Secretary of culture?

Many children enrolled in public schools do not receive an arts education unless there exist local organizations that provide outreach programs. As a result, President Barack Obama thought it necessary to reinvest in art education, and hoped to increase funding for the National Endowment of the Arts and the Education Department art grants.

However, due to the numerous crises facing the United States right now, Obama’s platform on arts education has been drowned out in a sea of other issues.

Within the art community, though, this problem hasn’t faded from the forefront of their minds. Recently, Quincy Jones has been petitioned by more than 150,000 people to become what Americans for the Arts has been asking for: a Cabinet-level secretary of culture.

But is it really necessary?

Art carries such a large spiritual benefit that “spirituality is just as important as military defense,” Jones said.

With all due respect to the man who produced “Thriller,” that is ridiculous – art is not an essential need. And right now the government’s purse isn’t big enough to cover the true essential needs of its citizens.

But even if we did have the luxury to spend on such a thing, I’m not sure I’d support forging such a strong connection between the arts and the government. In fact, the fragmented representation of the arts and language in the United States ought to be admired, because centralizing the dissemination of art grants – even if funding is limited to organizations – could easily politicize artistic expression and decrease artists’ willingness to experiment.

On another note, one of the proposed duties that this secretary of culture would be required to perform would be to showcase American art.

But what art can be said to be prototypically American? For instance, what would be “American music”?

Right now, much of the funding for music goes to jazz and classical musicians – but the average American doesn’t have an ear for either jazz or classical music. In fact, based on popularity, “She  Thinks My Tractor’s Sexy” would be a better representation of American music. Likewise, what would be “American painting”? Most Americans can’t tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock and a monkey throwing paint on a canvas.

The argument put out by Bob Lynch, head of Americans for the Arts, for having a secretary to bring together the arts and government is to unite parts of government that each partially deal with the arts to start talking with one another.

Listening to his examples, whether they are cultural diplomacy in the State Department or trade issues involving intellectual property laws, there’s rarely, if ever, any need for these different parts of government to coordinate with one other about art.

This is a perfect example of bureaucracy.

The creation of a secretary of culture isn’t needed and would be an inefficient use of our money. Also, it seems like a potentially bad marriage between the arts and government. Obama can stay true to his platform – to reinvest in arts education – without creating this position.