This piece is anonymous because it is guaranteed there would be retaliation and, in fact,Some people have taken exception to this anonymity as an unacceptable act. Of course there is a long tradition of doing this when uncomfortable things need to be said or if there was real danger to the person placing those ideas in the public arena. Kudos to the author here for showing a knowledge of history in choosing the name Publius. It is drawn from the Roman Consul Publius Valerius Publicola. The last part of the consul's name translates as "Friend of the People". This Publius was one of the leaders who helped to found the Roman Republic. It was in honor of that history that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay chose it as their pseudonym as the authors of "The Federalist" (more commonly known as The Federalist Papers). While the choice is an appropriate historical nod I think our local Publius perhaps over reaches him/herself in comparing their situation with the historical predecessors.
anonymity probably won’t stop a witch hunt
Publius (Jamestown's, and the one I will be referring to henceforth) claims to have an extensive background in the non-profit sector and the arts. I will stipulate their experience and note that I have nothing to compare in those spheres. Yet I would bet that most of the readers of the original piece fall far closer to my level of experience than his/hers. So let me examine the arguments from my own point of experience. Right off the bat I see a problem that will recur later in the piece. Publius makes claims about the local foundations but never offers a foundation for those claims. We must simply take his/her word that there is a sweeping movement of "micromanagement and outright blackmail" or that there is:
"... a cabal of two or three people, networking behind ritzy doors, decides what is or isn’t worthwhile. "
For me there is a flavor of flinging things against the wall to see what sticks about this approach. Granted that in the length of an opinion piece offering examples for everything isn't reasonable but certainly we might expect at least one.
Moving on we discover that Publius dislikes the concept of "consolidation" that has been put forward by some of the foundations. Curiously Publius later in the piece acknowledges that the program managers of the arts programs appreciate expert advice. Might it not be that the Executive Directors may simply be offering exactly that? (Publius falls into the trap of using insider jargon at this point when he/she refers to EDs rather than Executive Directors. At least it is to be assumed that is what is being referred to here and not the scourge of middle aged men.) The foundations should be taking a larger view of the local scene it seems to me. In that larger view they may see overlap and repetition in programs. There are only so many dollars available so decisions must be made. Two small programs may not offer the most effective approach to the intended goals and audiences where one larger one might. In such a case consolidation would be the advisable course, would it not?
Collusion is the next charge. Publius notes that he/she is on slightly difficult terrain with this argument. In a small community it is not only likely but needful that the local Executive Directors spend some time consulting with one another. Publius seems to leap to the conclusion that since they (apparently) are not behaving in the manner that he/she would have them behave "consultation" has become "collusion". Again an argument without support.
It is at this point that Publius takes the most unfortunate line in the presentation. Suddenly the people who serve on the boards of these foundations or who donate to them find themselves dismissed as "Country Club" members and "...rich white people..." with no understanding of art unless it is the art of the past. Publius offers a brief account of a personal experience of such people. I will allow Publius to speak for him/herself here:
"A while ago I was at an event that was a big fundraiser for a local art group. One of the wealthy people invited launched the wondrous bon mot, to a cocktail party-sized room, commenting on “poor people.” There was a genteel laughter to it all, layered withThe problem here is this - what precisely was said about "poor people"? Does Publius not believe that poor people exist? Or that they should simply not be referred to in that manner? If the person went on to make some asinine comment about poor people (sadly a common enough event in some circles) then what was it? Publius chooses rather to allow the reader to fill in the blanks themselves. Curiously if Publius disdains people who make sweeping generalizations about groups of people why does he/she choose to do exactly that about those in the moneyed class? The person in the story may have gone on to make some profoundly stupid and ill advised comment for which they should be censured. Based on the evidence given they might just as easily spoken about how the programs were making a profound positive change in the lives of "poor people". The choice of phrase might not be the best but surely it's nothing to be sneered at by us. To expand that to a sweeping condemnation of all the donors to our local foundations is rhetoric of the lowest kind.
elitism and privilege."
Beyond that Publius fails at an historical hurdle with the implication that somehow the idea that some donors like old artistic styles and types more than new is something novel. Any student of Art will tell you that this is an ongoing and persistent problem. That doesn't mean it's not annoying and difficult and even wrong. All of us have an image of art including Publius. We are comfortable with what is within that image and increasingly uncomfortable the farther we move away from it. Part of the historic dance between donor and artist is education and enlightenment. It's an awkward, tedious dance all too often but every generation before has done it. Why should we expect to be spared?
What we are left with is a diatribe against a certain class of people that is made without any attempt at foundation or support. It seems Publius would like the foundations to fork over the money and then go away. In fact the one firm recommendation Publius makes is that local arts programs should simply go their own way without foundation funding. Under those circumstances they would be able to do as they please. Which seems to lie at the root of this piece.
I would be willing to bet that there are instances of micro-management by local sponsor organizations. I would also bet that there have been times when local arts organizations have not made the best use of the funds available. I would also wager that neither case happens as often as Publius would have us believe. I base that on the swift reaction from some in the arts community to the original piece.
In the end I'm not clear what Publius hoped to achieve with this approach in the historic lineage we noted at the beginning . Certainly those who have given money to the arts in the past will have something to consider the next time they are asked for their support. Artists will have yet another hurdle to overcome in the already difficult process of funding their work.
Finally allow me to note that I care not a whit who Publius is. My thoughts here are not intended as a witch hunt (defined as a frantic persecution of perceived enemies). Publius is not my enemy. I have little use for poor logic and badly presented rhetoric however. And less use for people who make the life of local artists and arts programs harder.
One group demeaned by sweeping generalization. The other facing more difficulties rather than fewer. My question for Publius is this - How then are you the "Friend of the People"?
Peace,
Jay Phillippi
No comments:
Post a Comment