No throne for the Art Czar

Speaking this past Sunday at the Grammy Awards ceremony, Neil Portnow, President of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, proclaimed the cultural and economic value of the arts, insisting “it’s time that we acknowledge that fact with the creation of a cabinet position of Secretary of the Arts to promote and develop this vital contribution to society everywhere.”

And he’s absolutely right – sort of.

The arts are vital to American society, reflecting and commenting on our culture. They make us laugh, cry and dance. We treasure them from our seats, on our walls and in our iPods.

With this zeal for art, more than a quarter of a million people have signed the online petition insisting that President Barack Obama create a cabinet-level position to promote and represent our national art community, but I just don’t get it.

Why federalize such an institution? Bureaucracy and art are utterly opposite.

Art is human expression. Bureaucracy is individual repression. Art is creative energy, dynamic and unique. Bureaucracy is efficient achievement, calculated and controlled. Art breaks rules. Bureaucracy enforces regulation. Art is forward-thinking and rapidly evolving. Bureaucracy sticks with what works.

Both are individually necessary. Art inspires us to action, leads us to understanding and captivates us with beauty. Bureaucratic federal agencies distribute government aid, ensure public safety and bring us our mail-order Snuggies.

The two cannot be combined.

It must be noted that the federal government already maintains a precarious relationship with the artistic community. The National Endowment for the Arts provides money in the form of grants to artistic endeavors across the nation and is our country’s largest funder of the arts.

Slated to receive $144 million in 2009, the National Endowment for the Arts does significant work to promote and provide for America’s artists.

There is reason for this funding.

The Arts provide more than 5 million jobs annually and generate over $166 billion in economic activity. And in these tough economic times, art stimulus makes sense.

A provision in the federal stimulus package would provide 50 million additional dollars to the National Endowment for the Arts. This is the type of substantive aid and assistance we need from the federal government in the artistic community.

But this funding has not come without criticism. Some Congressional representatives have cited past National Endowment for the Arts projects, including a $300,000 sculpture garden administered last year, as evidence that the organization supports frivolous, avant-garde projects.  And in the past, critics have attacked the organization for supporting “explicit” and “inappropriate” projects.

This is exactly why increasing government intervention is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Though the National Endowment for the Arts has been consistently criticized by government officials, it has not yet gone totally unfunded – even under Republican administrations. But a larger government bureaucracy would surely draw more fire, and with more fire could come more restrictions and red tape in the artistic community.
Art is individual. We all have our own tastes. You love Metallica. I love Kelly Clarkson. Increased standardization and bureaucracy are not necessary. The National Endowment for the Arts can stay, but the art czar cannot be throned.