My criticisms of state-subsidized art

[George H. Smith]

Below are some remarks that I posted yesterday and today on a jazz list that I have belonged to for several years. This exchange began with a linked article about the Jazz Master Awards, which are a kind of life-time achievement award given every year by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). My initial brief post sparked a number of critical and sarcastic replies, and it was off to the races after that.

My remarks may seem a bit out of context at times, since I have not included the posts to which I responding. But I think the context can easily be inferred from my responses.

My criticism of the NEA (and state-subsidized art generally) was not well-received, to put it mildly. 8-)

Interesting article. Hajdu questions whether "the nation's

higher honor in jazz really have such a link to longevity—as

opposed to, say, uniqueness, influence, or sheer

brilliance?"

A more fundamental question is whether we should regard an

award bestowed by an agency of the federal government as

"the highest honor in jazz."

Ghs

No one is compelled, via taxes, to support Downbeat or the

Grammies. Big difference. If a coalition of ministers wants

to give awards for Best Preachers, that is their business.

But we don't need a government agency giving Master Preacher

Awards.

The NEA Jazz Master Awards have been given since 1982.

Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra, and Cleo Patra Brown have been

among the winners. But no awards for Stan Getz, Gerry

Mulligan, or Bud Shank. Give me a break.

I don't know the internal politics of the NEA, but politics

there surely are.

Ghs

If you don't like the internal "politics' of Downbeat or the

Grammies, then don't patronize them. Try not paying the part

of your taxes that go to the NEA and see what happens.

I am curious why you regard it as either necessary or

desirable for other people, many of whom don't even like

jazz, to subsidize the kind of music that you happen to

like. If jazz buffs are not willing -- voluntarily -- to do

what is necessary to encourage the kind of music they hold

dear, and to honor the people they most admire, then jazz

deserves to die.

The very notion of a government agency telling us who the

jazz greats supposedly are is offensive.

Ghs

If the amount of money involved is so miniscule, then why

cannot an equivalent amount be raised voluntarily among jazz

buffs? Are we that poor and/or stingy?

This is not about whether we are "better off with

government." You don't have to be a libertarian to

understand the importance of a separation between art and

government. Art is a matter of personal preference, and

others should not be compelled to subsidize our tastes in

art.

The principle involved here is essentially the same as the

principle underlying the separation of church and state.

Suppose the government decided to subsidize a particular

religion -- say, evangelical Christianity. And when you

complain, someone replies: "I love your objection to the

amount of money that goes to the state religion. This would

amount in most case to a penny or so, or even less."

I doubt if you would find this rejoinder convincing. You

would regard the amount of money involved as irrelevant --

as I do with the NEA.

Art, including music, is a sphere in which coercion should

NEVER be used.

Ghs

My perspective probably differs from almost everyone on JWC.

But all I ask from defenders of the NEA is some kind of

coherent and consistent justification.

For example: Who should decide what kind of art and what

particular artists are worthy of receiving subsidies? The

majority? Some bureaucrats in Washington? Origami is an art.

Should that be subsidized? I was an amateur magician in my

youth, and I can assure you that sleight-of-hand is an

extremely difficult art that requires years of practice.

Should that be subsidized? My mother was very skilled in the

art of making artificial flowers. Should that be subsidized?

How about rap music? Banjo playing? Fine cooking? The list

is endless.

Some jazz buffs seem to believe that jazz will die without

government assistance. I see no reason for this assumption.

Jazz is readily available on the Internet, for example, for

anyone who cares to listen to it. If jazz dies, this will be

because not enough people are interested in it, not because

it is hard to find. The solution here lies in making jazz

appealing to more people, and such innovations will come

from the creative souls of jazz musicians, not from a

government bureaucracy.

There may be some exceptions here and there, but the

overwhelming majority of the jazz greats that JWCers most

admire managed to perfect and practice their art without NEA

grants.

Ghs

I have frequently complained about the things you mentioned,

but on other lists -- and far more frequently and loudly

than you ever have, I would venture.

When I care about something deeply, as I do jazz, I prefer

to use persuasion instead of coercion to support that value.

I know this must seem odd to you, but that's the way it is.

Ghs

As one of those "characters" you mentioned, I am aware that

state-supported orchestras have produced some excellent

results. I am also aware that the ancient Egyptian

government produced some spectacular pyramids, and that some

state-supported religions have produced some beautiful

churches and cathedrals. But I don't advocate any of these.

It is true that some jazz greats "died, scuffling, playing

with groups and in places that were far below their true

talents." Similar hardships have been endured by artists of

every stripe, not only musicians, but those artists have no

legitimate claim to the money of people who don't care to

support them. The civilized thing to do would be to

establish private foundations to help them, and such

foundations have in fact been established.

