Due to its internal
tensions, being a hip-con became an increasingly difficult balancing act.
White racial resentment, for example, is still difficult to define as hip.
The hip-cons seemed to divide into two groups, one along the older yuppie
model, and the newer along Eminem’s mean-right pattern. As early as 1992,
many hip-cons had moved toward the saxophone-playing Bill Clinton and his
more moderate conservatism, which included a crack down on crime. By the
end of Clinton’s second term, 13% of all African-American men could not vote
because they were in prison or had criminal records. The people whose music
had laid the original foundations for
hippness were still strongly disenfranchised and
vast numbers were still living in poverty and degradation.
After twenty years of neo-liberal Reaganomics, the
political and cultural landscapes of Europe and America were farther apart
than ever. The long-term forms of social democracy that Europeans might have
used to approach the problems of massive racial ghettos could not even be
considered.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign for national health
insurance -- which is a mainstay of European social policy -- failed
miserably. George W. Bush was elected, and the dot.com economy collapsed.
Fueled by recession, state governments began to slash or entirely eliminate
arts budgets. America’s cultural institutions struggled to survive, many of
them running up large deficits. The new American administration, which
embraced neo-liberalism to an unprecedented degree, jeered at its
traditional allies as “old Europe.”
An American Culture of Rationalization
With subtle psychological shifts that are almost
impossible to deconstruct, the conflicted hip-con ethos of America became an
increasingly complex network of rationalizations. The Prez plays the sax,
so we’re still hip, aren’t we? If we listen to both Springsteen and
Schönberg we must be egalitarian, right? Even white guys can rap, can’t
they? Inside of 20 years we went from Miles Davis making obscene gestures
to his white public, to a buttoned-down Wynton Marsalis playing in Lincoln
Center. Many of jazz’s greats earlier in the century were firmly embraced by
the white establishment, and not all jazz comes out of a spirit of protest.
Nevertheless, some critics seemed to feel that the presentation of notably
conservative jazz in Lincoln Center was another example of the white
establishment conveniently presenting and appropriating only a specific
spectrum of black culture. Both pop and jazz seemed to find a place in
America’s culture of rationalization.
In many respects, hip-cons have come to represent
the latest incarnation of the classic American ethos of being rebels without
a cause. Listening to rock gives them a sense of breaking from the
bourgeois middle and rejecting conformity to a system that is often vacuous
and morally conflicted. The irony that the mass media is one of the largest
manifestations of cultural isomorphism in the history of humanity is not
considered.
In culturally isomorphic societies, thought is less
and less likely to move outside a pre-configured set of paradigms. In the
20th century, for example, we saw a culturally isomorphic essentialization
of art in the "Gleichschaltung” of the Third Reich, in the Social Realism of
the East Block, in the “Cultural Revolution” of Maoist China, and to an
increasing extent in the mass media commercialization of culture in
America. [7]
Like the political divisions of the 20th
century, these aesthetic orthodoxies reduced human expression to systemic
concepts that tend toward the formulaic and reductionist. Since narrowed
perspectives make it difficult to confront aspects of reality, a culture of
self-referential rationalization evolves.
The European’s Defense of Communal
Identity
So where does this leave the European view of
America and its arts funding models today? To answer, it is important to
note that continental Europeans often regard American music as a type of
exotica – an art that embodies a radical departure from their own
traditions. In Germany, for example, Ives, Bernstein, Cage, Reich, and
laptop improvisers fit their desired image of the American spirit.
Composers more in line with Germany’s still dominant forms of complex
modernism, like Carter and Babbit, remain much less appreciated and
performed.
Europeans thus especially appreciate the crossover
forms that have become an American specialty, but they reject the argument
that a commercial paradigm is an appropriate funding model for classical
music. They question the breezily hip tones that tell us classical music
must become commercially viable or go extinct. Rock or die? Is that the
only real alternative? What does that mean for artistic integrity and the
autonomy of human expression?
