Hey Buddy Can You Spare A Dime... on the Cultural Economy?
Examining Governmental Support of the Arts in the United States and Japan
An Unusual Consensus in Outstretched Hands
...Out of the ordinary and unexpected; slightly odd or even a bit weird...no, not artists but the current events in the global economy.
Deregulation, Alan Greenspan, cheap money, Freddie Mae and Mac have all been vilified. With investment banks having gone extinct and General Motor's CEO standing in the Congressional soup line, the concepts of Free Market Capitalism are reminiscent of Absurdist Theater. Regrettably, because of America's global reach, the absurdity of the American situation is affecting economies around the world. And so, strong governmental involvement in the marketplace is here and possibly for the long-run. As manufacturers, bankers, and Wall Street come to grips with this new situation, it is interesting to note that artists have long desired just such intervention–on their behalf, of course.
Governmental economic support for the arts varies widely across the globe. The effectiveness of that support often has a direct correlation to the cultural ideology of a country. Specifically, this article looks at the troubled history of the National Endowment for the Arts in the United States and its conflict with underlying American mythos of the self-made individual, as compared to the seemingly successful Japanese Living National Treasure model, which has helped to define Japanese culture at home and abroad.
...Artists...Why?
Art is expensive, and for the artist, federal funding can mean the difference between production or poverty. Undoubtedly there is Free Market Capitalism in the art world; however, practices and preferences of many Western Countries, especially in the United States, encourage an artist-as-persona/celebrity culture unable to support the general population of artists and artisans. The result is an excess in supply of skilled labor in an environment with seemingly scarce demand. The artistic process further complicates circumstances, for it is not the intention of the arts to produce reliable, easily-marketed merchandise. Artists are often touted as great innovators, although the diffusion of that innovation is of little, or secondary importance to the artists. Even its closest related business activity, research and development (R&D), is not an appropriate model by which to examine the value and/or activity of art. Unlike R&D in the business environment, the arts do not pledge future blockbuster products that repay initial costs ten-fold. The arts are pure R&D only. Consequently, the economic rules of supply and demand suggest that most artists, many art schools, galleries, and museums should cease functioning, liquidate assets and go find gainful employment.
Naturally, intelligent and hardworking Americans would ask why an activity with few economically beneficial outcomes should receive government funding. Among the standard responses is "art for art's sake," or art is good for us culturally. Derived from a 19th century Romanticist slogan l'art pour l'art, "art for art's sake" is intended to express an intrinsic value of the arts. The philosophy is wrought with disconcerting quandaries; and yet, for those involved in the making of art, it better articulates the character of the artistic process than do the alternatives. The two prominent alternatives, economic and educational justification, lump the arts in with vocational training, after-school, and daycare programs.(ii) This is not to disparage vocational training, after-school, or daycare. Each has an important role in helping Americans operate as individuals and en masse. What is at issue is the tendency of capitalism to over-simplify the larger cultural challenges and concepts into bureaucratic programs. Inside a bureaucratic program, economic and educational justifications are employed not to argue the merits of the arts, but the utility of its by-products (i.e., children acquiring, evaluating, organizing, interpreting and communicating information.(iii)
Before proceeding, it is important to first clarify how art is being employed in the context of this paper. Art is the...production...according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.(iv) This is an intentionally broad definition meant to incorporate not only dance, theater, painting, sculpture and other established fine arts, but also craft and the folk arts. The exclusion of crafts and folk arts from the Western art schools and many museums is due to subtle distinctions generally meaningless outside of the critic's head or artist's studio.(v)
America, Land of Freedom... Unless You Offend Me
As a country founded by immigrants willing to risk life for opportunity, the United States has developed an underlying cultural mythos of the self-made individual. Individualism is an ideal that permeates American popular and political culture in the form of the tough, go-it-alone cowboy and limited federal government.(vi) However, there have been ominous and contradictory circumstances, such as Global Communism, that realign aspects of American ideology toward undertakings that require collective effort. In 1965, during the Cold War, the National Endowment for the Arts, like NASA, was developed in order to increase American global prestige. Support for the arts was seen as a means of demonstrating the United States' commitment to creativity, freedom and individuality. Not surprisingly, since the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been a push to de-fund the Endowment. Arguments for de-funding have been on moral and economic grounds and are deeply rooted in the culture wars of the last two decades. The controversy in the 1990s surrounding Robert Maplethorpe's homoerotic photography and Andre Serrano's "Piss Christ" resulted in the Endowment ending the practice of awarding grants directly to individual artists, (vii) although neither artist at the center of the debate had received funds directly. Unprepared to mount a defense of individual expression, proponents of the NEA have managed to keep the Endowment afloat, although greatly weakened, via the economic and educational justifications referred to earlier.
The current practices of the NEA provide funding for the arts on a programmatic level. Funds are awarded to state and local organizations who distribute these while observing soft censorship, i.e. avoiding potentially offensive subject matter. And so the effectiveness of the Endowment in conveying the ideology of the United States is confused and misleading at best. "To some the NEA appears too conservative and safe in its support; to others it appears elitist; to yet others it appears trendy and 'politically correct' at the expense of quality." (viii) For the generation of American artists coming up post-1990s, the Endowment appears less an opportunity and more of a hassle. The perception is that for all intents and purposes, the federal government views artists as average self-employed individuals to be taxed at +35% and convenient political collateral (as either scapegoats or poster-children for freedom, which ever is needed).
