Competing - political opinions toward the arts - Editorial

Dance Magazine, Oct, 1996 by Richard Philp

While watching a jazz class at a convention in New York City this past summer, I met a dance teacher who said she had been a subscriber to the magazine for twenty years. She reads us closely, she said, and particularly likes that we encourage dance people to speak out on issues relating to their profession and well-being.

"What," I asked, "would you like us to write about next?"

She jumped at my question, saying somewhat unexpectedly, "Tell your readers what a wonderful opportunity these competitions provide our young people. July is convention time, and attending events like these gives students a chance to study with some really fine teachers and get a taste of what it's like to be in the profession." (You can read the results of summer competitions on pages 78-82.)

These events, which are held year around, have come to play an increasing role in the development of talented youngsters who are considering professional careers. Conventions and competitions also have controversial aspects, however: attendance can be expensive, and preparations take time that some teachers feel is better spent in other class pursuits. But for the serious student, there are advantages to exchanging information with peers, receiving professional encouragement, seeing performances, and taking classes with new teachers.

How many of the youngsters who participate in these events are going to become professionals? A very small percentage, I suspect, but that is almost beside the point because all the students are encouraged to foster personal qualities that can last a lifetime: discipline, focus, responsibility, coordination, confidence, a strong sense of self. Also, these young people are the backbone of our future audiences.

There aren't a great many other things out there today for young people to do during the summer in which everybody comes out a winner.

During the summer we tried to get the presidential candidates to define their positions on the arts, particularly their feelings about the National Endowment for the Arts. Despite our best efforts, neither major camp came through with any significant information. It may have been too early (we're going to press in mid-August), but traditionally the arts have not held a high priority in American political debate when so many other social issues are at stake in an election. But we almost know what to expect anyway, don't we? If there is any doubt about Bob Dole's anti-NEA position, the Republican's much-publicized platform makes it clear that they would de-fund the NEA altogether, given the chance--along with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Legal Aid Services. Bill Clinton has proven a mildly enthusiastic advocate for the arts, although higher priorities on his agenda have been given precedence during his first term.

The extreme conservatism expressed in the Republican platform, and what these attitudes mean for the future of the arts in America, is a matter of great concern. Although an embarassed candidate Dole declares somewhat nervously he is not bound by his party's platform, it exists, like the Grand Canyon, there for us to stumble over and to contemplate.

The extreme positions outlined in that platform seem to be a wish list of the party's Christian right-wing, which controls the Republican majority in Congress as well as the Republican party. If they could, they would push the nation into theocracy (a form of government run by a few people claiming divine commission--Pat Buchanan, for example). Neither generous nor inclusive, their brand of conservatism threatens cherished individual liberties. People who don't think like they do become enemies: those who are poor, pro-choice, unmarried; intellectuals, immigrants, homosexuals, environmentalists, journalists, non-Christians, blacks, women--and especially artists. We already have the specter of Newt Gingrich's young Turks in Congress and the damage their conservatism has done to the arts in their dogged efforts to wipe out the NEA. And once you believe it's your duty to censor or silence artists, can attacks on other freedoms be far behind?

Thomas Jefferson knew what he was doing when, during his long and influential career in American politics, he insisted on the separation of church and state. This Jeffersonian principle is one of the core tenets of the American system. The incursion of the Christian right into American politics (which may, in fact, be illegal) threatens to become the kind of situation Jefferson warned against, and this upcoming election has the potential to realign this imbalance.

Arts bashing in Washington does not represent the wishes of the majority of the voters, and it can be stopped, according to recent reports from the U. S. Conference of Mayors and an organization called Americans United to Save the Arts and Humanities, which is composed of heavy hitters among U. S. business leaders.

How? The members of the House of Representatives, who serve two-year terms, are up for reelection. There are many issues that will affect your decisions as to whether or not you want them to return to Washington as your representatives. But it is easy enough to find out how they've voted (or will vote) on this dominant Washington arts issue, the NEA, by calling their campaign headquarters and asking them yourself. They want to work for you--they say. So let them.