I know a very wealthy man who has contributed literally

hundreds of millions of dollars to such causes -- and, like

me, he happens to be one of those libertarian "characters"

you think so poorly of.

I would no more compel people to support an artistic project

than I would compel people to support a religious project.

Both spheres are intensely personal -- a matter of the

spirit, so to speak -- and should remain a matter of

individual choice.

If you are so concerned about struggling jazz musicians,

then start a foundation or contribute your own money to help

them. Those are laudable endeavors. Compelling other people,

via taxes, is not.

Ghs

[anthony]

George,

A topic close to my heart (and gut). When my country's g'ment began really getting interested in art and music - we must encourage our African culture, etc, etc. - by forcing local quotas on radio stations, subsidizing "correct" and approved ventures in music, art and theatre - people I know in those fields called me

dumb for resisting it. (On the basis of who pays the piper, calls the tune.)

Some admit I was right, years later, as they see the propagandists for State they are close to becoming.

The upshot is, ballet is fading out (my gf was a dancer), live American jazz has become increasingly impossible to find (we had some great musicians) in favor of 'township jazz', and much art, and theatre has become politically themed.

"A sphere in which coercion should never be used" - strongly agreed. No artist should lose his or her independent vision to the State. They have, and will, ultimately. Although the merits appear beneficial at first - far better to find patronage, privately, or find a market for one's output. I admire your stand.

[studiodekadent]

I agree with all the above.

Ironically though, merely having the right political credentials doesn't guarantee any kind of funding. I make industrial music, and when the genre was first established it was explicitly Marxist. Yet to my knowledge it got no subsidies, even though it is one of the most expensive genres of music to make (its all electronic, synthesizers etc).

State-subsidized art means merely that faddish pretentious academics and critics get to reward their pet artists and art forms (of the week) with other people's money. It means the empowerment of bureaucrats to use culture to socially engineer things like 'proper national identity' and other nebulous crap (always on the basis of the Foucauldian worldview, social constructivism and denial of pesky things like free will).

[samr]

One of my reasons for a government is that art is not supposed to be "for the wordly motive of gain", but "art for art". Since a "wordly motive" and "the motive for greed", would corrupt the artist himself, art should be subsidized.

Yes, I realize that this is a paradox, because subsidy in practice just means taking money by force, not anything especially noble And it contradicts other ideas - that of the free artist.

But does anyone have a criticism of the idea I mentioned above _per se_, not regarding its practical consequences.

[anthony]

One of my reasons for a government is that art is not supposed to be "for the wordly motive of gain", but "art for art". Since a "wordly motive" and "the motive for greed", would corrupt the artist himself, art should be subsidized. Yes, I realize that this is a paradox, because subsidy in practice just means taking money by force, not anything especially noble And it contradicts other ideas - that of the free artist. But does anyone have a criticism of the idea I mentioned above _per se_, not regarding its practical consequences.

samr,

It is certainly complex and can be paradoxical: The three huge areas of Art, Economics, and Government. Then add 'cultural identity' and 'art for the sake of art', 'commercialism' - and the survival of the smallest guy in the chain, the artist - and it all seems insoluble.

My simplest take, is that we all tend to treat "art" as a floating abstraction - on the one hand - and as a concrete 'given', on the other.

That can't be reality. Each artist is a private, creative, enterprise.

Very briefly, we, as citizens don't have the 'duty' to keep theatre, fine art, dance, music, etc, "alive".

Stand or fall, the artist must be able to "put bums in seats" as theatre people say.

And/or, he can find private finance from corporations and wealthy individuals - either as partners, or as people who are keen patrons of fresh talent. With galleries always hungry for new selling artists, there is probably no reason a good fine-artist cannot survive.

Any form of coercion - throwing large funds at one sector that meets arbitrary State approval, and denying it to what is perceived as "foreign" ("Eurocentric", in my country i.e. ballet) - is immoral. It kills off one artist or art form, in favor of the other, and reduces people's exposure to the myriad of choice in art. Censorship.

The biggest trouble is when a State views its artists as a natural resource, for its aggrandizement.

Unsurprisingly, I view art as individualist - BUT I admit that in our statist world, a good argument could be made for Art being subsidized. When a large part of the economy is State-funded, why should the artist not get his share?

My answer: that, as much and moreso than a private enterprise, the artist loses all he's got, his creativity, once he loses his independence.

Public- funded art often finishes up looking like 'Public Art', I think.

Tony

[studiodekadent]

One of my reasons for a government is that art is not supposed to be "for the wordly motive of gain", but "art for art". Since a "wordly motive" and "the motive for greed", would corrupt the artist himself, art should be subsidized.

So "art" must be platonic, otherworldly, impractical and hence meaningless and useless?

Art intended to make money isn't "true art" then? Art that makes a profit is somehow evil?

This kind of argument doesn't increase the dignity of the artist. Rather, it says "true art is useless." It makes the artist into a creator of nothing.

