fear is a hyper-pluralistic society, the arts may
both be at risk and be necessary in unprecedented ways. Consequently, there
may be some specific arguments in favor of a modest government presence in
arts education and an argument for incentives and subsidies for creation and
performance beyond the general relationship posited above between
democracy, civil society and the arts. In particular, there are two conditions
that have altered the landscape today and offer special justification for
government intervention. The first is an ever more overweening commercial
12
environment, the second an ever more diversified and (some fear) fragmented
society. Let me briefly address each of these crucial issues and how they may
impact on arts policy.
COMMERCE: Art may have more to fear from the uncoerced and largely
invisible constraints of commercialization nowadays than it does from a too
pushy or censorious government. Artists in turn, although they certainly have
the "right" to isolate themselves from society and pursue their muse free from
interference, may discover that by assuming responsibilities for arts education
and civic engagement, they contribute to a climate that is as tolerant and
pluralistic as liberal philosophy says it ought to be. Artists as artists are
responsible only to their art; but artists are also citizens, and as citizens they
have a particular responsibility to contribute to and nourish an arts-supportive
civil society. In doing so they serve both democracy and themselves, their
fellow citizens and their art.
Advocates of "privatizing," suspicious of government meddling in the arts,
may think that they are supporting a liberal domain of the private when they
call for laissez-faire. But in an era when civil society has been collapsed into
the commercial market sector, privatization may turn out to mean
commercialization and the arts will not be "left alone" but subjected to the
harsh interventionist dynamics of commerce. Under such conditions, neither
high art, rebellious art nor even ordinary amateur art (community theater for
13
example) are likely to thrive. The market pushes towards uniformity of taste,
a levelling of standards, and the commodification of art product in ways that
will satisfy almost no one -- whatever perspective they represent. Magazines
trump books, newspapers trump magazines, tabloids trump newspapers,
television trumps tabloids, MTV trumps television - until not even popular
culture in its full diversity can survive, let alone the more fragile arts found on
the margins of the conventional.
Not just high art and rebellious art, but popular culture too needs the
incentives and balancing support of government and arts council subsidy in a
market that, while "free" in theory, is in practice often monopolistic in
ownership and conformist in taste. "Public" television has offered a place on
the broadcast spectra where "other" tastes - some "high," some "popular," but
in any case not necessarily likely to flourish in a pure market environment --
can have a chance to educate, cultivate and entertain audiences. I can think of
no good reason why so modest a presence, had for so modest a cost, should be
seen as either a harbinger of government-sponsored taste or a usurpation of an
otherwise quite nearly sovereign set of commercial market mechanisms.
DIVERSITY: Ours is not only a democratic market society in which
commerce plays an usually powerful role in conditioning other features of the
social landscape; it is also a pluralistic society that in recent decades has
become so diversified and differentiated that historians like Arthur Schlesinger,
14
Jr. have begun to worry about the disintegration of our cultural fabric (see The
Disuniting of Democracy, for example). The arts have a special role to play in
this domain because they have the capacity simultaneously to offer expression
to the particular identities of communities and groups (including those that
feel excluded from the dominant community's space) and to capture
commonalities and universalities that tie communities and groups together into
a national whole. The Southern novel did not fragment America: it helped
define an American perspective. The Hudson River School of painting
represented an emerging American taste in the nineteenth century, just as New
England transcendentalism helped create an American philosophical
perspective. Jewish culture in New York helps tie the city together even as it
gives special expression to particular identity. African-American music and
theater have offered American blacks a unique avenue for particularistic
cultural expression (see most recently Bring in Da Noise, Bring in Da Funk!) and
at the same time stamped our national culture with much of its common
identity. Jazz, tap, and blues (and the broader popular music culture that
finds its roots in them) at once define America and define the special
contribution of African-Americans to America.
Thus, perhaps uniquely, the arts have the power to give voice to and hence
to empower and recognize the marginalized and the minorities, and at the
same moment to constitute from them an inclusive common culture from
which none are excluded. This is their special contribution to an era in which
15
hyper-diversity has become a problem, and a special reason to consider
offering unintrusive support to them from independent government bodies
such as arts and humanities councils even though under more normal
circumstances such support might seem unnecessary, superfluous or perhaps
even undesirable.
Finally, let me recall that art and democracy share a dependency on one
extraordinary human gift, imagination. Imagination is their common link to
civil society. If imagination flourishes in the arts, democracy is benefitted. If it
flourishes in democracy, the arts and the civil society the arts help ground also
benefit. Imagination is the key to diversity, to civic compassion, and to
commonality. It is the faculty by which we stretch ourselves to include others,
expand the compass of our interests to discover common ground, and
overcome the limits of our parochial selves to become fit subjects to live in
democratic communities. The democratic citizen needs critical imagination to
ward off tyranny and defend liberty. The artist needs critical imagination to
ward off convention and defend creation. Ideally, in serving imagination, the
arts serve democracy and democratic citizenship; and ideally, in supporting the
arts, democracy serves itself -- even where the arts it supports defy convention,
outrage taste and flaunt democratic mores. It is only a mature democracy that
fully appreciates these linkages. Ironically, youthful democracies that most
need the arts to grow and mature are least likely to support them. It has been
16
a mark of America's maturity as a free society that it has sustained a
supportive arts policy without becoming either proprietary or censorious.
To be sure, art will not perish even in the absence of active support and
understanding from a democratic people and their government. Nor will
democracy wilt and die in the absence of a robust arts policy and a
correspondingly vibrant arts community. But democracy, depending for its
liberty on a free civil society, will do better as the arts do better, and the arts
will do better as democratic citizens and their governing institutions choose to
support them (if not always underwrite them) and refrain from censoring
them. Finally, though both benefit by the other's good health, it is democracy
that has most to gain by cultivating and supporting the arts and the artists
who are their creators. Though they remain stubborn, independent, cranky,
rebellious, sometimes ungrateful and always subversive, artists cultivate and
manifest the liberty that lies at the very core of democracy's liberal soul.
***
17
Benjamin R. Barber is Walt Whitman Professor of Political Science at
Rutgers University and the Director of the Walt Whitman Center for the
Culture and Politics of Democracy. Among his twelve books, which include
most recently Jihad vs. McWorld and An Aristocracy of Everyone, are the novel
Marriage Voices and the prize-winning television documentary (with Patrick
Watson) The Struggle for Democracy. His libretto for Home and the River, a civil
war opera with music by George Quincy received its premier concert reading
in New York in June.
18
Cover art courtesy of Spillis, Candela and Partners, Inc.
6 COMMIT E ON THE . ARISAND THE
President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
202/682-5409