I always dislike when I start writing a post and I already know it will anger folks who I respect and often agree with, but heck I have been out of town for a week, so why not start off with a bang – WAY TO GO ROCCO LANDESMAN.
Landesman was confirmed late last week and his first interview with the New York Times (New Endowment Chairman sees Arts as Economic Engine) set off a firestorm of responses. Not one to be shy, in one interview he took the bull by the horns about the arts being sidelined to the “kids table” or written off as frivolous.
Mr. Landesman, 62, made clear that he has little patience for the disdain with which some politicians still seem to view the endowment, more than a decade after the culture wars that nearly destroyed it.
He was particularly angered, he said, by parts of the debate over whether to include $50 million for the agency in the federal stimulus bill, citing the comment by Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in February, that arts money did not belong in the bill. That kind of thinking suggests that “artists don’t have kids to send to college,” Mr. Landesman said, “or food to put on the table, or medical bills to pay.”
In American politics generally, he added: “The arts are a little bit of a target. The subtext is that it is elitist, left wing, maybe even a little gay.”
He has drawn some criticism for what has been called everything from snarky to elitist by stating that quality would play more into granting decisions than geography.
“I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman,” he said, referring to two of Chicago’s most prominent theater companies. “There is going to be some push-back from me about democratizing arts grants to the point where you really have to answer some questions about artistic merit.”
“And frankly,” he added, “there are some institutions on the precipice that should go over it. We might be overbuilt in some cases.”
Mr. Landesman does believe that the agency should be “perceived as being everywhere,” he said. “But I don’t know that we have to be everywhere if the only reason for supporting an institution is its geography.”
I know I will probably anger some folks here, but I don’t think the NEA needs to fund by geography, it shouldn’t be dismissed but it shouldn’t be a key factor. I certainly hope that all grants are based on the merit of the project and the organization’s mission/community impact. The idea that every congressional district should get funding seems like a ridiculous quota. That type of policy seems the equivalent to begging for legislatures attention )or buying it) and diminishes all of the grants as a whole.
For the record I don’t believe in funding by size either- either of the organization or of the area that the organization is located. I do agree that there are some circumstances in which institutions should ‘go over the precipice’ and close – there are plenty that have built beyond their means or have been irresponsible or borderline irresponsible in their management. These Landesman comments, unsurprisingly have drawn the most response from the blogosphere (see below). Certainly there are multiple interpretations of the comments as well.
No matter what folks in Peoria probably don’t appreciate being picked on. For the record a quick google search brought up the 91-year old Peoria Players Theatre and the Corn Stalk Theatre. (I especially feel for the Peoria Players who have a plea on their website stating they are in a financial crisis. Maybe this will rally folks to send in some extra donations.)
But back to the interview – Landesman notes he is in support of grants for individual artists (which can’t be reinstated without an act of Congress, which I am sure is not the first battle he will choose to fight) and that he plans to fight for a larger budget calling the current appropriation “pathetic and “embarrassing.”
It’s no shock considering who he is and his backgroud that he plans to make the argument that the arts are an economic driver, but in an interesting twist he is building a platform on the old “artists for community revitalization” idea. He plans to pursue private sector relationships to fund the program he describes below.
I for one applaud this idea. Many if not most government agencies use strong multi-sector relationships to get things done, why not the NEA? Certainly this is a project that H.U.D. could also be a part of. To me this is the kind of thinking that we were all hoping for when he was tapped for the job (interesting note, from the interview we now know he wasn’t really tapped, he asked for the job which I see as a very good thing in that he is more than up for the challenge, he wants it). If he can make the case well, he may finally be speaking a language that D.C. bureaucrats and politicians can understand.
“We need to have a seat at the big table with the grown-ups. Art should be part of the plans to come out of this recession.”
“If we’re going to have any traction at all,” he added, “there has to be a place for us in domestic policy.”
He was less clear about the details of this ambitious agenda, though he talked about starting a program that he called “Our Town,” which would provide home equity loans and rent subsidies for living and working spaces to encourage artists to move to downtown areas.
“When you bring artists into a town, it changes the character, attracts economic development, makes it more attractive to live in and renews the economics of that town,” he said. “There are ways to draw artists into the center of things that will attract other people.”
The program would also help finance public art projects and performances and promote architectural preservation in downtown areas, Mr. Landesman added. “Every town has a public square or landmark buildings or places that have a special emotional significance,” he said. “The extent that art can address that pride will be great.”
Given the agency’s “almost invisible” budget, he said, goals like these would require public-private partnerships that enlist developers, corporations and individual investors — largely by getting them “to understand the critical role of art in urban revitalization.”
Such arrangements — which he said will be a “signature part” of his chairmanship — will play “right into the president’s wheelhouse,” Mr. Landesman added, speaking of Mr. Obama’s concerns about cities and economic development.