Unless, of course, you assume matter is debased, beneath ourselves, evil etc. So you elevate the artist by Platonistically damning the entire world.

[PDS]

Ghs:

The tenor of your comments seemed quite kind, and even patient with your fellow jazzers, not unlike your treatment of Phil.

And, by the way, no need for the comments you were responding to: they were obviously straight out of The Template, taught to meek by our gracious public education system....We need only fill in the usual blanks.

[George H. Smith]

Ghs:

The tenor of your comments seemed quite kind, and even patient with your fellow jazzers, not unlike your treatment of Phil.

And, by the way, no need for the comments you were responding to: they were obviously straight out of The Template, taught to meek by our gracious public education system....We need only fill in the usual blanks.

JWC (Jazz West Coast) is a very civil and high-powered Yahoo group. Almost every active poster is involved in music on a professional level as a musician, arranger, critic, etc. Over 20 have written books on jazz and jazz musicians. I have probably learned more about jazz from my three years on this list than I have from reading dozens of books, so I try to be respectful.

When I first joined JWC I was delighted to learn that some active posters are old-timers who played with jazz greats such as Stan Getz and Gerry Mulligan. The bassist Bill Crow is a good example. Bill played for years with Mulligan, and he also did a lot of work with Getz and many other now-legendary figures. It is a delight to be able to ask Bill questions about those days, and he typically responds quickly and in detail.

Moreover, I can quickly get the information I need about album personnel. Here is a typical example from some exchanges I had yesterday. Based on the Wiki article about the arranger Manny Albam, I mistakenly believed that Albam wrote the arrangements for Bernstein's music for the original Broadway production of West Side Story in 1957. I therefore wrote:

A while back I posted an Amazon link for Manny Albam's "Essential Jazz Classics," a collection that contains (so far as I can tell) all the tracks from Albam's "West Side Story."

So here is my question: Are these tracks the same arrangements that Albam scored for the original Broadway Production of West Side Story in 1957? If so, then the original arrangements were much "jazzier" than those that later appeared in the movie. I say this largely because of the improvisations.

One more thing: If anyone can provide me with a list of personnel for Albam's WSS album, I would very much appreciate it. It bugs the s*** out of me when I listen to a solo without knowing who played it. 8-)

Ghs

Within 20 minutes, I got the following two replies:

This should answer your question George. Essentially,, it's the usual session suspects of the time.

Bernie Glow,Ernie Royal, Joe Newman (tp) Jim Dahl, Tom Mitchell, Jimmy Cleveland (tb) Gene Quill (as) Frank Socolow, Eddie Wasserman (ts) Sol Schlinger (bar) Eddie Costa (p) Milt Hinton (b) Osie Johnson (d) Manny Albam (arr,cond)

New York, October 10, 1957

103488 I feel pretty Coral CRL57207

103489 Cool -

103490 Maria -

Ernie Royal, Al DeRisi, Nick Travis (tp) Jim Dahl, Chauncey Welsch, Tom Mitchell (tb) Gene Quill (as) Frank Socolow, Al Cohn (ts) Sol Schlinger (bar) Hank Jones (p)Milt Hinton (b) Osie Johnson (d) Manny Albam (arr,cond)

New York, October 11, 1957

103491 Prologue (into) Coral CRL57207

Jet song -

103492 To-night

Ernie Royal, Nick Travis, Bernie Glow (tp) Jim Dahl, Tom Mitchell (tb) Bob Brookmeyer (v-tb) Gene Quill (as) Frank Socolow, Al Cohn (ts) Sol Schlinger (bar) Hank Jones (p) Wendell Marshall (b) Osie Johnson (d) Manny Albam (arr,cond)

New York, October 11, 1957

103493 Something's coming Coral CRL57207

103494 Somewhere -

103495 Finale -

I feel pretty -

America -

Then another member responded:

George,

I had the LP for decades before I traded this information for a CD R of the LP. I know what you mean about some of the solos. I was close on most (really surprised me when I got Jimmy Cleveland correct) and sorry about the (others) but I was thrilled to get what I did.

Manny Albam West Side Story VL 3678

1/ Prologue and Jet Song 2/ Something's Coming 3/ Cool 4/ Maria 5/ Tonight 6/ I Feel Pretty 7/ Somewhere 8/ Finale

Ernie Royal, Joe Newman (3,4,6), Nick Travis (1,2,5,7,8), Al DeRisi (1,5), Bernie Glow (2,3,4,6,7,8)

Jim Dahl, Tom Mitchell (bb), Jimmy Cleveland (3,4,6), Chauncey Welsch (1,5), Bob Brookmeyer (2,7,8)

Gene Quill, Frank Scolow, Sol Slinger, Ed Wasserman (3,4,6), Al Cohn (1,2,5,7,8) Ed Costa (3,4,6)

Hank Jones (others) / Wendell Marshall (2,7,8, ), Milt Hinton (others)/ Osie Johnson

A little later Bill Crow corrected my error about Manny Albam:

Manny didn't do the arrangements for the Broadway production of West Side Story. He was given a project by a record producer to do a jazz version of the score, as was done in those days with many Broadway shows. He told me it was a rush job, and he did it in just a few days.