In the spirit of their mixed economies, Europeans
would argue that many forms of artistic expression cannot be positioned or
relativised within the mass market or its fringes. For them, culture must
be communal and autonomous. They often see American culture as hegemonistic
-- a totalizing and destructive assault on the humanistic, cultural and
social structures they have worked so long and hard to create.
A general sense of the different perspectives
concerning communal identity can be illustrated with an example now widely
discussed in the States. Many Americans have seen how corporate-owned strip
malls and Wal-Marts have deeply affected their cities and towns. The old
downtown areas are abandoned as customers move to corporate businesses on
the edge of town. Communal identity and autonomy, which are an important
part of cultural expression, are replaced with a relatively isomorphic
corporatism.
Europeans struggle to maintain a different model.
Most cities and towns have thousand year histories that are reflected in the
architectural and other cultural treasures of their various municipal
centers. They employ zoning laws and other regulations, as well as public
education, to protect their cities from the Wal-Martization that would be
caused by embracing American-styled neo-liberalism. Europeans have large
department stores and the occasional K-Mart, but their influence is kept
within balance. They would consider the losses to their cultural identity
caused by corporate uniformity to be too great.
Europeans see Hollywood and America’s massive music
industry in a similar way. They feel these institutions standardize culture
into mass markets that reduce communal identity. Far from making music even
more commercial, the European response has been to create a balance with
public arts funding. In Germany, for example, cities with more than about
100,000 people often have a full-time orchestra, opera house, and theater
company that are state- and municipally owned. A good deal of funding for
these groups is set aside for new music. Europeans also administer this
arts funding locally, and not from a remote Federal organization such as the
NEA. [8]
They are not only the recipients of mass culture; they express themselves
according to their autonomous, local needs and prerogatives.
As a result, the European view is likely to reject a
superficial form of postmodernism that presumes to flow with an exaggerated
ease from rock to Brahms, as if distinctions between the production,
marketing, and reception of commercial and classical music could be brushed
aside. They know that the production costs for recording a five-piece rock
band are far smaller and the audience vastly larger than for a recording of
an opera that would require 200 to 400 people and reach an audience not even
a tenth the size. They know that a festival for new orchestral music such as
at Donaueschingen might have standing-room-only crowds year after year, but
that such endeavors cannot be designed to make a profit. [9]
In Germany, classical recordings compete strongly
against pop. This is not merely a matter of history or coincidence.
Europeans use their local public cultural institutions to educate their
children and this creates a wide appreciation for classical music. The
popularity is also based on a sense of communal pride. They support their
local cultural institutions almost like they were sports teams. European
society illustrates that music education leads to forms of creativity and
autonomy that are often antithetic to mass media. The European view is not
based on elitism or a dismissal of popular culture, but on an understanding
that an unmitigated capitalism is not a seamless, all-encompassing paradigm
- particularly when it comes to cultural expression.
The Loss of Cultural Discourse in Isomorphic
Systems
Proponents of America’s neo-liberalism claim that
alternatives to a singular cultural paradigm exist. In reality, the large
majority of cultural offerings come from Manhattan and a few other cities,
even though the country has 280 million people. Even the other boroughs of
New York City, such as the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island would seem short
of cultural offerings. And the situation is similar in many of our
heartland cities.
International comparisons might illustrate this point. Germany, for
example, has one full-time, year-round orchestra for every 590,000 people,
while the United States has one for every 14 million (or 23 times less per
capita.) Germany has about 80 year-round opera houses, while the U.S., with
more than three times the population, does not have any. Even the Met only
has a seven-month season. These numbers mean that larger German cities often
have several orchestras. Munich has seven full-time, year-round
professional orchestras, two full-time, year-round opera houses (one with a
large resident ballet troupe,) as well as two full-time, large, spoken-word
theaters for a population of only 1.2 million. Berlin has three full-time,
year-round opera houses, though they may eventually have to close one due to
the costs of rebuilding the city after reunification.
