American Canvas: a roundtable on the 1997 NEA report

My name is Malgorzata Lisiewicz. I'm from Poland. Before I came to the Bard program, I worked as a curator at the State Gallery of Art in Sopot. Before that, I graduated from the art history department at the University of Adam Mickiewicz in Poznan, also in Poland.

Brenson: I'm glad we have a chance to discuss American Canvas, a book that does change the artistic landscape in this country to some degree. I look forward to anything you have to say. I want this to be a free-wheeling discussion that can go anywhere you want it to go. I think the best way to get into the book is to ask each of you to describe what you see as its strengths and weaknesses.

Diaz: The strengths of the report for me were its emphasis on education and on the lack of education in the arts in the United States. The weaknesses were the way in which the report perceived artists. There seems to be this myopic understanding of what artists do, who they are, and what their function in society is. The report assumes that the artist's role is to advance the moral good of the community, to bring people together. Perhaps it is. But art is more complex and doesn't always take as its principal concern the moral opinions of its day. I'm skeptical about this feel-good attitude the report projects. It tends to homogenize sentiment and individual values. It's also interesting that in a report which addresses the function of art in people's lives there is no discussion of aesthetics or beauty.

Kim: One of the strengths of the book is its assertion that art is in everyday life and that it's not just in a museum or in a symphony orchestra building. And that we need to realize that it's not just the well-known artist who needs to be recognized. Also, like Alejandro said, I really appreciate the education aspect. As for the weaknesses, I don't understand who they wrote this for, or what the purpose of the book was. It is from the NEA, yet they did not talk about themselves at all. Before I read it, I had read the articles in the New York Times, and I thought that the report was going to be more about the problems that the NEA has been having in the last eight years or so. I thought it was going to talk about their restructuring a couple of years ago, and that maybe they would try to answer the way they've been attacked. I also don't think the book's well written.

Brenson: Can you say what that means?

Kim: There are a lot of contradictory points. The writer, Gary Larson, even when he quotes somebody and then switches back to his own comments, definitely has a point of view. But is that the NEA's voice, or is it the forums'? And then I have problems with specific points the book is trying to make. One thing that makes me sound very Republican, which I'm not, is when the report discusses how corporations need to give money. For me, that's not the corporations' job. That's philanthropy. It's great if they do it, but the onus is not on them. And the book talks about the American spirit and the common culture, and there's one passage about a speech in which Clinton says something about America being the beacon of light and liberty? Wake up! This idea stems from an unrealistic and idealistic view of what the real America is. In the last chapter, the book has this challenge to art to act. They say what artists and communities can do. What about what the NEA can do? The NEA is putting the responsibility and the blame on the artists and their communities. The NEA is beyond scorn in this respect; they have left themselves out completely.