The new chairman said he already has a new slogan for his agency: “Art Works.” It’s “something muscular that says, ‘We matter.’ ” The words are meant to highlight both art’s role as an economic driver and the fact that people who work in the arts are themselves a critical part of the economy.
“Someone who works in the arts is every bit as gainfully employed as someone who works in an auto plant or a steel mill,” Mr. Landesman said. “We’re going to make the point till people are tired of hearing it.”
Interestingly enough, since I was out of town, I am behind on my reading and had to catch up a bit (although still plenty to go), and I stumbled along this great article from New Music Box (the web magazine for the American Music Center). In Guess Who’s Invited to the White House, Jean Cook and Casey Rae-Hunter make the case that we are at a unique point where we can get the government to actually work for the arts, if we change some of our tactics. Cook and Rae-Hunter propose the following:
To be sure, the frequent presence of artists in the White House provides us with reason to be hopeful that the new administration will be a good partner for the arts community. But taking advantage of this opportunity will require a dramatic rethinking of the way we engage with policymakers. The previous eight years were spent playing political defense against an administration with little interest in investing in the arts. Now, we’re faced the no less important challenge of transitioning from an oppositional movement to one that’s more proactive. A movement grounded in big-picture thinking, with a vision for how innovation and creativity can rebuild our nation. A movement that understands the role arts will play in shaping a new social agenda.
Because of an uncoordinated government infrastructure, the arts community has, over the years, come to view public policy as highly agency-specific. We’re good friends with the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, but have until recently been strangers at places like the White House, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Copyright Office. And, though the NEA has long been the most visible symbol of our government’s commitment to art and culture (or in some cases, lack of), its miniscule budget means that its actual impact is largely symbolic and generally limited to touring, presentation, and participation in the traditional and classical disciplines. Yet the entire field continues to grow, necessitating a broader view of policy and public funding for the arts.
In its first six months, the new administration has modeled a more holistic approach to policymaking that prizes innovation and seeks ways to improve conditions for all Americans. There’s a renewed focus on inter-agency collaboration and a sharing of ideas and resources to find creative solutions to our many problems as the nation struggles to repair itself in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Of course, Cook and Rae-Hunter note that we will need to address “how we make our case.” And this is where I think the appointment of Landesman is important. The articles authors make no mention of Landesman and the article wasn’t about the N.E.A. but when Cook and Rae-Hunter cry-out “We need a fresh kind of thinking to recognize new opportunities,” I can’t help but think Landesman is the guy to bring those new ideas to the table.
Now being out of town gave me an advantage that lots of folks had commented on Rocco’s first interview with the New York Times, thoughts and links below:
Laura Collins-Hughes over at Critical Difference brings up some great points about the arts being dismissed in The Arts Are “a Little Gay”
Good for NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman for calling out the homophobia that undergirds opposition to federal funding for the arts. “The arts are a little bit of a target. The subtext is that it is elitist, left wing, maybe even a little gay,” he tells Robin Pogrebin in today’s New York Times….
The idea that the arts are gay, and therefore dismissable, is closely related to another notion about the arts: that they are inherently girly….
The arts are widely viewed as a milieu best suited to women, and to men with an affinity for beauty, delicacy and taste and an aversion to muscular exertion (read: gay — and, no, I am not endorsing the stereotype, merely articulating it).
As a nation, we tend not to scrape together public funding if we believe it would benefit people like that. Unless, maybe, we can be convinced that it’s in our economic interest to do so.
Not a new idea but something important to think about when we craft the case for the arts getting a seat at the “big table.” Collins- Hughes also tackles the Peoria comment:
The straight-shooting Landesman won’t earn many points for diplomacy in that interview, particularly with the ill-considered slap, “I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman.” That remark is bound to alienate whole flocks of legislators as well as artists outside major cities. Nonetheless, the point he’s trying to make about democratizing arts grants — “I don’t know that we have to be everywhere if the only reason for supporting an institution is its geography” — is perfectly valid, and his new NEA slogan, “Art Works,” is beautifully attuned to the zeitgeist….
Gioia might have made some lasting progress for the agency, whose natural opponents have been forced to concede, at least to a degree, that there is value to the arts. If Landesman, a Broadway producer, uses creative-class theory to hang a dollar sign on that value and explain the dividends investment in the arts would pay, he may be speaking lawmakers’ language.
What’s interesting is, I am not so sure that the comment will “alienate whole flocks of legislators.” Outside of the Peoria delegation, I wonder if it will even register with folks. I think Collins-Hughes is right that Landesman “may be speaking lawmaker’s language,” and if he is he is leaps and bounds ahead of any of his predecessors. His plan to stay on the offensive and not apologize for the arts is vital stance that will be necessary if the N.E.A. is going to become a useful and important agent for change and innovation for the arts.
