Petition to create a Secretary of the Arts

[Lazaro Vega]

(Forwarded message)

Quincy Jones has started a petition to ask President-Elect Obama to appoint a Secretary of the Arts. While many other countries have had Ministers of Art or Culture for centuries, The United States has never created such a position. We in the arts need this and the country needs the arts--now more than ever. Please take a moment to sign this important petition and then pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

This petition is really easy to sign. I will take just a minute of your time.

http://www.petitiononline.com/esnyc/petition.html

[Rooster_Ties]

Done!!

[Chuck Nessa]

Not me. We don't need this shit.

[Rooster_Ties]

Not me. We don't need this shit.

Care to expand on that thought?

[Larry Kart]

Not me. We don't need this shit.

I agree. You'll just have an idiotic layer of "you scratch my back" etc. bureaucracy, and little or no dough will get to the people or organizations that deserve/need it. See the latter stages of this interview with Marty Khan:

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16904

[Uncle Skid]

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16904

Very interesting interview... lots to digest. Thanks for posting the link, Larry.

[Chuck Nessa]

Geez! Haven't seen him since the early '80s. He looks like a cartoon character now. Forgive me Marty.

[Guest Bill Barton]

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16904

Very interesting interview... lots to digest. Thanks for posting the link, Larry.

And a second vote of thanks... Looks like a book that I need to read.

I agree with Larry and Chuck on this one. We're not in Europe and I don't think that we need an "arts czar." Hell, the government has thoroughly screwed up virtually every other facet of society, do we really want to "officially" let 'em loose on the arts? They do a pretty good job of messing with the arts on an "unofficial" basis already.

Want to take any bets on who gets appointed if this proposal goes through?

[Johnny E]

I was poised to sign the thing and then I read the Marty Khan interview Larry posted. He makes some really good points, but I have to disagree with him on a few things. Who's to say that if it is set up right that the office of Arts and Culture wouldn't be the perfect organization to provide "Health care, pension funds, product distribution and marketing, establishment of artist-driven c3s and the professional training programs needed to make them work, and so forth?" Just because JLC has become such a boondoggle it doesn't mean that every state funded institution has to go down that road.

For example, the Federal Art Project (FAP) which was the visual arts arm of FDR's New Deal WPA Federal One program was hugely successful at putting artists back to work. It had an art production department, an art instruction division and an art research division. Some of the works that came out of that program are still around today (mainly murals) and are considered some of the best American visual art of the time.

Also, he sites cable TV as being a huge advance for viewers and artists alike. I beg to differ. I am old enough to be the last generation that came of age before cable TV. I remember watching VHF channels at 3 in the morning because that was the only thing on. I used to watch Edward G. Robinson, Spencer Tracy and Charles Laughton films. I watched PBS documentaries on civics and history. I watched cartoons and comedians that were famous decades before I was born. Now there are so many channels, they have to reach to the bottom just to keep people from clicking to the next channel. More sex, more violence, more mind control. I've found that folks born just five years after me have no idea who Humphrey Bogart is for Christ sakes! And I'm talking about smart people who are great musicians and artists. It's a wasteland and most have lost site of what is of value and what isn't. Just because there are more options it doesn't necessarily mean that it makes things better. I believe this to be true (at least to some degree) of the promotion, distribution and transmission of music as well.

So, I'm signing the damn thing (but I'm also buying Marty Khan's book ). We got arts advocacy groups closing their doors left and right, grant funding is drying up and I'm out there every fucking day bustin' my ass just trying to make enough money to keep my band together - forget about making a living. Shit, everybody has their hand out. Why shouldn't jazz musicians? Even if 95% percent of the money goes to real estate or into sleazeball’s pockets, at least there will be 5% that's going to the artists that wasn't there before.

Chuck, Larry, please feel free to make me look silly with those big brains of yours...but I'm signing it.

[Jim Alfredson]

I think it's ironic that it's supposedly coming from Quincy Jones.

[Aggie87]

Not me. We don't need this shit.

Care to expand on that thought?

W e d o n ' t n e e d t h i s s h i t .

[Larry Kart]

Even if 95% percent of the money goes to real estate or into sleazeball’s pockets, at least there will be 5% that's going to the artists that wasn't there before.

But even that 5 per cent probably won't go to artists like you. Also, once shit like this is up and running, and almost inevitably being run by people who know little or nothing about jazz anymore (Quincy Jones?) or who never did, if you aren't part of their machinery, if your name isn't on their lists or their radar screens, you won't exist practically speaking. A jazz ghetto, or worse, is what you'll get.

