It's a new year, a new administration, and as good a time as any to rejuvinate "Milwaukee Arts." So here it is.The issue of the day is the drive in some circles to create a Secretary of the Arts, similar to the government post that has existed for decades in lots of other countries around the globe. If you're game, you can join the tens of thousands who have signed it already right here.
But before you do, it might be worth some thought and discussion. For this post would not just be Obama's Secretary of the Arts. It might also eventually be (and excuse me here if I paint a worst-case scenario) Sarah Palin's Secretary of the Arts or Mike Huckabee's Secretary of the Arts. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Posts
1 comment:
Yes! We should have a Secretary of the Arts. The power is in having the endorsement at a high level of our government, and the politics is not so simple. No doubt the arts could be defunded (again!) or tamed by a conservative secretary. But it's worth remembering that subversive art (namely abstract expressionism) flourished during the cold war, especially under Nixon. The CIA funded the work. Arts were effective cultural diplomacy during the cold war, and the US under Obama is, again, looking for ways other than the gun to persuade tyrannical regimes to embrace democracy.
It's also plain crazy that our country lags so far behind other democracies in supporting the arts and all of the benefits they bring to a democratic republic in need of public debate, challenge and growth.
Finally, the arts are an economic engine. The culture industry drives successful cities.
For God's sake - YES, a secretary of the arts! (Or just funding of the NEA).
Post a Comment