I know these details may not interest most OLers, but they can appreciate the value of access to information of this sort, in whatever field. They can also appreciate the value of getting info from someone who knew the people being discussed, even from the 1950s.

JWC is a bit cliquish. Newbies are welcome, but it takes around six months for someone to be fully accepted, I knew quite a bit about jazz when I first joined three years ago, but my knowledge nowhere approached the knowledge of most members. Hence for the first six months I did little more than ask questions.

Political discussions are frowned upon on JWC, but praise for the NEA and NPR are fairly common. One member (a Tea Party type) has sometimes posted objections, but he tends to fly off the handle too much, and he doesn't really deal with fundamentals. Thus, when the NEA came up a few days ago, I decided to state my case in a very civil manner. I got the expected bitching on the list, but I also got a few supporters. Interestingly, however, almost all the support came in off-list emails. One I got yesterday was from a retired professor. He praised my posts and said he agreed with them, but he never wanted to go public with his beliefs because he knew what kind of response he would get.

In a way JWC is a microcosm of a problem that has been discussed before on OL -- namely, how do we introduce libertarian ideas to an audience that is largely hostile to those ideas? It is highly doubtful that my posts will convince anyone who didn't already agree with me, but I think they are a good example of how to present objections to the status quo. If I had allowed my polemical instincts to run wild, as I sometimes do on OL, my posts would not have been nearly as effective.

Ghs

[PDS]

Do any of your fellow Jazz ophiles know you wrote the (not so) "Little Purple Book"?

[samr]

WhyNOT, I think that the argument for the independence of the artist is really a good one. ¨Free¨money tends to corrupt. Thanks,

[caroljane]

WhyNOT, I think that the argument for the independence of the artist is really a good one. ¨Free¨money tends to corrupt. Thanks,

The independence of the artist is a given, in that created art can only be independent. The production of the art is more problematic. The days of rich patrons are largely gone and although writers and visual artists can usually support themselves while writing, cost-intensive arts such as sculpture are fairly unsustainable - a scultpture is often created to be in a public space, and a community often has a reason to have a sculpture in a park or square - but who will pay for the materials and the sculptor's time? Michelangelo did not create the Pieta on spec, in an open market.

[anthony]

WhyNOT, I think that the argument for the independence of the artist is really a good one. ¨Free¨money tends to corrupt. Thanks,

The independence of the artist is a given, in that created art can only be independent. The production of the art is more problematic. The days of rich patrons are largely gone and although writers and visual artists can usually support themselves while writing, cost-intensive arts such as sculpture are fairly unsustainable - a scultpture is often created to be in a public space, and a community often has a reason to have a sculpture in a park or square - but who will pay for the materials and the sculptor's time? Michelangelo did not create the Pieta on spec, in an open market.

I should have been more precise. Creative choice, content, and ideology, can well be influenced by State sponsorship. In this country, an artist will likely find his subsidy dry up next year if his work became too controversial, anti-government, or 'Western'.

Any dance or theatre company that did not adhere to the affirmative action quota policy - which effectively means all Black employment - would not even have a chance of their application succeeding for sponsorship by the Department of Arts and Culture.

I'm not so sure patronage has disappeared. A modern patron of the arts could now be the financial director of a corporation.

Whether for the cachet of expensive 'wall-paper' hanging in the board room and foyer, or a private collection for investment of an up and coming artist. Gallery owners 'spot' the talent, and do their own marketing to the big buyers.

Sculpture, as you say, is the high risk, big outlay, sector. I believe from a sculptor friend, that most work comes by commission these days.

He had one large work sold to an investment bank for their head office entrance.

They hired him on the strength of his concept and drawings, so he hardly risked much. Being an artist he lived like a king for a year or so on that single payday - and is back to art-teaching, now, until the next big one comes along.

Nobody ever said art was easy.

[studiodekadent]

The independence of the artist is a given, in that created art can only be independent. The production of the art is more problematic. The days of rich patrons are largely gone

Not entirely true, plenty of philanthropic foundations started by rich people support the arts.

and although writers and visual artists can usually support themselves while writing, cost-intensive arts such as sculpture are fairly unsustainable

Possibly true, but many arts have low entry costs and/or have had entry costs drastically lowered by technological advances. Electronic music is the obvious example that I know of.... a single synth used to be the price of a car. Now you can get a completely capable home studio for a four-figure sum.