{"id":4046,"date":"2026-06-15T23:29:09","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T03:29:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/?p=4046"},"modified":"2026-06-15T23:29:11","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T03:29:11","slug":"what-might-the-kennedy-center-best-become-take-two","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/2026\/06\/what-might-the-kennedy-center-best-become-take-two.html","title":{"rendered":"What Might the Kennedy Center Best Become — Take Two"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

I\u2019ve received three memorable responses\u00a0to\u00a0my recent blog<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 also posted on\u00a0Arts Fuse<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0— pondering whether the Kennedy Center might become, or might have become, a genuine \u201cnational cultural center.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first, from a prominent arts administrator in mid-America, simply reads: \u201c<\/em>It all comes down to leadership.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second, from Douglas McLennan of ArtsJournal, concludes: \u201cPerhaps this is a wakeup call for arts leadership in America. An opportunity to rethink the model. To organize around an idea of what culture could be, what an *American* culture could be. Not to dictate, but to explore and encourage and experiment and showcase. It takes leadership.\u201d It\u2019s appended it below.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third response, again anonymous, concludes: \u201dA fine arts administrator summed up the Trump takeover perfectly: \u2018The Kennedy Center has never been as culturally relevant as it is now. By having to define and defend its very need to exist.\u2019\u201d It\u2019s also appended below<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third writer\u2019s resounding reference to George Templeton Strong bears some explication. Strong\u2019s programmatic \u201cSintram\u201d Symphony is to my knowledge the only notable late Romantic American symphony in the Lisztian\/Wagnerian mode. It was premiered to acclaim by Anton Seidl and the New York Philharmonic in 1893. I don\u2019t believe it has since been performed in the US. In 1897, Strong moved to Switzerland \u2013 where Ernest Ansermet championed this hour-long work. Joseph Szigeti also performed Strong\u2019s music abroad. The only recording, on Naxos, features a Swiss conductor and a Russian orchestra. Only in the US could a native symphony of such stature be forgotten.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I once had a pertinent conversation with the Estonian conductor Neeme Jarvi, who championed late-nineteenth century American works more than any American. Jarvi told me that he considered the Andante cantabile from George Chadwick\u2019s Third Symphony (1894) the most beautiful slow movement from any American work. (You can hear his recording\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.) I countered with the Langsam of the “Sintram” Symphony. Jarvi listened to it and reported that he agreed with me. You can listen to that right\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Were a major American orchestra to perform and record the “Sintram” Symphony, and if those efforts were properly contextualized, they would be noticed. It would be an event.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outside of Jarvi, Chadwick\u2019s foremost recent proponent has been Jose Serebrier \u2013 born in Uruguay. Like Jarvi, he comes to Chadwick without prejudice. We Americans were sold on what I\u2019ve called the modernist \u201cstandard narrative,\u201d which holds that American classical music begins around 1910. That confusion is the central topic of my book\u00a0Dvorak\u2019s Prophecy and the Vexed Fate of Black Classical Music<\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the anonymous post:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is very good. Great history, and further evidence that America can\u2019t get out of its own way in curating its own art. Exceptions might be painting (which only needs walls) and poetry (which is singularly created for a singular reader, without need for critical mass.) Music of the past goes unplayed. Historical theatre pieces not staged. Classic films lost through decomposition. Radio and television lost in the ether. Novels out of print and dumped by libraries. Indigenous music unrecorded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Kennedy Center built oversized concert halls and stages, but had no endowment to shore up the deficit between production and ticket revenue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the music of George Templeton Strong were to become a two-week festival, the Kennedy Center would need a good symphonic stage and 800 seats for a limited audience. Tickets would be scarce. Buzz and critical assessment would make it a hot ticket. It could add performances if demand warranted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the Kennedy Center wound up with bloated halls like almost every American city. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And this gnashing of teeth over the dismissal of the previous regime irritates me. Trump took something uncreative and sleepy and made it worse. And I have no doubt that there are deferred maintenance issues long unaddressed. Again, on every rare occasion where Trump is right, it\u2019s for the wrong reason. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The KC should be the place where Americans make pilgrimages to gather in a space to experience the art that America has created and continues to create. The Kennedy Center should bring the\u00a0South Dakota Symphony<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0to be in residence every other year, could have helped fund\u00a0the recent production<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0of Douglas Moore\u2019s Pulitzer-winning \u201cGiants in the Earth\u201d and brought it to DC. The current model negates that possibility as it competes with moribund resident companies that look like all the other companies in America.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A fine arts administrator summed up the Trump takeover perfectly: \u201cThe Kennedy Center has never been as culturally relevant as it is now.\u201d By having to define and defend its very need to exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And here\u2019s the post from Doug McLennan:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joe \u2013 you\u2019re right on about the compromise of the original intention for the KC as a national and international showcase for the best art the world has to offer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the Kennedy Center really America\u2019s showcase in its recent form? It\u2019s Washington\u2019s performing arts center. But Carnegie Hall is more prestigious. Lincoln Center has more artistic oomph. Do Americans look to the Kennedy Center for a particular vision of culture? I\u2019m not so sure. And these days as culture has fragmented and reassembled in versions far removed from the time when the KC was created, is there even such a vision that could be coherent? Just the fact this is a real question suggests that a KC artistic vision hasn\u2019t been articulated in a compelling enough way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the KC a complex of buildings or is it an idea? What do the component parts really add up to? And does this offer something unique or worthwhile? Nonetheless, it is enormously symbolic, and, along with the NEA and NEH, is America\u2019s primary way American government expresses support for the arts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I think it\u2019s unfair, as Anonymous does, to characterize the Kennedy Center\u2019s former incarnation as \u201cuncreative and sleepy.\u201d The KC ran some 2000 programs and productions per year and made significant and substantial efforts on behalf of the arts. Many hard-working, creative and dedicated people worked at the Kennedy Center to bring artists to work and be presented there. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the model is problematic. And I think, oddly enough, perhaps the practicalities of real estate may have compromised the opportunity for larger vision and leadership. Why are these resident organizations cohabiting a space? What\u2019s the artistic reason? Yes, share resources and branding and the backend. But do they share a common vision that is enhanced by being in the same complex? Or are they competing with one another for space and resources? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worse \u2014 in a big unwieldy structure, with many mouths to feed and competition for resources, the whole can end up constricting the pieces and making the messaging and branding generic, corporate. Everything is Kennedy Center. The National Symphony, for example, doesn\u2019t raise its own money, and doesn\u2019t even operate its own website. Does central planning really promote the most creativity or artistic risk? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps this is a wakeup call for arts leadership in America. An opportunity to rethink the model. To organize around an idea of what culture could be, what an *American* culture could be. Not to dictate, but to explore and encourage and experiment and showcase. It takes leadership.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u2019ve received three memorable responses\u00a0to\u00a0my recent blog\u00a0\u2013 also posted on\u00a0Arts Fuse\u00a0— pondering whether the Kennedy Center might become, or might have become, a genuine \u201cnational cultural center.\u201d The first, from a prominent arts administrator in mid-America, simply reads: \u201cIt all comes down to leadership.\u201d The second, from Douglas McLennan of ArtsJournal, concludes: \u201cPerhaps this is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-uncategorized","entry","has-post-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2QLHN-13g","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4046"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4046\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4053,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4046\/revisions\/4053"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/uq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}