A few months ago I was at a conference of administrators of large arts institutions when a leading researcher in cultural trends made a bold claim: The election of Donald Trump is a result of the failure of the arts and culture sector.
The point, he said, was that values expressed by the arts sector seem so at odds with the populist nationalist Trump wave that one could view the election not only as a repudiation of the Obama agenda and Democrats but also of arts and culture more generally. The arts had failed to convince large segments of the American public that inclusion and diversity – as expressed by the arts sector – are important values. If the arts had been successful, then Trump would not have been elected.
It’s a provocative claim, and I’ll admit my first reaction was to dismiss it out of hand. How self-important. Does the larger culture care what values the arts hold? Do the arts have the kind of influence that they could swing an election, or have a significant, let alone determinative voice in any kind of national debate? Is the arts sector endorsement now a coveted political get for candidates, up there with the Teamsters or teachers unions?
More problematic is an assumption that the arts have a coherent point of view and a set of values that finds expression in political action.
And yet why not? The arts sector has made something of a fetish of claiming that the arts are for everyone, that they make us “better,” that the arts are striving for diversity and inclusiveness. But are we? Politically diverse? Economically? Rurally (if there is such a word, but you know what I mean)? How everyone are we if half of the country sees our definition of diversity as a threat rather than an advantage? How inclusive are we if significant segments of the country feel that their values aren’t represented – or worse, attacked by the arts? How diverse are we if holding certain political ideologies are cause for being dismissed out of hand?
The 2016 election suggests that those values may be less than the universal truths that those in the arts might like to believe. Perhaps most important, it gives lie to the claim frequently made by the arts sector – that the arts are universal and that they are for everyone.
Call me cynical, but I might suggest that every one of these suppositions is flawed.
If the arts were really for everyone and are inclusive and diverse (something of an aspirational mantra for the sector over the past several years), then the election shredded the notion. If the arts are for everyone, where were the 60+ million Trump voters? If the arts are so diverse and inclusive, where are the conservative views held by an enormous segment of population who seems to reject such definitions of diversity and inclusion? This largely white, largely male majority has long been the dominant cultural authority and wants to hold on to its power
If we claim to be for “everyone” and yet we don’t reflect everyone in our communities, the claim is a lie. It’s as true when we don’t include people of color as it is when we wall off political points of view. The drumbeat of criticism of the arts establishment for not reflecting the racial/ethnic/gender/economic diversity of its communities is entirely justified. However, is it also possible that a lack of political diversity in the arts may also be a missed – if extremely difficult to realize – opportunity?
And yet, what if the values are irreconcilable? What if the arts aren’t for everyone? What if it’s okay that they aren’t? If the arts are for everyone then they may be for no one.
Doug, a useful distinction here can be made between the arts and arts institutions. Art makers needn’t bear the burden of advancing our virtues as a nation or as individuals unless such intent is integral to their activity–such as a poet preoccupied with the toll of racism or a dance company drawing on and reinventing the tradition of a particular community or people. Arts institutions, on the other hand, have both the opportunity and responsibility to open their resources to the entire community, with effective outreach and education that engages a wider public and enables overlooked sectors of the community to both afford and enjoy rich experiences within their local cultural institutions. These organizations can cultivate such experiences both through their exhibits, acquisitions, and programming as well as discounted or suspended fees once a week–and donor cultivation to support such initiatives.
Then there is this, admittedly not PC, and certainly with enough exceptions to base a PhD on from James G. Leyburn’s 1970 essay, “The Scotch Irish” in American Heritage.
“ In one respect, however, the Scotch-Irish seemed to be deficient. The Renaissance did not reach Scotland until the eighteenth century, many years after the Lowlanders had left. From the moment of their arrival in northern Ireland comment was made by Englishmen on the apparently complete lack of aesthetic sensibility on the part of these Scots. As one observer remarked, if a Scotsman in Ulster “builds a cottage, it is a prison in miniature; if he has a lawn, it is only grass; the fence of his grounds is a stone wall, seldom a hedge. He has a sluggish imagination: it may be awakened by the gloomy or terrific, but seldom revels in the beautiful.” The same limitations apparently characterized the Scotch-Irish in America. “
I read your site daily because it is the only thing of its kind out there. That said, I find it as annoying as I do enlightening. But in any case, I thank you for your work and the many edifying hours I have spent at AJ.
I think your view of those whom you lump as ‘conservatives’ is plainly bigoted.
I offer myself as an example. I am for virtuosity and genius and I, and all the consistently vilified ‘conservatives’ that I know, could not give a fig if the artist is black, red, female or Martian. What we characteristically do NOT support is the sort of ‘affirmative action’ in the arts that places political, ‘social justice’ concerns above the essence of the art in question.
I, and those many like me, understand the importance of inclusion and diversity in a changing world. You’d have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to think otherwise, but you have created an entire sub-species of straw men, as so many progressives have done, to support your view.