If America averaged the same ratios per capita as
Germany, it would have 485 full-time, year-round orchestras instead of about
20. If New York City had the same number of orchestras per capita as Munich
it would have about 45. If New York City had the same number of full-time
operas as Berlin per capita it would have six. Areas such as Queens, Staten
Island, and the Bronx would be nationally and internationally important
cultural centers. The reality is somewhat different.
If America’s Northeastern seaboard had the same sort
of orchestral landscape as Germany, there would be full-time, year-round
professional orchestras (often in conjunction with opera houses) in Long
Island, Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, Camden, Philadelphia, Wilmington,
Baltimore, New Haven, Hartford, Springfield, Providence, and Boston.
California would have about 60 full-time, year-round professional
orchestras. Like Germany, the U.S. would suffer from a shortage of good
classical musicians. There would be little unemployment for these artists.
With that much creativity, it is unlikely Americans would stick to European
repertoire and models. Even with half the German ratios, a starkly American
musical culture would evolve that would likely change history.
It is also essential and informative to place these
numbers in the context of the dismal social conditions in almost all major
American cities, since these are areas where classical music would normally
thrive. A recent article in
The New York Times, for example, notes that
Philadelphia has 14,000 abandoned buildings in a dangerous state of
collapse, 31,000 trash-strewn vacant lots, 60,000 abandoned autos, and has
lost 75,000 citizens in recent
years. [10]
Regions such as the south Bronx, Watts, East St. Louis and Detroit, just to
name a few, show that Philadelphia is hardly an exception. The populations
living in our dehumanizing ghettos are measured in the tens of millions. It
seems very likely that the problems with arts funding in America are closely
related to the same social forces that have caused the country to neglect
its urban environments. This naturally leaves many Europeans wondering why
America is so intent on exporting its economic and cultural
models.
The problems of arts funding are seldom the topic of
genuinely serious and sustained political discussion. The cultural and
political system has become so isomorphic that most Americans do not even
consider that alternatives could be created to institutions such as network
television and Hollywood. With only one percent of the military’s $396
billion budget, we could have 132 opera houses lavishly funded at $30
million apiece. (That much funding would put them on par with the best
opera houses in the world, and as noted, likely lead to forms of expression
more distinctly American.)
The same sum could support 264 spoken-word theaters
at $15 million each. It could subsidize 198 full-time, year round
world-class symphony orchestras at $20 million each. Or it could give
79,200 composers, painters and sculptors a yearly salary of $50,000 each.
Remember, that’s only one percent of the military budget. Imagine what five
percent would do. These examples awaken us to the Orwellian realities of our
country and how different it could be. Given our wealth, talent, and
educational resources, we are losing our chance to be the Athens of the
modern world.
We also see that cultural isomorphism leads to the
suppression of political, social and cultural discourse. Discussions
outside the neo-liberal paradigm are becoming increasingly rare. How
astounding, for example, that a U.S. Senator recently gave a long interview
for the American Music Center’s webzine, New Music Box, and not one question
was asked or comment made about the NEA or any other form of public funding
for the arts. Europeans would find this incomprehensible.
Another example of the loss of intelligent discourse
is the discussion surrounding the current proposed $18 million increase for
the NEA. This sum represents only
seven-thousandths of one percent of the proposed
2005 U.S. budget, a number almost too infinitesimal to comprehend. And yet
the topic is once again being opportunistically exploited as a political
battering ram.
In Europe, by contrast, funding for the arts is a central platform of every
major political party. Lively and varied artistic expression is considered
one of the most important forums for national discourse. Politicians
literally search for opportunities to speak about the arts because it is
politically advantageous. The dialog is generally intelligent, meaningful,
and carefully considered.
