Commentary : Politicians Need Maturity, Tolerance and Strength in Nurturing Art

Within a month, two friends, one who works in the theater under a South American right-wing dictatorship and the other who works in theater under an East European Communist dictatorship, told me the same story of woe. In each case, a play on which they were working reached the final dress rehearsal, was visited by a government censor and was closed the day it was to open.

Every totalitarian government knows that art is dangerous because it shows us the truth. It says the emperor has no clothes. In a democracy such as ours, we advocate the freedom of artistic expression, and most of the time we practice it. But we should realize that there are times when the relationship between art and government is sorely tested.

This relationship is much like the war of the sexes, involving love and hate, the struggle for power, a begrudging interdependence and the potential for great good and great harm.

Examples of the battle appear in the news every day. The Garden Grove (Calif.) City Council withheld promised funds from the Grove Shakespeare Festival because the council’s constituents are hard hats who don’t appreciate Shakespeare. The new parks superintendent in St. Louis ordered bulldozers to flatten a landscape sculpture park because, in his opinion, maintenance problems outweigh aesthetic values. The British government passed a law withholding money from any group “that promotes the acceptability of homosexuality.”

The list seems endless.

San Diego--young, vital and searching for ways to meet the problems of being a major city--is entering a new period of civic support of the arts. 1988 has been proclaimed the “Year of the Arts,” a Soviet festival is in the works, and a new Arts and Culture Commission will be deciding which artists and groups will receive funds. It is time to look at the relationship of government and art in San Diego.

As in any difficult relationship, time, experience and maturity nurture tolerance. In the arts-government relationship, artists will always be obstreperous. This is their nature and their value. Therefore, because the artists cannot and should not, the politicians must shoulder the responsibility of being the mature, tolerant partner.

So far, little of these qualities have been demonstrated in San Diego’s recent relationship with the arts. To note, politicians called for the removal of a bus poster critical of the city at Super Bowl time, and soon after, the Port District rejected the sculptures chosen by the commissioners’ own advisory committee, which promptly resigned en masse. Both incidents made San Diego look like a third-rate, know-nothing hick town, just the reverse of what civic support of the arts is supposed to do.

Clearly our leaders do not yet understand how to bring about a successful marriage of government and art and would be wise to look to other cities, states, and even countries, for guidance.

Cincinnati, for example, a much older city with an established tradition of private art funding, was recently shaken by a sculpture commissioned for the city’s anniversary celebration. Topping the work were four pigs with wings, symbols of Cincinnati’s early days as hog butcher to the country.

The mayor and other leaders were not happy that this image would represent the city, but they had a sense of humor and the good grace to let the pigs stay.

San Francisco, another older city, gives to the arts in per capita percentage twice that of San Diego and funds projects that, if done here, would make the radio talk shows and letters to the editors’ columns spontaneously combust.

In Phoenix, in the two years of public arts support, the City Council has never overridden the recommendations of its advisory board.

Central to success in other places is a civic philosophy about the role of the arts in society. While the philosophic guidelines differ from place to place, there are some general principles which have proven successful:

- Most important, the arts are not a frill; they are basic to the well being of our society. As New York Congressman Thomas J. Downey puts it: “In a great democracy, where education and the pursuit of truth are important, individual artists help to educate us to perceive the truth in ways that are valuable to our democracy.”

- Important art has never been self-supporting. Whether through the patronage of royalty, the church, or democratic governments, the arts have always been subsidized. The need for support is especially true today, when labor is expensive and no amount of computerization or robotics can reduce the time required to paint a picture or rehearse an orchestra.

- Art is not always pleasant. In fact, most art of consequence forces us to confront the most elemental dilemmas that haunt mankind. It is tempting to give the public “bread and circuses,” but diversions do not substitute for art that speaks to the soul.

- The artist who challenges us to improve our world is often critical. Edward Albee says, “The role of the writer is to be, axiomatically, against any society he happens to be living in.”

- Censoring unpopular ideas and images is tantamount to refusing medicine that can cure us. Censorship robs the public of the potential for a healthy society.

- New art is often difficult. History provides example after example of public art, such as the Eiffel Tower or Picasso’s Chicago sculpture, that the public first hated but later revered as treasured landmarks.

- Art that has staying power, that speaks to us for generations, is mysterious. Whether it be the Mona Lisa or “Hamlet,” the full value of a true work of art is not immediately accessible.

- In art, as in any other field, knowledge, experience, talent and interest make the opinions of experts more valuable than those of the layman. When speaking of art, the silly cliche, “. . . but I know what I like,” is an unacceptable excuse for prejudice and ignorance.

- Art by referendum is an oxymoron.

It may be clear that these concepts create a paradox for a democratic society. The arts are often elitist. New art and difficult, searching art speak initially to a small audience. To foster excellence, government support must sometimes fund work that is unpopular with the majority.

Government arts-funding bodies have found that, if they strike a proper balance between funding populist arts and crafts and funding elitist arts, all constituencies are fairly satisfied. Easier said than done, but possible.

A further balance must be found between funding established organizations and artists and emerging ones. Support for the established is safe and necessary, but it may be that small amounts to the new and struggling will pay greater future dividends. This sounds like an investment and it is. Some portion of arts funding should be used to take risks where the return may be spectacular.

Another paradox exists because government support for the arts is most successful when it is divorced from direct control by government. Successful programs use the intermediary talents of professional staffs, who themselves rely on advisory panels and peer review groups.

All of the ranting, pleading, negotiating, and evaluation that are part of the selection process for art grants are best handled by experts away from the political spotlight.

Government then accepts the experts’ recommendations, controlling only the total dollar amount of the budget and the employment of the experts.

By contrast, problems arise when politicians think they can second-guess the experts.

They may win support of yahoos but often end up looking like philistine bullies.

The new San Diego Arts and Culture Commission can make the city an even better place to live if its members are wise, bold, and look to the future.

It can only be effective if the politicians are uncommonly diffident about their knowledge of art and are strong enough to defend choices that may not be popular with either the electorate or themselves.

This may seem a difficult course, but it is followed elsewhere.

If we do not follow it in San Diego, we are headed down a rocky road indeed.