On         Fri, 27 Oct 1995 Eric Siegel <[log in to unmask]> said:

>   I am always jealous when I hear about European
>   concern for the arts and cultural heritage. There seems to be much
>   more of a willingness for government investment in such things.

I wonder whether European support of the arts may somehow be related to the
sense of nationalism and ethnic continuity found in Europe.  European
states have histories and identities that recede beyond human and written
memory and define themselves through mythologies that defy rational
explanation.  Traditional European populations are less "multi-cultural"
than in the United States and consequently must feel connected with
national or ethnic traditions in such a way as to make support for the arts
seem as if it is a natural continuation of or evolution from whatever they
traditionally use to define their group identity.

The United States does not any longer have access to its traditional
mythology of identity.  In the 18th and 19th centuries we were wedded to
English culture and to aspects of the classical tradition.  Government and
popular support of building programs, monumental sculpture and painting for
publicly and privately commissioned works created an ambiance of
association to European culture.

Things have changed.  It is not simply because we have become a
multi-cultural community, though that is a factor, but because we have
rejected as no longer appropriate the exclusivity created when the symbols
of mass culture are tied to a specific ethnicity or cultural base --
meaning no more automatic evocations of classical culture for American
projects.  Finally, we are separate from Europe.

Appropriate, perhaps; but where does this situation put us in terms of
supporting the arts.  The fragmentation caused by our loss of unified
cultural associations has created a kind of conglomerate field for artistic
creation.  Neither ethnic nor national, it is difficult for population
groups to grasp the products of artistic activity and relate such products
to their own identities.  Modern creators find their communities in other
venues that depend upon the patchwork of American life, not upon its unity.
 So there is no national theme, but rather a cacophony of expressions that
appeal to the variety within us.

Returning to Eric's lamentation:  I believe that governments will willingly
support arts when both the people and the government can see in its support
a continuation of what they believe.   In the United States the blocks of
voting power and the vocal and economic constituencies no longer
substantially correspond to the ideals of  American artistic cultural
communities.  Restated, one can say that the degree of cross-fertilization
of ideas and ideals among these communities has diminished to the point
that the conglomerate elements cannot metamorphose into a homogeneous mass.
 The lack of the symbolic and metaphoric virtues of homogeneity is a severe
handicap; for without it, popular and governmental support for the arts
cannot be rationalized or encouraged.  And deep down, as much as we don't
want to admit it, we all know that this is true.


--
______________________________________

Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, NY 10538
[log in to unmask]