As a dramatist who has never applied to the National Endowment for the Arts (nor do I expect to in the future, nor work with theatres which receive a substantial NEA grant), I don’t have a horse in the current race revolving around Rocco Landesman’s comments about the supply-and-demand dynamic that he seeks to apply to the availability and funding of artistic endeavor in the United States. I find it intriguing that some of those who have responded elsewhere (here and here, for just two examples) have taken Landesman’s words to heart, or at least are allowing them to dictate their thinking about funding theatre and drama; indeed, the post-capitalist ideology reflected both in his remarks and in his respondents’ commentary — an ideology also promulgated by the Obama administration which appointed Landesman to the chair of the NEA — indicates just how much this ideology has been wholeheartedly internalized as a deterministic economic given. (We live in an era in which “socialism” may be as dirty a word, if not moreso, as it was in the U.S. in the 1950s. Even on the left, or perhaps especially there, in fear of Election Day reprisals.)
There have been some wholesale dismissals of Landesman’s remarks, however — not least that of Ben Donenberg, a member of the National Council on the Arts, the Presidentially-appointed oversight committee for the NEA, and the founding artistic director of Shakespeare Festival/LA. Donenberg writes in the comments section of a recent New York Times item on what we might call “The Landesman Doctrine”:
As a Member of the National Council on the Arts, the presidentially appointed and senate confirmed oversight body for the National Endowment for the Arts, I respectfully and energetically disagree with Rocco’s opinions and I think it’s important that readers understand that Rocco’s opinions are Rocco’s. While he may have the pulpit and position to air his personal views, I do wish he’d be more thoughtful about their consequences — particularly in light of the fact that two weeks ago The Republican Study Group, 165 elected members of Congress called for the defunding of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.
Rocco says we have too much art for the dwindling audiences and then suggests we stop paying arts administrators so we can use the money to create more art.
Let’s all take a breath and agree that Rocco is not a trained Supply Side Economist, nor does NEA have an economist on its staff. We can all agree that he is completely unqualified to propose supply side economic models. He’s merely a theater producer that has gambled well. He’s basing his assumptions on research that was not gathered for economics forecasting. Nor is the research statistically sophisticated enough for economic forecasting. I don’t think arts audiences are dwindling, I actually believe they are increasing and getting their needs met in ways the participation surveys he’s reading do not capture.
I believe the research analyst at the Endowment would be hard pressed and unqualified to propose economic models based on the participation survey.
The National Endowment for the Arts just published a new Strategic Plan that calls for supporting broadest access possible for the most excellent art in the nation. Rocco’s skin diving into economic theories side tracks him from the mission of the agency, while he indulges himself and distresses the nation’s arts community in self-important musings that have little veracity and are not part of his job description. …
Donenberg’s comments appear at the end of this post.
Of course there is a lot of new drama and new theatre; whether too much or too little is not for me to say. But the controversy did put me in mind of some comments that Howard Barker made a few years ago in a lecture entitled “The Sunless Garden of the Unconsoled”: “It is hard to resist the suspicion that the profusion of texts in our time which purport to offer critiques of society whilst simultaneously endorsing its values unwittingly advertises a neurosis, as if by demanding deeper and deeper civility in the culture, the authors sensed the decay of it in themselves.” Barker’s lecture appeared in full in the May 2010 issue of Hyperion.