The White House art installation is nice, but...

Last week, just before the Human Rights Campaign's annual Washington fundraising dinner, President Obama nominated a gay man to be ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. The appointment was transparent: For the better part of the last year Americans who care about gay equality have been disappointed with the Obama administration's failure to act on campaign promises and to eliminate a host of discriminatory laws and federal policies. Well aware of this, just before Obama was to speak at the annual dinner of the nation's biggest gay-equality organization, the president tossed gay equality supporters a bit of tokenism.

Last week the Obama administration made another symbolic gesture: It hung modern and contemporary art in the White House. Just as the HRC go-alongs decided that an ambassadorial appointment bought Obama some time, art lovers celebrated the Obamas' embrace of art. [Image: Glenn Ligon, Black Like Me #2, 1992. Collection: Hirshhorn.]

Several critics examined what Obama's selections may mean. Jerry Saltz was particularly thoughtful. Holland Cotter discussed Alma Thomas. The Washington Post's Blake Gopnik said something about prostitutes and fascists and had a dialogue with himself over whether the White House picks were safe or bold. (Meta-fun: Saltz noted that even as Gopnik was pointing out that the White House art selection was sometimes contradictory, that Gopnik was sometimes contradictory.)

I'm glad the White House is hanging modern and contemporary art. But consider the White House art hang within the context of the New Zealand-Samoa ambassadorial nomination: It's nice and it means something, but it's a gesture rather than a commitment.

Consider: Despite the unprecedented involvement of art communities and an artist in the 2008 election, the White House has done little to support or create art-focused/included policy. Art organizations received a measly $50 million in the $787 billion stimulus package, a percentage so infinitessimal that Google's calculator barely knows what to do with it. (Just as the HRC leadership welcomed a president who has done little for gay equality, Washington's art lobby was ecstatic at receiving weak tea.) The Obama administration has introduced no significant initiatives around cultural diplomacy, cultural exchange or arts education.

And that's the easy, obvious stuff. Instead of congratulating ourselves that the Obamas are art people, we should be demanding that the White House innovate, that it create new, progressive federal arts policies and initiatives. Maybe the White House should make it possible for every museum in America to offer free admission to its permanent collection? Maybe there's room for the humanities in a new Peace Corps or Americorps program? In Buffalo and Detroit, two of America's greatest museums, two places that hold some of the world's most important cultural treasures, are struggling to remain vibrant -- even open -- in the face of massive regional economic struggles. There is room for a new federal initiative to safeguard struggling-but-internationally-important cultural storehouses in a new way, in a way that emphasizes how the arts are a fundamental part of America's urban fabric... but no, nothing. The much-lauded General Services Administration program that sought to ensure that the government architecture was progressive and bold has languished for several years. And shouldn't there be art in every elementary, middle and high school in America?

The White House Art Hang is nice. We should be glad the Obamas like paintings. Now we should demand substance.

Related: Just after Obama took office, I argued in favor of a White House arts adviser.