Summary and Conclusion
In review, we see
that Europe’s funding traditions and models suggest several policies and
administrative practices Americans might consider:
1. Europeans use
public funding to provide alternatives to the marketplace for cultural
expression. This reinforces freedom of artistic expression and deeply
enriches their societies. America’s heavy reliance on the market as an
arbiter of culture sometimes limits our options. Our government spends
billions on other intellectual spheres, such as education, space exploration
and scientific research, but we have seriously limited our cultural lives
through a suspicion toward public arts funding.
2. European politicians avoid attacking the arts
for populist and opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is
seldom, if ever, broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit
themselves. Few mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as
North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the
homosexuals ain’t seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to
eliminate almost half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three
marginalized avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and
communism, Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is
to the dignity and cultural identity of society. This no longer happens in
Europe, and need not happen in America.
3. European arts funding is generally
decentralized and administered mostly on the state and municipals levels.
The NEA’s centralized funding makes it an easy target for populist political
attacks. Europeans would also find it strange for a federal government to
fund the arts in any specific way because it is so difficult at that level
to have direct contact with the lives and work of artists and the
communities they serve. The NEA and the states must continue to develop
arts-funding models directly connected to cities, towns and regional
communities.
4. Europeans use their cultural legacies to
establish and assert their place in the world, often through extensive
cultural diplomacy. American politicians should be reminded that Ella
Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein and Louis Armstrong can often accomplish far
more than an F-16, and for a tiny fraction of the costs, both economic and
human. Given our talent, educational system, and wealth, we must renew our
vision of how brightly our cultural light could shine.
5. Europeans combine arts education with the
living presence of the performing arts within their communities. Classical
music is far more relevant to young people when performing arts
organizations are a highly present and esteemed part of their city or
region. In America, the nearest genuinely professional full-time performing
arts organization is often hundreds of miles away. America’s children
should perceive the arts as part of their communities. And our more
talented children should be able to think of the arts as a realistic career
option, just as children in Europe do.
6. Even though Europeans often celebrate the
lighter classics, they still stress classical musical for its inherent
strengths. As the American Symphony Orchestra League has noted, America has
been trying to build publics by emphasizing pops (and cross-over) concerts
since the 1960s. This has had a partially adverse effect through lowering
the public’s expectations. Superficial programming is also increasingly
influencing classical music radio stations. Through confidence in classical
music’s inherent strengths, higher standards and expectations could be
awakened.
7. Europeans view the city itself as the greatest
and most complete expression of the human mind and spirit. Venice, Florence,
Rome, Prague, Amsterdam, Dresden, Barcelona and Paris, just to name a few,
are all embued with this ideal. Americans, by contrast, behave almost as
if they have lost hope in their cities, as if they were dangerous and
inhuman urban wastelands to be abandoned for the suburbs. This tacit
assumption has had a profound but largely unrecognized effect on American
political and cultural discourse. Classical music is one of the most urban
of art forms. Its status will always be measured by the health and vibrancy
of our cities. Ultimately, questions of arts funding will only be fully
resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban
environments are deeply interdependent.
Over the long term,
these general understandings that Europeans have gained over centuries of
experience could beneficially influence the political and cultural climate
in America.
It is not enough that people have freedom of speech;
they must also have mechanisms for meaningfully expressing and debating it.
Public arts funding is deeply valuable because it encourages societies to be
diverse, intellectually alive, inquisitive and realistic. It furthers the
discourse societies need to fully express their communal and national
identity and place it in the rest of the world. It furthers our ability to
heal and help. It furthers our well-being, freedom of expression, and
pursuit of happiness. Public arts funding represents the deepest American
ideals.
William
Osborne
is a composer, musicologist and arts activist. Since
1993 his works have been performed in more than 115
cities in
North America and Europe. He has written numerous
articles about the social and political influences
of
music, including "Symphony Orchestras and
Artist-Prophets" published by the M.I.T. Press.
His
articles about the Vienna Philharmonic raised an
enormous media response and brought to an end the
orchestra's 150 year policy of excluding
women.
ENDNOTES
& ADDITIONAL READING
