It's All in the Advertising

"If the arts can't show leadership then who can? We can't be simply bystanders in the midst of what others before us have built. As cultural leaders, we have a deep responsibility to lead not only on culture but on helping society evolve and adapt."

I'm sorry, but my responsibility is to my family, my friends, myself, and my muse. I've managed at this point to hold down a full time job for five plus years, produce several concerts of original music and theatrical performance, and realize collaborative projects with incredible local (NYC) musicians, dancers, and film makers. I've given plenty to this city and its culture; but that is a by-product of the effort I have made to stick it out at a good day-gig while keeping my creative muse active and happy.

I am not here to help society evolve and adapt. I appreciate anyone who advocates for the artist as something more than an entertainer...but Elmes' comments strike me as having more to do with his own ego than anything else. I don't know him personally - although I have performed at Galapagos in the past in its old location - but this is how his comment struck me.

The leadership that we (as artists) can show is by sharing that in tough times our lives remain filled with meaning and mystery, while others conflate the end of their mutual funds with the end of the world.
Things get hard for us, too. But we keep on doing what we do and sharing it with others. Sounds like leadership to me.
love,
Polyanna

"But we keep on doing what we do and sharing it with others. Sounds like leadership to me."

But how is what artists do any different than say a single mom working two jobs to support her kids and get them out of a not-so-good neighborhood into one with a better school? Is her life not filled with "meaning and mystery"? Is she a "leader"? Is she inspired by artists or vice versa?

And why should any responsibility for the world be placed on the shoulder of any artist? When New Orleans was wiped out by Katrina, there was a lot of talk on the ground about how important it was for the musicians to "come back" and help rebuild. But you know, many didn't "come back" because the city had ignored their needs long before Katrina even hit. Pull what little means of support one has out from someone who had a hard time paying the bills in the first place and then ask them to carry the "responsibility" of helping society evolve and adapt? Please! (And some New Orleans artists did raise this very issue and were vilified for doing so...)

And what about creative souls who aren't leaders at all - or even all that nice to be around? There are so many "outsider" artists I take inspiration from who are and were in fact on the fringes of a society with very conservative ideas about "leadership." I doubt they "fit" into Elmes' view of a responsible artist.

Sorry if I'm over reacting - but Molly's essay was pretty inspiring!

I just finished reading two of Christopher Small's three books, "Musicking," and "Music of the Common Tongue," the kernel of which is that music (and art in general) is a way for people to "explore, affirm, and celebrate" values. I think people forget that or aren't really aware what art does for them (including those who are doing the art). In that sense, it's a little different than just making ends meet. For me, Small's definition isn't lofty, it's rather earthy and practical. How much we artists should be paid for such things is another matter. It's made me think a lot about music ed (since I'm preparing to get back into that field), not as a way to impose the classical status quo, but as a way to help people musick in a way that means something to them. Our job is to help people find and express their values. That's a useful thing. No, it's not going to make the woman working two jobs to feed her kids more money, but it might make her life more palatable, it might make her feel that she won't have to do that forever, it might ease her mind, even for just the duration of a song. It sounds hokey, but when you stop and think about the music that "saved your life," those musical moments you hold near and dear, you remember that we all musick for very specific, personal reasons and we wouldn't give those up for the world. Small is onto something.

I agree that helping society "evolve" sounds a bit imperialist, but "adapt" isn't so bad, and stepping forward and asserting our place at the table without beating folks over the head with it isn't a bad move, either. Although Elmes' uses somewhat lofty (though concise) language, I think it's unfair to paint him as a blow-hard. I think he'd agree that what you or "outsider artists" are doing is leading. You've got to start somewhere after all. Just because your name isn't all over the press doesn't mean you're not leading. Leaders get into the press because they're leading long before the press catches up to them, if that ever happens (how many of us had heard of Maarti Ahtisaari before he won the peace prize? I hadn't...).

Molly replies: Thanks, Andrea. These are great ways of considering the ramifications of this issue.

My example of the mom with two jobs was meant to show that we can find these very qualities of "leadership" in people who are not in the arts. And in fact, we inspire each other similarly. Last night a DJ saved my life. And in turn, maybe the DJ was inspired by his mom's work ethic to keep doing shows and bringing his talent to the table. I'm not sure if I made that clear...

I don't want to lead anyone anywhere. If someone is inspired by my creative work to do something similarly positive in their own life - great. But that isn't why I create music.

However, some of my closet friends teach music - and they are going to have a very different attitude about all of this. They do have the capacity to change a students life. No question. And I've seen them do it.

So can an artist use his or her art to call for society to move towards politically conservative positions, or is this reserved for liberals?

I'm left-wing myself, but the political insularity of the arts community (there's only one direction in which society should "evolve") always makes me roll my eyes.

Of course an artist can use their art to celebrate conservative positions; this happens all the time. Also other people can use your art to explore, affirm, and celebrate values that you might not hold: cf. Reagan's use of "Born in the USA." In a sense, all art is propaganda of a sort, but the values are in the ears of the behearer. It's not the music-as-object that carries the values being explored, etc., but the act of art or musicking is what allows us to explore values, especially values that aren't actually present in our lives, that is, values that we wish to embody.

"...but the act of art or musicking is what allows us to explore values, especially values that aren't actually present in our lives, that is, values that we wish to embody."

I would include "obsessions" as something else artists explore by way of their creative work. Obsessions that have nothing to do with left or right wing politics (or values) but instead speak to the heart of a creative soul.

Where does
Joseph Cornell or
Henry Darger fit into this idea of exploring and exemplifying a value system for society? Where does the hermit or the shaman or the mentally ill sit at this mysterious "table" we composers are supposed to sit and speak up at?

It's not that I disagree with any of what's being discussed. And much of my music is informed by a social conscious and I acknowledged the work of music educators I know and love as having a profound impact on society. But I came to music from the "outside" if you get my meaning. And perhaps as a result, I take comfort in and am inspired by Darger and Cornell's works. But to know those two men and their work is to go to some pretty dark places.

All I want to do is acknowledge that this too is a part of my palette. I'm describing a space - a "dark corner" - of the soul if you will that has nothing to do with helping society one way or another. It's deep and it's personal. And the resulting art or "musicking" freaks a lot of people out.

Obviously artists can use their art to celebrate conservative positions. I should have clarified. This blog entry appears to be calling only for liberals to celebrate their political positions and get society to evolve.

BTW, no artist is going to get very far in actually helping society to "evolve" if the very idea of buying a gun for the holidays is madness to that person. Understanding the mindset of people whose experiences and values you don't understand is crucial to, you know, actually reaching them. Otherwise you're just perpetuating the liberal echo chamber.

Molly adds: Good points. To clarify, by no means am I advocating for a "liberals only" art club here. I'm concentrating on the power of art to make us see these issues from a new angle, possibly (and hopefully) a less jaded and cynical one than traditional political discussion allows us these days.

And it's not all that important, but I'm actually not anti-gun. This being 2008 America and not Little House on the Prairie, however, the idea of buying a gun for a holiday season that celebrates life struck me as quite a strange marketing technique. Maybe that's the death toll in the Baltimore city news starting to get me all emotional, but that's my political reality. When I'm home with family in the heartland, it's a different world with different perspectives in play. I do understand and agree that someone who can't comprehend diverse realities will not have much luck effecting change.

Well Chris, now you're just being picayune. =) An obsession is a value or a relationship, too, no? Values aren't always sweetness and light.