It’s a bit tough to profess ambivalence at best, skepticism at worst, when so many people are clamoring for the creation of a cabinet-level position for the arts. A Secretary of the Arts, or a Secretary of Arts and Culture, etc., along with a new Federal Department to match the position.
Historically, the creation of a new executive department within the Cabinet is a very, very big deal. It was a long time coming, for instance, for the creation of a Department of Education (1980). Not to mention a sizable number of people who fought it, and the sizable number of people who remain committed to eliminating it.
Of course, I do love the USDOE grant my organization received this year.
It sounds so great on paper, but the devil is always in the details, and I guess what the animus here is tilting towards, ultimately, is a national cultural policy. Is that even possible/practical in the United States? And, what happens to the NEA, NEH, etc? Just a few examples of how tricky this all might be.
Some might argue that those agencies could be rethought, along with the proposed budgetary increases, without establishing a new executive department and cabinet position.
And, when I think of some of the things national cultural policies have brought their people, such as rules on the minimum percentage of music that must be played by Dutch composers in The Netherlands, or Canadian composers in Canada, it gives me pause.
So, I remain ambivalent. I would love to think that a Secretary of Creative Industries (how do you like that one?), could lobby the Secretary of Education for a more significant emphasis on arts education within the Department of Education.
But, a whole new executive department would make a very nice target for those who remain concerned over the growth in Federal government.
I guess I could go on flip flopping on the issue. I wish I could get excited and behind that prospect, but somehow when I think of all the needs and issues out there to address, I can’t quite hop on board this particular train.
I can’t agree more. I want to think of all the positive things that can come of this move. But, as a student of not only music but history, I just can’t help think of the Nazi ‘Ministries of Culture’ and the ‘Standards’ groups like them and what their leaders have tried to propose in the past. I think politicization of the arts in any way might just be bad on all accounts. This thought just makes me queezy.
A Secretary of State for the Arts? You have no idea what you are letting yourself in for. One simple excercise would be to close your eyes and imagine a republican president finding this office all set up for his people, in a couple of years time.
Think if you would want to find yourselves giving money from the poor people in your country to the rich people in your country; and to the very rich people in other rich country. Like we do now.
The words ‘secretary’ and ‘arts’ just don’t seem to fit together….
I’m grateful to Richard’s post and the three comments above for articulating my dis-ease at the petition going around. The idea has a wonderful energy and ambition, it celebrates the new-found appreciation for culture in the White House, but as a practical matter, just doesn’t make any sense.
It makes me sigh. Honestly, are we kidding? What a terrible, terrible idea.
If the objective is to reverse half of the enormous positive change in the arts’ position and role in our society that we’ve seen over the past half-century or so, then by all means let’s do this.
I also agree with the reservations expressed.
Professor Michael Rushton at Indiana University has some helpful comments on this topic that can be found here:
http://mirushto.blogspot.com/2009/01/wpaytts.html