Over at Gratuitous Violins in Rocco, this won’t play in Peoria calls the Peoria comment “snarky.”
Rocco, was it wise in your very first interview to pick a fight with Peoria? Which, as a native Midwesterner yourself, you must know is in Illinois, home state of the president who nominated you to head the NEA.
I don’t know whether there’s a theater there or not. And if there is, maybe it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman. But that’s not the point. The point is introducing more people to the arts. And not everyone can get to Chicago or New York.
The point is, good theatre, music, dance and other art is being made all over this country in communities large and small. As NEA chairman, you should be celebrating that fact and building it up, not tearing it down with a snarky comment.
I have to say, I think Landesman knew exactly what state he was using examples from. Readers can see the results of my quick google search above there are theaters in Peoria. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find easily if there were any N.E.A. grant recipients in Peoria – but via the Illinois Arts Council they would likely benefit from federal funds. I have to say again merit and quality do mean more to me than geography. I don’t think the comment was ruling out geographic diversity, just quotas and I fully agree with that.
I also don’t think the “point” of the N.E.A. is to “introduce people to the arts.” It is a government agency that should be a helluva a lot more than what it is – a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval,” but it isn’t an advocacy or social service agency. Let’s not kid ourselves, the N.E.A. has never had a big enough budget to make any kind of sweeping national impact. The capacity is just not there, and I don’t really care to focus on what frankly can not be achieved and probably shouldn’t be.
If Landesman achieves the increased budget he is looking for I would be happy if it didn’t end up in the grant program budgets, if it was used to create new models and partnerships within the arts industries. I don’t think it is about more “funding” the status quo or for organizations to keep on being dysfunctional (see Funding Models/Saving Theaters). The regional theater model never was functional and it is time to admit it. It is outrageous that so many theaters, orchestras, etc. have structural deficits year after year without making any changes to how they are run and how they produce their work.
Now I am a big fan of Scott Walters and an even bigger fan of his <100K Project. It is nothing short of amazing. It is actually an innovative new collaborative model. I got my start as a Outreach Director in North Carolina, and I am VERY familiar with the types of communities and arts that Scott is advocating for. In Time to Blast Rocco Landesman, Scott is starting an outright campaign in response to Landesman’s geographic comments.
Now we have this interview, a clear indication that he is the Ny-centric, high art (or rather, high budget — despite his talk of quality, what he is really talking about is big budget, high prestige institutions) proponent I thought he was. I call on all readers of this blog to communicate your outrage to Landesman. He can be emailed at chairman@arts.gov, called at 202-682-5414, or sent a letter at 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20506.
The arts must be for everyone, not just people who live in the big cities in this nation. If you really want to see the NEA budget slashed because legislators don’t see any of the money coming to their home districts, just keep trumpeting this elitist nonsense. Landesman needs to read Grassroots Theatre by Robert Gard and learn about the long tradition in this country of democratic, widespread creativity. Theatre historians during the past 35 years or so have virtually ignored this, despite the fact that some of the most important art of the first half of the century came from it (Provincetown Players, for instance, was part of the Little Theatre movement, for crying loud; the Pulitzer Prize winning Paul Green wrote regional based plays in North Carolina).
Now Scott has always taken issue with what he calls the ‘”Myth of Broadway.” I am at a disadvantage because I grew up without any Broadway influence in my life and actually never imagined myself in New York, as a matter of fact I even through graduate school I said over and over again I was never even going to visit New York.
Of course after a dozen years living in New York and the immediate area, I am grateful for all that New York has to offer. However, it has never occurred to me to think of theater in other cities or regions as less valid or less important because know the value of the arts as community-building and engines for personal growth firsthand. I have also been lucky enough to live in 6 different states in 4 different regions of the country in my lifetime. I know folks tend to be myopic about New York and other major cities, but Landesman’s comment doesn’t bother me as much as others including Scott although I certainly see why what they read into it irks them. I also just don’t see the comment as being about “big budget, high prestige institutions.”
My thinking is a bit more in-line with Isaac Butler over at Parabasis who responds to Scott’s post at <100K Project – Cue Scott Waters Outrage. I think there is a place for geography but not at the top:
…while I’m sympathetic to the point about making “merit” a primary guiding value of who gets money, and while I’m certainly happy to hear Rocco say that there are some larger institutions that should be allowed to fail (that sounds harsh, but I think the system needs some shaking up), it seems to me that it’s a myopic strategy to not spread arts money around geographically, or to use geography as part of the calculus. Maybe not as much as merit, but up there.
First off, if we truly believe that the arts are a good economic engine, then certainly Peoria deserves that engine as much as Chicago.