Further, as Marty Khan explains (not that he's the only one with a brain and a plan here), there are other ways that actually work and leave the artists themselves (and and their potential audiences) more or less in control of their own fates. The way the Chicago scene has worked over the last decade or so seems remarkably healthy to me. A lot of people have done and are doing a lot of extra-musical hard work there, but the result is that the scene in most aspects belongs to the musicians, and the resulting spirit certainly has a positive effect on the audiences. I'm not saying that this is paradise, or that there aren't elements of potential fragility here, but stuff gets noticed and adjusted all the time -- and sensibly so.

[Teasing the Korean]

And Wynton Marsalis will be appointed. Gotta love the arts!

[carnivore]

...and based in DC, the Cultural Armpit of the Nation? Quel boondoggle. Why not hand it over to the Smithsonian - an organization full of people who do nothing all day. On the other hand, imagine the premises that would have to be rented, renovated, the support staff that would have to be sought, evaluated and paid at least GS 13 salaries and the fun in building an ethnically-balanced personnel. DC could make this run for a decade before any cash found its way to deserving artistes.

[papsrus]

I don't have time right now to read the linked article. I will later. But my gut reaction is also: bad idea on several levels.

[AllenLowe]

the solution to the arts problem, which I proposed to the Maine Arts Commission about 7 years ago, is simple, and it has nothing to do with Quincy's bogus idea - arts dollars have to get directly to artists, and stop trickling down through organizations that have a phobia about actually producing arts events (and believe me, I know - I was Director of the Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events for the City of New Haven back in the 1990s) - to do this, you set up a series of mini-grants to artists, juried on a local or regional basis. You come up with some figure - say, $1000 - which is a substantial contribution and allows the artist to produce an individual concert/event; you set up a financial system in which the $1000 serves as a guarantee against the gate; above a certain threshold, the extra money goes back into the fund to re-endow it. You offer this to performance spaces as hosts, with the money going to artists but a small and resonable amount set aside for rentals - so, for example, a $50,000 grant allows a space to put on 50 performances in one year - you do this in a systematic and regionally organized way - and soon you have a renaissance of arts performances, with artists actually getting paid to do what they want to do -

with a one million dollar invesment you can have 20 regional concert series producing 1000 concerts per year. Simple. Too simple.

there is more to it, but it is an important start toward re-distribution of arts money. The Maine Arts people told me they thought it was a great idea. That was 7 years ago. Haven't heard from them since-

Edited January 14, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Christiern]

Quincy finally has an original idea? And it turns out to be a very bad one!

[Hot Ptah]

With the next Republican administration we could have someone under the thumb of an evangelical right wing preacher running the agency, with funds diverted to faith-based arts organizations, and wholesome family values/right thinking American entertainers.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

With the next Republican administration we could have someone under the thumb of an evangelical right wing preacher running the agency, with funds diverted to faith-based arts organizations, and wholesome family values/right thinking American entertainers.

A very real danger, I imagine.

(Course, it might be good for Gospel choirs )

MG

[Jim Alfredson]

the solution to the arts problem, which I proposed to the Maine Arts Commission about 7 years ago, is simple, and it has nothing to do with Quincy's bogus idea - arts dollars have to get directly to artists, and stop trickling down through organizations that have a phobia about actually producing arts events (and believe me, I know - I was Director of the Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events for the City of New Haven back in the 1990s) - to do this, you set up a series of mini-grants to artists, juried on a local or regional basis. You come up with some figure - say, $1000 - which is a substantial contribution and allows the artist to produce an individual concert/event; you set up a financial system in which the $1000 serves as a guarantee against the gate; above a certain threshold, the extra money goes back into the fund to re-endow it. You offer this to performance spaces as hosts, with the money going to artists but a small and resonable amount set aside for rentals - so, for example, a $50,000 grant allows a space to put on 50 performances in one year - you do this in a systematic and regionally organized way - and soon you have a renaissance of arts performances, with artists actually getting paid to do what they want to do -

with a one million dollar invesment you can have 20 regional concert series producing 1000 concerts per year. Simple. Too simple.

there is more to it, but it is an important start toward re-distribution of arts money. The Maine Arts people told me they thought it was a great idea. That was 7 years ago. Haven't heard from them since-

C'mon, Allen. That makes too much sense.

Try harder to be more obtuse.

[JazzTbones]

This discussion topic evolved in an animated email discussion between Van, Steve, Ron, Clare, Janet, Warren & myself(JazzTrombones-Alan)

I thought it might be interesting to continue it here in a more open venue. Below are my opening comments and the text of the discussion thus far...

===============================================

Golly-gee guys, I never thought just emailing a link to a webpage would engender such a heated debate!