You are conflating right-wing bigots with conservatives. If you take nothing else away from my response I pray it is simply that.
I do my art for a living, and I don’t want your tax dollars to make government ‘art’ or grants with strings attached, and I resent those who play the race card, or any of the growing number of victimhood cards in the deck. And I find waaayyyy too much of that in AJ.
Art is decided NOT for everyone. True art is not for bigots right or left, nor is art necessary for many decent people to live a fulfilling life. But conflating Trump’s election with the failure of Art is hard to take seriously. Consider that most Trump voters voted not FOR Trump but AGAINST Hillary. We know what an ass Trump is. But instead of voting for the same power-family machines voters felt a need to throw a monkey-wrench into the works. Is that impulse so hard to credit?
When I read this: “It’s as true when we don’t include people of color as it is when we wall off political points of view,” I was delighted and encouraged. But when I read AJ I don’t find you walking the talk.
Again, thanks for your work. I will always be faithful to your efforts at AJ and wish you well.
Gerald Brennan
Gerald: Thank you very much for writing. My post only mentions conservatives once, and then only to suggest that they reject the left’s definitions of diversity and inclusion – which hardly seems like a controversial statement. While many Trump supporters may have come from the conservative spectrum, Trump himself doesn’t seem to adhere to many fundamental conservative positions.
I get that you and I might disagree politically. I do believe, for example, that we are better as a country when government invests in art, just as we are when we invest in business infrastructure. It makes us better.
And yes, like you, I believe in diversity and inclusion. The battles over this are about who has opportunity in the structures we have set up. The demographic evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the opportunities have not been equal, so the question is to try to understand why that is and figure out what to do about it. There are still those who argue there is no problem, but that clearly flies in the face of evidence.
The argument that a failure of the arts is responsible for Trump’s election is not mine but the academic presenting at the conference I was attending. And as I noted in my post, I initially dismissed it. My attempt in this post — perhaps clumsily done — was to look at the argument and understand where it was coming from. What I didn’t say, was that in a room full of arts administrators, this view wasn’t challenged by anyone. So I think it’s worth trying to understand.
I have always disliked the “arts are for anyone” idea. It suggests a laziness of engagement in which you don’t have to bring anything to the encounter. I think good art demands something of you. Suggesting over and over that it doesn’t cheapens it. We don’t say physics is for everyone or racing cars.
Right now the arts world is focused on diversity and inclusion for many reasons both practical and ethical. This is why you’re seeing so many stories in Artsjournal on the topic. We’re a curated aggregation service, and I try to reflect the conversations and issues going on in the field. The arts don’t speak in one voice. There’s no single politics. No one arts way of seeing the world. I often include stories on AJ that I very much disagree with, but whose point of view ought to be heard. We have, for example, posted quite a few stories over the years arguing against public funding for the arts. Nonetheless, as in any field, ideas come to the fore and everyone seems to engage and then they recede as something else rises.
Finally — your point about voters not voting for Trump so much as against Clinton. I’m sorry, but I think that argument is disingenuous. For better or worse, the American system is binary, which means a better or worse choice. Better or worse policies. Better or worse person. Trump is self-serving and willfully ignorant and wholly unsuited to being president of the entire country. Instead he sees himself as victor claiming a prize and determined to bully those who didn’t vote for him. He believes he’s president because his side was stronger and he’s determined to profit from it. This is no surprise.
To choose Trump as being a better choice than Clinton is to own what Trump is — both as a person and in the policies he supports — as well as his reckless disrespect for our institutions. I get that “throwing a monkey wrench in the works” is an act of frustration, but ignorance doesn’t solve the problem, it only makes it worse.
But again – I do appreciate your writing back.
Much of what you say in criticism of the arts sector seems valid. My concern is that you move from this specific example to the more general question of the arts themselves therefor not being universal or not being “for everyone”. I don’t think the two issues are connected.
One of the persistent confusions we in the arts have is making claims about the arts in general, or art as such, by referring to particular art instances, practices, or institutions. Whenever we say something as assertive as “The arts are good for the economy” that is a claim only about particular examples of art in particular circumstances. That is, it sounds like a universal claim but it is really only a claim about isolated instances under specific conditions. Not all art is beneficial in the same way. In fact, it is only of particular instances that concrete empirical claims can be made. The reason is categorical. There is no such thing as art in general that holds a consistent or uniform character. Art is not a natural kind. No single example of art stands for the whole of art. Art as art, art in and of itself, is simply not something for which we can make instrumental claims.
So the idea that it is art itself that has these specific cultural values or that art as such is responsible for electing Trump is nothing but absurd. The arts sector is another matter. There may be movements within art that promote specific values that might have some negative repercussions, but one cannot say that about art in general. On the level of particular arts there can be many conflicting agendas pursued. It is pure nonsense to lay the blame at art itself. Art itself cannot be pinned down to particular political or cultural stances.
