So I opened up my e-mail yesterday and I received one of those "sign this petition" e-mails, this one being about suggesting to our new president that he create a new cabinet position: a secretary of the arts.
A quick google of the subject revealed that this all started with an interview with Quincy Jones. The petition itself was created by a double bass player in New York City. Here is the petition:
from http://www.petitiononline.com/esnyc/petition.html
To: President Barack Obama
Congratulations and thank you for all you do.
Your good friend Quincy Jones said: "…next conversation I have with President Obama is to beg for a Secretary of Arts."
[November 14th 2008 WNYC interview by John Schaefer on "Soundcheck."]
We the undersigned support Quincy Jones' plea.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Hooray to him for taking some initiative. However…
I don’t wish to be thought of as some sort of negative thinking Grinch or anything, but before I "sign" this electronic petition, I for one would be interested in knowing a little bit more about what exactly is involved in creating a cabinet post and just exactly what a "secretary of the arts" would do.
Now full disclosure here, I have dealt with state arts funding entities in the past, and I have not found it to be a terribly fun or rewarding experience. Here in Massachusetts we have something called the LCC– local cultural Councils. Just for fun I looked up their application form, and right off the bat I had to laugh out loud . . .
If you take a look you’ll see it says "must be typed." Do you know anybody who still owns a typewriter? This is the sort of thing that happens when government bureaucracies get involved. I could get into a serious rant here but I will save that for another post.
For the moment, instead of giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to a secretary of arts, I just have a few questions. First of all, what "arts" will this person be somehow in charge of? Music? Theater? Disney on ice? Sculpture? Painting? Dance? Native American cave drawings? Your grandmother’s crochet project? Books? Photography? Mimes? I don’t wish to sound too snarky, but I am trying to make a point that this is a rather complicated issue. And I do not necessarily think that more government intrusion into my daily life is going to necessarily be an improvement.
Now, re: the actual role of a cabinet secretary, I surfed into the official White House web site and discovered this bit of vague information:
THE CABINET
The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. Established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office.
The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.
Actually, the above isn’t really all that precise. Article 2 section 2 doesn’t even use the word cabinet. Here is the text from the Constitution:
Section 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
What this all means is, a secretary of arts would be what ever the hell Congress legislates that role to be. This does not thrill me.
So before we start thinking about creating a government position that will have enormous influence in our lives, just remember, all you democrats out there, that in the big picture, Democratic appointees are less common than Republican ones. If the government has power to fund the arts, the government has power to control the arts.
Take a look below at this part of the above-mentioned LCC form, and ask yourself, how would Stravinsky apply for funding to write "The Rite of Spring?"
In my experience, I have to say that, people who get government funding for artistic projects are mostly the best application filler-outers, not the best artists.
Giving the government power to select which artistic projects will be funded and which won’t scares me just a little bit. Art is more than just a continuation of traditional symphony concerts or a life-size knick knack in the town square. It is a never ending quest to define what it is to be a human being. I am open to more information and arguments and debate, but my knowledge of the history of such things makes me not so sure I want an elected official or their appointee (remember Roberto Gonzales?) in charge of that.
© Justin Locke
