Comments on: Do we need a Secretary of the Arts?

By: justin locke

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:57:29 +0000

Like most people i just assumed that a secretary for the arts would be a funding (some might say meddling) entity like the NEA, but after hearing the NPR piece, yes, there are international issues re: the business side of arts, like differing copyright laws, union rules stopping guest artists, and so on, and from that perspective I could see point in it. but like many i think we have to make sure it does not become a “single payer” system where every arts group needs to pass muster with its centralized standards. that is a likely recipe for mediocrity and stagnation. i wonder how many people would have wanted a bush-appointed secretary of the arts. Also please forgive my venting on a pet peeve of mine, there is a big difference between what is often called “art” and real creativity. I was a reasonably successful musician, but i would not call playing 400 nutcrackers “creative” — in fact i left the orchestra biz because it was so terribly uncreative. a violin is a tool, just as is a screwdriver, and creativity does not necessarily result from their use– in fact, sometimes it’s the opposite. just defining terms. — justin locke http://www.justinlocke.com

]]>

By: Laura Tyler

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:41:54 +0000

I think it’s a wonderful idea that’ll lead to stronger support for arts in education and more grants for artists. The arts advocacy group, Americans for the Arts, has proposed Nine Recommendations for Economic Recovery & the Arts to help artists weather the economic downturn. Their CEO Bob Lynch met with Obama’s Transition Team last week… Here’s a link to their agenda: http://www.artsusa.org/pdf/information_services/recovery/0109_EconRecoveryAndTheArts.pdf

]]>

By: liza myers

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:06:03 +0000

No name? How can someone named “no name,” with no contact link, post such a negative, anarchistic comment? Oops, Alyson, this blog just went from purple to black and white. This idea of a “minister of culture” is fairly new, at least as a serious proposal. There are much larger issues to contend with, such as national/global unemployment, global warming, etc. But the arts, as Mira said, are a staple in modern thinking even if many public school administrators don’t think so. Creative problem solving is SO ESSENTIAL, and that is what arts education CAN foster. Andrew Goldsworthy sees exactly the same twig that you see, and I see and creates a new and inspiring reality. That’s what we need to support. http://tinyurl.com/a3nwb9 A Minister for the Arts, as pie in the sky as that position might be, would represent a validation of that creative thinking process. It’s only a dream. Cat B, support of the arts, and national health insurance to boot. Hurrah!

]]>

By: no name

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:42:55 +0000

Constitutionally, it doesn’t matter whether or not we “like” this idea of a secretary of the arts, the fact is, it has no place in a free society. Artists (musicians, dancers, actors, poets…etc.) are the biggest champions of individual expression and personal freedom I know. Yet somehow, they think it’s okay to create a cabinet position to impose their values on the rest of the country. This is no different from a nasty special interest group lobbying government to get some preferential treatment. It’s unfair to everyone else who has to support big government with their wallets. …not mentioning the harm this this would do to the arts.

]]>

By: Cat B

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:31:08 +0000

I’m originally from Canada where the government supports the arts. I think it’s made some great work possible through generous grants. I could see the government here offering arts grants but also ways for artists to get health insurance, even unemployment insurance in bad economies. Still, I love the way artists carry on anyway. Yay us!

]]>

By: mira

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:11:49 +0000

I’m interested in the concept, but not sure where it will go. On the one hand, arts education is being cut nationwide. I’m very concerned about teaching creativity as I see that as a staple in modern thinking — it’s necessary not only for the arts, but for problem solving, innovating, etc. On the other hand, big government is not exactly known for efficiency. I worry about back door deals and basic human nature getting in the way of the arts.

]]>

By: Wendy Edsall-Kerwin

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:54:53 +0000

Linda Lewis’ comment struck a note with me. When I lived in the DC area it was such a performance art based community that I felt really left out. Philly (where I lived before that) had such a balanced, vibrant arts scene that it was difficult for me realizing that not every city is like that. I would hope that any potential arts czar would find a more balanced approach than what the city he/she worked in offered.

]]>

By: Philip Koch

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:51:38 +0000

Liza’s earlier comment makes a lot of sense. We need as much support for the arts as possible, both private and public. I personally know 3 people who were laid off from their jobs at art museums recently due to the economic crisis. So far the government’s bail out seems to be pitched at wealthy bankers and not ordinary people, much less artists.

]]>

By: Peggi Habets Studio

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:36:30 +0000

It would be great if this position were to work with the Education Secretary and enhance arts in the schools, making sure that they aren’t pushed out in favor of more math/language arts testing. If we invest at the lowest levels and encourage a serious study of the arts from an early age, the public will find more value in the arts as opposed to something only the wealthy can invest in.

]]>

By: Jo-Ann

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:24:30 +0000

It would be nice to have someone in every administration focusing on the arts in our society. A position like this would have the potential to provide leadership and incentive to increase awareness of how the arts positively affect our lives. Imagine the possibilities! Guess I’m an optimist . . . .

]]>