To the Editor:
I consider myself a liberal, but in response to Ryan Dallavia's article "Ars Gratia Artis,"
I would like to respond that I would be glad to see the demise of the NEA. What
Dallavia's argument boils down to is the idea that the arts perform an indispensable
function in society and, for this reason, tax money should be spent on it. He seems to find
it inconceivable that the citizens of this country (many, like myself, who do not belong to
right-wing political organizations) could be hostile to the idea of national funding for the
arts. There are two things wrong with that thinking. First and foremost is the supposition
that art cannot exist if it is left to society to judge and support it. The second flaw, which
forms the basis for his first supposition, is the elitist prejudice that the art community has
against low culture and its major consumers, the common citizens.
Could art survive without the NEA? The answer, as a quick look through all arts'
history will tell, is an unequivocal yes. Art flourishes in every community with or without
government support. William Shakespeare was not begging for government handouts.
He was a professional artist. Shakespeare's plays deal with issues frequently objectionable
to so called "righteous morality." He fits Ryan Dallavia's conception of an artist, with one
crucial difference. He made money. Did this strip his works of their power and meaning?
No. So why can't art support itself now? Is it because there are conservatives, like the
Christian Coalition, who object to many of the more controversial works of art? In
Shakespeare's time the theater was looked down upon by both the church and the state.
He seems to have produced more then a few hits. Then what changed? The answer is the
artists themselves.
The reason for antagonism is that artists after the Romantic era have placed
themselves above society as self-appointed critics and judges. The artists are responsible
for the distance that has grown between society and themselves. What artists and art
critics like becomes art, what the public accepts becomes pop culture junk. Why is this?
Because the artist is inherently a better person than the common man? No. The distinction
between the "superior" world of high art and the critically rejected realm of low art is
completely artificial. The ability to educate and inform is not restricted to high culture.
More people were made aware of the plight of young black men in America by watching
Menace II Society than by reading Native Son. Both are works of art, both give us a harsh,
unrelenting look at the racism and brutality black men must face. Any superiority claimed
for one work over the other is purely subjective. They both were made without the NEA-
-they survive in our cultural memory through their own merit. It is time consumers begin
to question the flimsy barrier between high and low culture as it is maintained by the
prejudices of an elitist minority. Lastly, it is time to take away the government nest called
the NEA and force artists to fly and crash on their own.
--Michael Bagnulo
**********
Thank you for responding to my article. I found your revised history lesson
quite interesting. I disagree with a number of your points, particularly the notion that I
implied that art was incapable of supporting itself, and that I made an unspoken
distinction between "high culture" and "low culture."
I do not recall stating that art cannot support itself. My contention is that art should
not have to be entirely self-sustaining. To my knowledge, Robert Mapplethorpe and Herb
Ritts have received no governmental subsidization and they appear to have done rather
well. I agree that artistic trends can be bewildering and otherwise daunting. However, it is
because of, not in spite of, the somewhat esoteric language of the artistic community that
the government spending should include outlays for the NEA.
With respect to your reference to Shakespeare--to my knowledge, Shakespeare was
indeed concerned with governmental support of his endeavors. The Queen was known to
frequent performances of his works. Shakespeare, though he did make money from his
acting troupe, also received funding from the Crown. If you think that his flattering
treatment of royalty in his plays went unrewarded, think again. Government funding also
helps pay for publications like jump!, The Gallery, and The William
and Mary Review. Do you propose that these forums are unworthy of tax
dollars?
So far as a distinction between high and low culture is concerned, I do not recall
making such a value judgement in any article I have written. Any such perceived
message is a misreading on your part.
--Ryan Dallavia (Silence=Death)
To the Editor:
To quote jump! 's editor, "I strongly believe that the conservatives on this campus, of which there are reputedly more than a few, can write too...Why then do we get no conservative submissions?" My first reason for not writing sooner is that jump! is generally considered to be a forum for art, for entertainment...for personality without propoganda. Of course, opportunities for discourse remain the hallmark of civilization's replacement of the sword with the pen, and the awakening of the conservative population to this new avenue of expression will in all probability be followed by right-wing wit and poetry on these pages in the future. But my second reason for not having written sooner is that it is generally preferable to counterpunch.
Take "Ars Gratia Artis." Here is an article which opens with reference to a "minority
of noble-minded, superior, and more exquisite people" as apart from "the reluctant, slow
masses;" these words "still ring true" even though the superior people are currently in the
majority and the inferior people--"a congregation of religious zealots" described yet again
as "reluctant" and "slow"--are currently in the minority. The author continues by pointing
out that NEA funding is "a mere pittance" of $169, 741, 000. [The author's conclusion is
that] a society's "superior" people ought to be able to force the "masses" into paying
hundreds of millions of dollars for the "superior" people to spend after fashions repugnant
or blasphemous to the "masses."