Second, if you’re trying to build widespread support for the arts, spreading the federal pork around a bit is not a bad strategy. During the fight over the $50 million in the stimulus (this is if memory serves, so i could be wrong here) one Republican who tried to demogogue the bill by saying that the arts created no jobs in his district was met very quickly with a list of how many arts jobs there actually were in the area he represents.
Third, the NEA should probably be addressing some of the calcified structural advantages that certain geographic areas have. Our system of farming actors out from New York creates a structural advantage in New York– it’s filled with very cheap, abundantly talented labor, because people work for less money in New York and make up the difference in TV, Film and Regional gigs, which tend to pay better (this is particularly and shockingly true for directors once you are working at large LORTs). There is, however, some evidence that this isn’t good for the system of theatre as a whole in America, and if someone is going to have their eyes on the broader interests of theatre in America, there’s a far better chance that that person is going to be Chair of the NEA as opposed to, say, chair of the board of MTC. Or, to put it another way, there is no (immediately obvious) reason why Lynne Meadow should give a shit about the health of theatre in another part of the country. And many artistic directors act accordingly. The ultimate goal of an institution is its own perpetuation. The NEA has a better vantage point to try enact positive change in the industry.
Now call my cynical, but I don’t think spreading the $50M around is going to get us anywhere. When it comes to the arts I think that getting money into their congressional districts is of smaller concern and weight than with other industries and initiatives. First, it isn’t much money – yes, of course something is better than nothing, but more importantly it is just that the arts aren’t that important or valued by some (most) politicians. This circles back to the idea of how we make an case for the arts.
More commentary on merit and/or geography can be found at Createquity Landeman Confirmed as NEA Chair:
I have to admit that I kind of love the idea of a tough-talking NEA Chair, and feel that it will be a helpful weapon in the culture wars that the right seems itching to start up again. The fact that Landesman both has artists’ priorities at heart and is willing to fight for them is very promising indeed. The one quote out of the above that worries me a bit is his attitude toward arts in regional areas — sometimes it’s not all about artistic merit, and there’s certainly something to be said for developing local talent rather than continually losing it all to New York or LA…. On the other hand, Landesman does recognize the arts’ importance to downtown urban economies–presumably, whether they’re in Peoria or anywhere else–and says that he wants to make this focus a “signature” element of his tenure. Landesman promises to be an entertaining figure at the helm if nothing else, and hopefully will end up accomplishing far more than that.
Moss is absolutely right about Landesman’s tenure will certainly be entertaining, but I think and hope he will much, much more than that. And another perspective on the Peoria comments over at Real Clear Arts Landesman’s Big Risk: Cocky Remarks May Come Back to Haunt Him
Much of the arts community is euphoric about what Rocco Landesman told The New York Times the other day: It was straight talk; he said many things that needed saying; with a few remarks, he extracted the cultural world from the defensive crouch arts organizations always seem to be in. Artists do need to be considered in economic policy matters, though Landesman shouldn’t ignore the fact that investing in arts generally doesn’t have as large an economic multiplier effect asinvesting in manufacturing….
His remark about Peoria, even if true, will come back to haunt him surer than the “wise Latina” remark messed up Sonia Sotomayor. It’s going to make budget requests and hearings much more difficult.
So while Landesman is right to try to alter the national debate about the arts, I hope his cocky first interview doesn’t hurt the cause, rather than help it.
Judith H. Dobrzynski from Real Clear Arts continued commentary in her Forbes Magazine column:
Some of this is refreshing. It’s meant to alter the terms of the debate, to give the arts their due–which does include consideration of their role in the economy. The arts should not be an afterthought, or no thought at all.
In some ways, Landesman is living up to a standard for appointees that many Obama voters expected when they pulled the Democratic lever last fall–only to be disappointed by the president’s mostly conventional picks (some of which encouraged those who didn’t vote for him, but that’s another story). Landesman wants to dispense with business-as-usual at the NEA, and that’s a good thing.
But plenty of other people have gone to Washington with similar forthrightness only to be felled by their hard-charging methods. It would be a shame if Landesman unnecessarily reignited the vicious culture wars of the 1990s. He is taking a big risk, in a town that all but requires compromise and coalition-building, even when the majority is as large as it is today. Let’s hope he doesn’t make matters worse for the arts.
I don’t think Landesman will make things worse, and I hope he doesn’t tip-toe too much. Risk tends to pay off in the arts – Landesman certainly should understand building alliances and should be able to navigate Washington waters based on his life experiences. Of course there could have been a less biting way to make the point about geography, but I don’t think it is as big a deal as it is being made out to be, but hey I could be wrong. But, I am still looking forward to Landesman shaking things up a bit and enacting some real change. I am going to remain more than upbeat about his appointment, I am downright hopeful.