The idea that art is not for everyone only highlights our confusion. Sure, particular art practices and institutions will appeal to specific individuals or groups and not to others. That is the nature of their conditionality. But this, again, is a particular claim. You cannot move from that empirical evidence to the idea that art itself doesn’t matter. The idea that art isn’t for everyone mistakenly takes particular examples of art as standing for the whole of art.
The truth is that art surrounds us whether we like it or not. And more than that, we would not be who we are if art didn’t play a role in how each person leans what it means to be human. To be human is to tell stories of who we are, what it means to be human, and what possibilities there are for us. This is part of how we learn our own humanity. To be human is to see beauty in the world and to be inspired. To be human is to engage with the poetry of life, to choose what matters based on a belief that love and tragedy are part of our story. To be human is to sing out loud as the spirit moves us, to dance because we cannot help but express ourselves that way….
Without these things we would not be human. There would be no culture for us to engage the world and ourselves in precisely this way. To say that art isn’t for everyone simply ignores that our own humanity requires that art is a constitutive part of what it means to be human. It confuses particular dislikes with the more general fact that there is no such thing as a human being in the complete absence of art.
We need to stop confusing claims about particular arts with conclusions for art as a whole. We slide back and forth between talking about art in general and art in particular far too casually. This is a mistake, and it does us no favors. For one it invites the skepticism that concludes art as a whole can be so easily dismissed. The idea that art isn’t for everyone is a travesty of disbelief. Of course opera isn’t for everyone! How you get from there to the idea that art itself isn’t for everyone is preposterous. And if art has a voice in politics and social values it is within the scope of art that it will promote entirely contradictory values as well. Particular arts and art in general simply need to be talked about differently.
The term often used, “are for everyone’ we must first consider in what context and to what end? As active participants…as observers,..or as secondary beneficiaries of their immediate and long-term impact (socially, culturally, economically, etc.), they have proven to contribute. Perhaps in a desire to upping the ‘value’ of arts in society, we should also illustrate and advocate how arts and arts policy can contribute to public policy. Unfortunately, apart from a few isolated examples, the arts aren’t even in the ‘room’ when policy is made. Why is that and how can we change the current reality to beneficial future outcomes. Here’s to 2020!
I have never believed that art (high art, although that term is now forbidden) is for everyone. Many biographies and autobiographies tell the story of a lone young person mad about art or dance or music but who comes from a family or background that otherwise has no interest in those things. (Which is not to say that the family necessarily opposes the interest.) If high art truly were for everyone, then everyone would want to listen to Brahms, see Swan Lake, thrill to Verdi, subscribe to the Criterion Collection, and read Dostoyevsky. For most people such things simply don’t matter, and exposing them to those things does not change their mind. (Opera was used to drive loitering young people away from malls.)
No high art today has anywhere near the power, prestige, or financial clout of any of the popular arts–rock music, videos, movies, comics. High art that claims to have, at least, prestige is quickly dismissed as elitist. No more damning term exists at present.
I do believe that most people have an esthetic sense, but clearly that sense can be satisfied in a myriad of ways.
Doug–Thanks for this provocative inquiry and perspective. Generally, though, I believe the emergence of the ignorant Trump can be more pro properly be attributed to a failure of persons to pay attention to their teachers, who would instruct that we use our brains in service of the nation. Trump represents a failure of learning.
This failure of teaching and learning is most pronounced in the national leadership sector. Of course American arts can also be affected by this same kind of ignorance, but the danger is much less significant in the cultural realm.
–Barry
“The election of Donald Trump is a result of the failure of the arts and culture sector.”
I would say that statement is filled with unnecessary self-importance.
A lots of “artsy” eleitists do not understand how much they are disliked by Middle America. Maybe they should simply ask themselves: why? Could it be that putting diversity and inclusion over merit and excellence, offends many people–especially when the diversity machine continually cranks out “art” that regularly insults middle class values, family, religion.
Would YOU support a group of people that insult you at every turn?
Thanks for raising this important question. The arts field has been caught up in culture wars since the first person who drew an animal on the walls of his cave was praised by one neighbor and criticized by the other for wasting his time.
I fought the elitist label during my entire 40-year career in the arts, often with good results. I’m proud of the tens of thousands of new people I brought in to my theatres, art museums or concert halls, and grateful for the millions of dollars I brought in from the so-called elitists who support the arts disproportionately.
As John Le Carre wrote: “There of some subjects that can only be tackled in fiction.” So in my “second act,” I’ve chosen a new approach. I’ve written a satirical (yet romantic) comedy that bounces this complex issue around with love, laughter, and I hope some insights into our dilemma. The play “Sparts Radio” or novel “The Wild Pitch” is available by emailing me at wprenevost@gmail.com.
(John Zorn of ARTS REACH “loved it!”)