The author of "Concerning Indifference" mentions "former Nazi-sympathizers-
turned-Republicans running for office." The author's fondness for applying the terms of
fascism to its detractors is striking. I must admit to feeling somewhat disturbed at
viewing my line of thought in turn as "Nazi-sympathetic-turned-Republican" or based in
the Christian Right's agenda of "right-wing repression"; as a Jew, I remember tragedies
played out before my birth and watch for the difference between fascist ideology and
rights-based philosophy. To claim that the "superior" members of a society should be able
to ignore the individual rights of the "masses," to bemoan "too much democracy," and so
forth, suggest rather than oppose fascism.
We should remember that fascism may be of a minority over a majority or of a
majority over a minority, that we ought to temper democracy only with a concern for
individual rights, and that those rights are not a question of degree, not waived so that
the "superior" people can exploit the "reluctant, slow masses."
It is, as the editor points out, a rare occurence for a conservative to write for
jump!. Our emphasis tends to be on activism rather than on self-celebratory
name-calling. That is why I am not writing on behalf of any conservative groups on
campus; stooping, as I have, to hurl the "fascist" epithet back at its misspeakers would
unnecessarily tarnish an organization's name. Yet on another level, on a level which I find
more meaningful, this magazine is a place where the artistry of life, rather than the
advertising of politics, could dance upon the pages, as bleak, bipolar reality ought to be
arena enough for activism.
Would that we could wall off a small world, splendid and glistening, from the knife-
fights of partisan struggle; would that the inevitable intersection of beauty and truth did
not require the opposition of thought to fascism. Would that the ivory towers were not
eternal Maginot lines.
--Derek Miller
**********
Upon reading Derek Miller's letter to the editor, I feel the need to respond to
several points he makes.
First of all, "Concerning Indifference" was not intended to be an anti-philanthropic,
political manifesto. It was meant to point a humorous finger at the inherent
contradictions in our government's ideology. Democracy as we know it is not run by
average folks, but instead, is built on networks of special interest by elites who have the
means of running for office in elections, both financially and otherwise. The bitter irony of
democracy is that the participation of the average citizen in a democracy is at a point so
minimal that, for the most part, as individuals, we are left to be involved in it only on a
symbolic level. This means we can vote, and, as a whole, keep people in or out of office,
which is about the only real influence we are able to exert. Therefore, I was pointing out
that in order to exert what little influence we have, it is absurdly ironic that we have to
choose relatively the lesser of two evils. Mr. Miller touched on this idea when he
mentioned that the "representatives of the majority [are] infringing upon individual
rights."
Secondly, the article was not aimed at making an anti-conservative statement. It was
merely highlighting that there are faults with the "gray area," as well as with the far left
and right extremes. This has to do with systemic problems, not individual political parties.
The examples given in the essay were examples of issues discussed in politics today, and
were given in an attempt to show how people might have to vote for an incumbent with
questionable values in order to protect their own rights. Perhaps this article was taken a
little more emotionally than it had been intended to--I did not, in any way, suggest that all
Republicans were "fascists." In fact, the word was not mentioned once. The Nazi-
sympathizers-turned-Republican example was with joking reference to David Duke
(formerly of the KKK). It was mentioned because I thought it was ludicrous that he
should be allowed to run in the first place, and even more, that he be allowed to run
under the Republican title, and "tarnish" it. As for Mr. Miller's accusation that the ideas
expressed in this article had inherent fascist tendencies, I believe I that the contrary is true.
There are no "superior members" in our society, but unfortunately due to our system's
design, it would be incredibly difficult to move away from the elitism which is, at the
moment, an integral part of American government. Therefore, it is inevitable that we
exercise our minimal power in government in any way we can, which may mean,
unfortunately, that we have to vote for someone whose views may not completely
encompass our own.
--Michele Maurer
**********
Thank you for responding to my article. In your haste to "properly analyze"
my political "diatribe" you appear to have lost sight of the definition of fascism. Fascism is
contingent upon the vestment of a vast majority of power in only a few individuals. As
you will recall, I began my article by stating: "Though the words of Herman Bahr still ring
true," an ironic twist has occurred in the dynamic between those who appreciate the value
of art and those who fail to see the integral role it plays in society. Throughout history,
only a small minority have truly appreciated and supported artistic endeavors. In modern
America, however, the majority of the population has become the segment of society
which comprehends the importance of the arts and a minority of individuals, the religious
zealots, persist in denying their value and function. Therefore, support of the NEA by the
majority hardly constitutes fascism, given that fascism relies on the vestment of power in
a minority.
Mr. Miller, I urge you not to despair over the sullying of the pages of jump!
with my political jargon; there are alternate publications committed to the preservation of
your utopian ideal.
--Ryan Dallavia (Silence=Death)