"Glorified PSAs"
Ben Davis defends the NEA conference call in a lengthy post at Artnet. He makes a persuasive case that many critics of the call are misunderstanding or misrepresenting its actual content — and I applaud him for a carefully written, factually informed piece that advances this conversation.
But he goes on to write:
This notorious conference call, in other words, was essentially a pitch for artists to make glorified PSAs about volunteer work. As far as I can tell, the truth is exactly the opposite of the ominous attempt to yoke artists to the Obama Agenda that critics suggest; if anything, the call was an effort to take the inspiration for radical change that led many creative types to vote for Obama and channel it into low-level, local activism.
That sounds about right to me — the call wasn’t about furthering controversial elements of President Obama’s agenda, but it was about deliberately politicizing art — that is to say, encouraging artists to advance particular public policy goals rather than enabling them to spend their time and energy creating works of truth or beauty to the best of their ability.
As Mr. Davis points out, the call encouraged artists with ties to the NEA to focus their energy on “glorified PSAs.” It is that effort that I find objectionable, as should anyone who values art or the autonomy or creative people. As Sanjay so eloquently put it, “You want to keep kids in school and encourage service and so on with clever art? Use the fucking Ad council.”
I appreciate that many other critics of the call are raising different objections, but their wrongheaded arguments don’t change the fact that the call was objectionable. Mr. Davis should acknowledge that, or else rebut the strongest anti-call argument on offer in addition to grappling with the weakest.
That’s hyperbole, Conor, to be eloquent I’d have had to use “motherfucking” in that context.
— Sanjay · Sep 29, 06:29 PM · #
Certainly, take down Guernica, Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People and certainly Raft of the Medusa, as politics has no place in “art or the autonomy or creative people” (whatever that means, though it seems to signal that your thinking is not all that clear). . . .
— Rembrandt · Sep 29, 06:33 PM · #
Rembrandt: your reading is unclear. Conor’s hardly saying art should be (or is) apolitical. In fact those of us who hated this thing areseeking to protect political art.
— Sanjay · Sep 29, 06:38 PM · #
This is almost the opposite of the argument that I have made, and I don’t like the use of the NEA for this either. I do think it’s relevant that no NEA money is involved, but inviting the NEA into that process, if indeed that’s an accurate reading, is not a legitimate use of the NEA. That being said, I do think it’s worthwhile pointing out that nobody needs to work to get artists onboard with Obama. The artists who don’t like Obama are to his left.
— Freddie · Sep 29, 07:23 PM · #
“Rembrandt: your reading is unclear. Conor’s hardly saying art should be (or is) apolitical. In fact those of us who hated this thing areseeking to protect political art.”
What is “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”, Alex?
— Tony Comstock · Sep 29, 09:55 PM · #
Because this is as silly as arguing that Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky wasn’t all that bad because it was only oral sex, I will concede the outside possibility that the call was only to push public service art, but I won’t deny what was actually said — “push the president and push his administration”
Now, you can be generous and state that the speaker was overzealous and didn’t intend for the artists to push Obama and Obama’s administration, which would entail his policies, and that, instead, he meant for the artists to get into the spirit of Obama’s fondness for public service and follow his example and leadership. I will concede all that, but, I have to say, it seems like a hollow victory for the apologists and minimizers.
— mike farmer · Sep 29, 10:26 PM · #
Conor, did you look at the names of the people on the call? They were mostly an assortment of commercial artists, designers, ad agencies, media figures, promoters, publicists, etc. They’re not the kind of folks who spend their days reflecting on truth and beauty. Most of their day job work is about communicating specific messages on behalf of clients.
Furthermore, the call happened because artist communities had been asking for these kinds of opportunities to take a greater role in public life.
— Kevin Erickson · Sep 30, 03:08 AM · #