The Japanese & Ningen-Kokuho
Japanese artists practice in a distinctively different governmental support structure. Like the United States, there are academic, gallery, museum and private opportunities open to Japanese artists; however, the cultural veneration of process as heritage and tradition has resulted in definitive governmental support of the arts. Principal among the National Diet's support is the Ningen-Kokuho (translation: Living National Treasures, LNT) system. LNT is the informal title Japanese mass media bestow on artists who have been deemed a bearer of an Important Intangible Cultural Property under the 1954 Cultural Property Preservation Act.
The LNT system is an outgrowth of Edo and Meiji era kokugaku, or literally "national studies", the study of Japan by the Japanese themselves. (ix) In 1954, near the end of the American occupation of Japan, the LNT system was developed to protect and promote specific artistic practices deemed essentially Japanese and at risk of disappearing, due to limited economic viability. The cultural veneration of process as heritage and tradition is deeply rooted in the Japanese national identity.(x) An example of this veneration is in the intentional deconstruction and detailed rebuilding of Shinto shrines every twenty years. For the Japanese, this ritual passes to the next generation not only traditional building methods, but it also preserves communal memory and the achievements of one's ancestors.(xi)
Appointment to the LNT system is for life, although the individual is not the intended recipient of the honor, only their skill, technique and knowledge. As of November, 2005, there were one-hundred and thirty-one bearers of Important Intangible Cultural Properties in the Performing and Applied arts.(xii) Over fifty art forms have been registered under the program, and the threat of disappearance due to limited economic viability is no longer a criterion for consideration. In fact, inclusion of an art form in the program now assures it a prestigious status, commanding exorbitant prices for its best practitioners (often the LNT themselves).
LNTs receive an annual stipend of 2,000,000¥ (approximately $20,000) to assist in the practice of their art form. Likewise, an LNT's local Prefecture is expected to provide logistical and/or financial support to their practice. In return for the stipend and local support the LNT are asked to maintain the traditions they represent: teach the method to others and provide one exceptional piece per year to a national exhibit. Furthermore, the LNT system provides indirect support to the greater Japanese art community by nationally promoting the arts on a large-scale. Especially in the ceramic arts, the LNT sets high standards of quality that are recognized globally. In addition, LNT are distributed randomly through Japan and their workshops and studios regularly become a cultural draw to a Prefecture, providing the financial support from tourists to local economies. . The importance placed on the LNT program by Japan was demonstrated when The National Diet maintained full support of the LNT program even through the major recession of the mid-1990s.
The Japanese system is not without its faults. There can be only one person or group (in the case of theater or dance companies) as a bearer of an Important Intangible Cultural Properties at any one time. Consequently, accusations of elitism pursue the program. Compounding the problem is public uncertainty as to what is being praised by the program.
As noted by Aoyama Wahei(xiii) in his article Critique of Japan's Living National Treasure System, the original purpose of the law that enacted the program was to protect Japanese traditional culture and
"In no way was the law intended to be an award that confers a higher status to an artist for contributions to his art, nor did the law designate the artist himself as a treasure; rather, the treasure was the traditional techniques he possessed. The law was not to praise, but to protect." (xiv)
This uncertainty does result in art celebrities not unlike those in the United States. However, the core difference in Japanese and American artistic cultures– that of process vs. persona–suggests that the Japanese system as a whole will not easily be recast in the celebrity-centric mode.
More than an Ocean between...
It is reasonable to expect that legislative efforts to support the arts will always be open to criticism. A portion of any culture's citizens will hold views that are counter to the society in general. Aesthetics are subjective and even when backed by concentrated scholarship; rely on individual preference and experience. But, if the arts are deemed to be worthy activities for a great society, then that society must find the means of supporting its artists financially without hindering them creatively. Essential to the process is a recognition of and respect for cultural ideals. The Japanese Government has done well in defining and developing a model of support for the arts based on Japanese values. The Americans have work to do.
Dictating Terms!
It is too simplistic to claim the success of the Japanese model and the letdown of the American is due to the diametrically opposed origins of the two national identities, communal and individual. Nor is success or failure a matter of the Japanese predilection for tradition, and its well worn paths, as opposed to dynamic shifts common to the American arts. The troubled history of the National Endowment for the Arts is the result of a paradox. Individualism as cultural doctrine shapes a society where people praise the artist for having a unique vision, but insists that the artist conforms to economic and arbitrary moral standards.
Apparently, outside dire circumstances, Americans are reluctant to support anyone or anything with which they disagree. Such are the limitations of Individualism. And so America; in these unusual and dire times artists all across the country demand a bail-out of the National Endowment of the Arts. ...Not because it makes educational or economic sense, but in the pursuit of a paradox: publicly financed, individual expression. And be forewarned, if America continues to turn its backs on the NEA, artists will refuse to share their cardboard, refrigerator boxes and tricked out shopping carts when the rest of the country is finally thrown out on the streets.
Endnotes
ii For an egregious example of this trend see: Arnold H. Packer, "Arts and Earning a Living," Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 30, No. 4, Special Issue: The Aesthetic Face of Leadership (Winter, 1996), pp. 99-114 Published by: University of Illinois Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333183 (accessed: November 11, 2008)
v Opinion bases on author's 17 years of experience writing about, reading about and creating sculptural, digital, conceptual and ceramic works.
vi The interconnectedness apparent in the current global recession suggests a reexamination of Individualism is in order.
viii V. A. Howard, "Funding the Arts: An Investment in Global Citizenship?," Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), pp. 83-95 Published by: University of Illinois Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333788 (accessed: November 11, 2008)
x Robert Pettman, "'Anti-globalization discourses in Asia,'" in Critical Theories, World Politics and 'the Anti-Globalization Movement': the politics of global resistance, ed. Catherine Eschle and Bice Maiguashca (London: Routledge, 2005) 77 - 86
xiii Expert on Japanese ceramics and proprietor of Toku Art Limited, Tokyo,