But since it has taken on a life of it's own I might as well put in my 3(or 4) cents.

Everyone has made valid points so far...

Steve's Heinlein quote really started the ball rolling, but everyone should know a little more about Heinlein's history and works to better understand what he was really saying . The whore quote was really directed toward a specific group of artists. Heinlein had a general dislike for "classical" artists(musicians, dancers and other government supported types) due to a few unpleasant episodes early in his life.

The quote is: "A government supported artist is an incompetent whore.”

This was a quote from his sci-fi book "Stranger in a Strange Land" in which he also says:

"Government! Three-fourths parasitic and the rest stupid fumbling ... man, a social animal, could no more avoid government than an individual could escape the necessity of bowel movements. But simply because an evil is necessary is no reason to term it 'good.'"

"Belief gets in the way of learning."

"One way or another, any government which remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way - prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs. Hitler's government was a popular government; the vast majority of Germans preferred the rule of gangsters to the effort of thinking and doing for themselves. They abdicated their franchise."

--And from his book- Time Enough for Love:

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation."

"Politics is just a name for the way we get things done... without fighting. We dicker and compromise and everybody thinks he has received a raw deal, but somehow after a tedious amount of talk we come up with some jury-rigged way to do it without getting anybody's head bashed in. That's politics."

"Of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them to make a choice - if the 'choice' looks like a 'sacrifice' - you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of having to decide between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work and losing his job. But he always chooses that which hurts least or pleasures most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices."

Personally, I could care less about government supported artists(the musicians especially). For starters, there are precious few musicians that ever receive government support or work in an organization that is government supported. Even with an Arts "Czar" I don't think that will change much.

Classical musicians in particular are blessed with a fairy-tale somewhat sheltered life of playing in large well-lit, not smoky, comfortable-seating, large-stage, relatively drunk-free venues where everyone dresses up, claps nicely, listens attentively, and doesn't boo if you can't play their favorite song. They usually have a contract for several years and a reasonable to high falutin' salary. This is not the situation for the other 99% of musicians around the world(excluding "pop stars" of course, the discussion of which I will save for another topic).

However, the best reason for trying to make sure there is strong support for "The Arts"(be it government, individual, corporate or otherwise) is not necessarily for the benefit of the musicians(or dancers, etc) performing the works. It is for the benefit of the masses of otherwise Arts-uneducated and Arts-challenged people who will listen to the music, dance, etc.

Especially the children!-- who, if not exposed to and taught about quality music(not just classical, but jazz and other music which must be studied and practiced to be performed well) may very well fall into the giant abyss of "pop" music, without realizing there are any other music forms worth listening to.

In closing I ask you- if I were to set up a petition stating that pop stars and wannabe pop stars can no longer be called "artists" would you folks sign it?

I hope everyone (especially the initial group) will continue to comment on this topic for a while.

Below is what has been said in several emails over the course of a week so far(starting with my initial "innocent" referral to a webpage):

==========================================

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Alan wrote:

Check out the site:

http://www.petitiononline.com/esnyc/petition.html

================================

On Saturday, January 24, 2009 4:12 PM, Ron wrote:

The arts will survive on their own. They always have and always will.

================================

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Steve wrote:

"A government supported artist is an incompetent whore." Robert Heinlein

================================

On Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:04 PM, Ron wrote:

That's a little stronger than I would describe it, but I do subscribe to the logic.

The musical arts by their own merits will prevail themselves to the listened and uninitiated. World or national economies will never change that.

================================

On Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:25 AM, Clare wrote:

I can’t let this go without a response. So the military-industrial companies (with trillions of dollars of our money spent very inefficiently to say the least) are competent whores?! Your attitude is why the phrase “starving musician” will remain. The arts help to separate humans from the rest of the animal world. They lift us up out of the funk of normal existence. Why not acknowledge that fact with a little more financial and/or political support? Not necessarily a cabinet position, but you get my meaning.

================================

On Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:32 PM, Van wrote:

Alan, you see what you started?

For the rest of you, I just want you to know that I spent the bulk of my high school years trying to keep him out of trouble.

Clearly, however, my efforts met with only limited success ....

===============================================

===============================================

Edited January 26, 2009 by JazzTrombones

[GregK]

anything that supports the Arts is good. Whether a full Cabinet position is neccessary, I don't know, but something official should exist

[Chuck Nessa]

Not now. If we can stop a great deal of the other shit - maybe. We have more important systemic challenges at the moment and in the end I do not trust a government entity to do the "right things".

[jimi089]

More bureaucratic entities won't help the arts. More funding through existing entities would be great!