the art bridge -- crossing over

The argument here is not about styles of art, it’s about plain ole’ legitimacy, what sort of art represents us, all of us. If ‘contemporary art’ embodied the values and vision of our current generation then maybe we should all pay for it like infrastructure and national defense, but there isn’t a good case for that. I recently attended a public art christening with podium and tv cameras, and the speaker began by thanking the gathered crowd, maybe two hundred and fifty people, for their vision and generosity, since it was ‘you the tax-payer who made this happen.’ A gracious acknowledgement I thought, but so few tax-payers there to hear it, the crowd artfully augmented by parents and their disinterested children waiting to see promised fireworks after the speeches. 

It isn’t the art or the event I’d care to critique, good intentions all around, but tax-payers were obviously not well represented at this event. I understand civic agencies decide where streets go, what gets built, such as that, but those decisions seek solution in a consensus centering on utility and the common good, and decisions about art have less of that. There are flaws built in, no matter who runs the ship. It’s the institution.

It isn’t about the money. Is there a little or is there a lot depends on who’s asking, but the real question should be how much is accomplished, no matter the amount. Rather than assuming public support for the arts, treasury direct or philanthropic deductible, doled out though non-profit agencies is automatically a good thing, maybe it’s time to ask how it affects the lives of artists, and more importantly, how much appreciation for art have they cultivated in the broader community? Look around. They’ve been at it awhile.

Is original art going up on the wall in people’s houses and are artists paying their bills? The style of art which eventually predominates is not on the table. Whatever art people are willing to pay for would be fine with me, and if that threatens anyone’s more progressive sensibilities maybe they should finance the exact kind of art they’d like out of their own pockets. Jurors and curators with academic backgrounds choose their friends from school, it’s the art they like, and as brokers for medical facilities, ‘non-profit’ agencies favor therapeutic themes for modest prices, but either way they’ve established themselves as gatekeepers where none are needed. Who are they, with their hefty administrative overheads, to decide what art is exhibited, which artists receive awards and grants, and, since we’re discussing it, where is all the art they don’t support? 

It’s one percent, less than that, of this community who are vaguely interested in or even aware of most of the art exhibited each month at considerable public expense, and it’s time the other ninety-nine percent woke up is what I’ve been hearing lately. Public funding for art means influence and control, and it’s money better spent on essential services. Art won’t die without their help. Parallel to national movements, in an era of populist revival, art will flourish, and in time will come to represent the array of expression that resides in this community, where every artist with the desire and drive to develop a voice will have an opportunity to find an audience.