A new study by the Rand Corporation analyzes the fairly recent phenomenon of "selling" the arts based on their instrumental effects (like an enhanced local economy, or higher student test scores) as opposed to their intrinsic value. The study, entitled Gifts of the Muse: Re framing the Debate of the Benefits of the Arts, concludes that in promoting the arts across the country there has been too much focus on broad economic and social benefits.
The report places the origin of this kind of thinking in the early 1990s, and offers alternatives. The assumption is that there are just not enough people enjoying art.
One recommendation is that "attention and resources be shifted away from supply of the arts and toward cultivation of demand" . The summary of the study gives several suggestions for the "promotion of satisfying arts experiences" including the need to develop the language needed for discussion and acknowledging the limitations of current research. In other words, like alot of research, the study concluded that more study is needed (a little job security, there).
But the money quote is right here:
"Research has shown that early exposure is often key to developing life-long involvement in the arts. That exposure typically comes from arts education… The most promising way to develop audiences for the arts would be to provide well-designed programs in the nation’s schools."
So, rather than paying artists to produce more art that nobody looks at, we should strap students into specially designed art-appreciation chairs and refuse to release them until they grasp the "surrealism of the underlying metaphor" ("Welcome, Billy. Are you ready to have a satisfying art experience?").
This is wrong-headed for several reasons. For one, there is no shortage of art in kids’ lives. They are practically choked with art. Animé, comic books, movies, tattoos… heck, they are bombarded with art through cable television. Sure, it is generally of a low quality, but in a culture that has elevated subjectivism and relativism to the level of religious dogma, how would an art teacher even begin to help these kids distinguish "good" art from "bad" art? The very idea of good or bad art is anathema to the current art establishment. It’s all good, Billy, in it’s own way. Graffiti is as valid an expression as the Sistine ceiling. We have been feeding people this line for years.
Funding for the arts indeed began to come under (quite justifiable) attack around the early 1990s, as the preposterous excesses of goverment funded art began to come to light. The arts bureaucracy unwisely aligned themselves with the purveyors of artsy anti-religious hatred and pornography. Now they find themselves somewhat against the wall in trying to justify continued funding.
If the art establishment in this country had not been peddling ugly, meaningless art to the public for so long I doubt that they would find themselves in this position. Graffiti may not really be as good as the Sistine ceiling, but it is as good or better than Mark Rothko or Willem de Kooning.
Beauty is the key. People are starved for it. Alot of animé is quite stunningly beautiful, which is why kids respond to it. Give the people beautiful art and they will respond to it. Continue with the present course and the arts will always go begging for funds.
The report can be found online in the full version or just the summary.
(Warning!! Evil File Format – PDF)