For some of you the title of this post is going to be a “bait and switch” experience. This is not about opera but about a theatre piece at the recent Grantmakers in the Arts conference. (I am indebted to my friend Barbara Schaffer Bacon’s post on ArtsBlog, Too Progressive, Too Elite: Public Value and the Paradox of the Arts, for first pointing me to the video of it: A Night at the Opera by Tommer Peterson and KJ Sanchez.) Based on interviews with arts funders, artists, arts managers, and (a few) politicians, A Night at the Opera addresses two basic questions. Are the arts elitist? and Are the arts leftist propaganda? (Well “leftist propaganda” is not the word they used. They said “progressive” to be less confrontational, I’m sure.)
Simple questions, right? Of course not. It depends on what you mean by “the arts,” more than your definitions of elitist or leftist propaganda. Let me explain. When discussing with my students opinion polls used to bolster arguments for governmental support of the arts, I point out that (in some cases) the large percentage of people who say they participate in the arts (thought of as a large umbrella, including quilt making and virtually any form of creative activity) is used to support public funding of “the arts” (a small umbrella meaning the symphony and the museum). I call this cultural bait and switch. (Ah, here is a theme to this post.)
So, if we mean cultural expression (any culture) of a community (or subset), then no, the arts are not elitist. They are a fundamental part of the fabric of everyone’s life. They are populist in the full sense of the word. If, however, we mean “the arts establishment,” (Eurocentric, etc., etc.) then yes, of course they are. Let’s be clear which we are talking about before we start answering the question.
In discussing elitism, A Night at the Opera also addresses the “excellence” question, one that I’ve already taken on at least twice here (Quality and Community, Quality and Community-2). A particularly telling remark came from an interviewee of color who observed that white artists could concern themselves solely with “excellence” but artists of color are always seen as focusing on race or ethnicity when they work from their experience. It’s a privilege, as a product of majority culture, not to have to think about (or be judged on) issues of cultural background.
The “leftist” question was also examined in some detail. One of my favorite lines was “Sing me a conservative protest song.” But again, the point would be, what art are we considering? There is much art that supports the status quo. I’m in debt to one of my students for pointing out that majority culture sees advocacy for change (opposition to the status quo) as political while being blind to the political nature of reinforcement of the “norm.” [You know who you are, Megan Harrison.] Majority culture does not see work that takes “what is” as an unexamined truth as political, but to someone from outside that culture the status quo can be a reactionary drain on their humanity. There was a nice moment in the video where the “heteronormative marriages” (not a phrase I get to use often) in A Midsummer Night’s Dream were pointed out.
Another of my favorite lines was “Harlem is a long way from my home.” This came from a woman who learned a valuable lesson about the role of cultural norms even in such simple things as expectations regarding audience response and decorum at theatrical events. It’s always helpful to examine our assumptions about appropriateness when working with people from other cultures.
A Night at the Opera is worth a view. It is, on the whole, a remarkable piece of self-reflection in a relatively narrow industry. My hat is off to those who sponsored the project and to those who created and presented it.
——————-
On a semi-personal–or perhaps logistical–note, I have tumbled to the fact that we are about to enter the Holiday Season. Since most of you have better things to do than read multiple blogs during this season (and I have need to be paying attention to the homefront), I am going to limit myself to one post a week for a while. My guess is that, mostly, I’ll hit “Publish” on the weekend. We’ll see how that works out.
To all of you who have been following these musings for the past few months, thanks and have a great set of Holidays.
Engage!
Doug
In 1993, the National Institute for Literacy reported that 47% of the people in Detroit were functionally illiterate, meaning they had difficulty reading well enough to manage daily living and employment tasks. Since then, things have only gotten worse. What is defined as elitist when about half the population of a city is functionally illiterate?
For those interested, the unsolved murder rate in Detroit is 70%. The unemployment rate is 29%. When cities die, orchestras die.
For documentation of the above stats, see these sites:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1926008,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit#cite_note-time-124
I must say that this comment puzzles me. I’m not clear on the point. If the intent is to say that there is no reason to talk about (or concern ourselves with) elitism when there are cities or neighborhoods with high rates of illiteracy, unemployment, or crime, I guess I’d have to say I disagree.
Hello Doug. Actually, my point is exactly that we should talk about elitism. So I repeat what I think is a very important question: What is defined as elitist when about half the population of a city [like Detroit] is functionally illiterate?
How do we find a balance between artistic standards and populist appeal when the levels of education in our society are often absurdly low? The study I mention about 47% of Detroit’s population being functionally illiterate was published in 1993. Did anyone question what that meant for the future of arts institutions in Detroit? Didn’t the study, in effect, warn about many of the problems the Detroit Symphony would eventually face? Why didn’t the city and orchestra take heed and develop better systems of education and arts education? Instead the fiddled while the city burned.
Why are discussions about elitism not more often coupled with discussions about education? Is it because superficial notions about postmodern theory devalued arts education by categorizing it as cultural indoctrination? If we view arts education as a form of chauvinistic brainwashing, how will that effect the future of the arts?
Isn’t classical music an important part of the legacy of every American? Is the attempt to define classical music as white elitism in reality a form of cultural segregation – as if we could presume to define people’s musical interests based on their race?
As you can see, the discussion has barely even begun. In general, when people step on philosophic bandwagons the depth of their thought decreases. Postmodern thought has made important contributions, and I appreciate your commentaries, but much postmodernism of late has become so superficial and doctrinaire that it has become harmful.
So again, what happens when we challenge an orchestra’s elitism in a city with functional illiteracy rate of 47%? Where’s the balance?