MENU
Home
Books & DVDs
Liberty Quotes
Links
Blog
|
This article by Thomas M. Sipos was originally published on several websites in 2003.
If conservatives and libertarians
hope to make advances in the culture war, they need to devote more
private resources to arts funding; to establish a grant-making
infrastructure to fund and connect like-minded writers, actors,
musicians, and filmmakers.
Conservatives ignore the arts at their peril. No matter who is
elected to steer the ship of state, a captain can only push so far
against the cultural currents, which flow in the direction of
whoever writes our shared stories. Popular prejudices, shaped by
culture, circumscribe an elected official's policies. A politician
can only cut taxes so much if the beneficiaries are perceived as
snotty bluebloods. Popular entertainment spins our hopes and dreams
and nightmares, our heroes and villains. It is the prism through
which the populace interprets all it sees.
In 2000, without knowing anything about him, many voters recoiled
upon seeing Bush. In their subconscious lurked thousands of film &
TV images of drunken fratboy, Southern-accented, Bible-thumping,
country-club Republican bigots. Stereotypes as false as any other --
but dry facts and statistics are a poor defense against the vague
"gut feelings" created by media stereotypes. (For more on the
subject of TV stereotypes, see Ben Stein's excellent 1979 book,
The View from Sunset Boulevard.)
Conservatives have long complained
about their portrayal in the media and the lack of conservative
artists, but their only solution seems to be to initiate boycotts.
They don't realize that Hollywood largely regards conservative
consumers as a nonviable market, irrelevant to their business plans.
(The Dixie Chicks remained unscathed.) Even were it otherwise,
Hollywood won't relent to boycotts by "bigots," which is how
conservatives are perceived.
Besides which, boycotts are a loser's game. Americans demand
entertainment, and you can't fight something with nothing. The best
way to get someone to stop buying X is not to boycott X, but to offer
a more attractive Y.
But how to develop a more attractive Y?
Conservatives and libertarians expect their artists to be supported by
the market, but that attitude ill serves the creation of a
conservative or libertarian culture. Artists must be nurtured as they
master their craft. Supporting artists before they create something
marketable isn't necessary, but it helps. Money is the mothers milk of
both politics and future artists. Liberals understand this, and have
built an arts funding infrastructure composed of private foundations,
government arts councils, the small press, and university presses.
They provide a safety net to artists via teaching posts, fellowships,
and nonprofit foundation jobs.
Conservatives and libertarians have influenced the culture via blogs,
talk radio, and opinion journals, but they still fall short in the
arts, especially in music and film. A privately-financed, arts funding
infrastructure would help.
It should have three goals: Identify, Assist, Integrate.
(1) Identify like-minded artists. Seek them via the internet. Place
notices on film school bulletin boards, music clubs, organizational
newsletters.
(2) Assist however possible. Ask every artist: "How can we help?"
Networking and promotion is cheap. If a foundation can't fund an
entire project, it might offer seed money, matching funds, completion
funds, something to move projects to "the next level." Maybe a band
has recorded a tape, but needs a $1000 to press some CDs. Or a play is
set to go, but can use a $100 for advertising.
(3) No artist wants to remain in a political ghetto. The goal should
be to integrate these artists into the mainstream (as is done with
ethnic minorities), such as by promoting them on TV and radio, and at
film festivals, etc. The goal should be to help artists create, build
a career, and then, hopefully, they'll "give back" to those who
helped.
Such a foundation should not be ideologically narrow (demanding a
specific message for its grant money), nor look over the shoulders of
artists like a Stalinist commissar. That would stifle individual
creativity. Rather, once an artist has been approved for funding, the
foundation must let go so that "a 100 flowers may bloom." Some
disappointing work will result, but that is the nature of freedom, the
nature of art. You must allow for some "bad investments" so the good
ones will grow.
The money is there. William Bennett's gambling losses alone could have
provided much conservative arts funding. Yes, yes, I agree, Bennett's
private property is his to fritter away however he pleases. Even so,
what a waste... (Ironically, while wealthier conservative groups
largely ignore the arts -- apart from boycotting them -- I know one
student filmmaker who received a small completion grant from the
libertarian Institute for Humane Studies.)
Regrettably, the idea of offering grant money ("money for nothing") to
artists, and afterward to allow artists to follow their own visions
(no accountability) goes against the instincts of both conservatives
and libertarians. Plus, boycotts, although creating nothing (and you
can't fight something with nothing), are more fun for bloggers and
webzines, and bring higher ratings for radio and cable TV pundits.
Years from now, I expect conservatives will still be organizing new
boycotts, even as the Dixie Chicks and Susan Sarandon complete new
projects.
|