Reviving the Arts,
Resurrecting The Dead

Despite the increasingly unambiguous value of arts education in American schools, thanks to scores of studies and surveys in recent years, government funding of arts education, and the arts in general, seems to ignore those established, consequential benefits—not only for students that are directly impacted, but all of society.

Annual federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), created by Congressional legislation in 1965, peaked in 1992 at $175 million, dropping to about $100 million just four years later. In 2008, appropriations amounted to nearly $145 million—up 16 percent from the year before (the largest increase in 28 years) but still $30 million shy of the level set 16 years ago. Nonetheless, a lot of money. Until you compare it to the amount of money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2008: $190 billion. Until you compare it to the amount of money allocated to the recent and ongoing bailout of the financial industry: $700 billion.

Local school boards and state governments have also contributed to the dismantling of arts education programs in public schools—often viewing such as expendable extracurriculars when dealing with financially strapped or broken schools systems. But a quick look at the facts reveals the remarkably short-sighted nature of this approach—a quick fix that fixes nothing.

In fact, a robust arts education curriculum might just be the answer to the question of how to solve the public education crisis currently facing the country. For starters, as highlighted by Americans for the Arts, arts education “has been proven to help level the ‘learning field’ across socio-economic boundaries,” greatly increasing the odds of academic achievement for all students.

And yet, despite all the evidence of its importance and success, the problem of funding cuts to and wholesale elimination of arts programs in schools persists, as NEA Chairman Dana Gioia alarming but accurately described during his 2007 commencement speech at Stanford University:

At 56, I am just old enough to remember a time when every public high school in this country had a music program with choir and band, usually a jazz band, too, sometimes even orchestra. And every high school offered a drama program, sometimes with dance instruction. And there were writing opportunities in the school paper and literary magazine, as well as studio art training.

I am sorry to say that these programs are no longer widely available to the new generation of Americans. This once visionary and democratic system has been almost entirely dismantled…Art became an expendable luxury, and 50 million students have paid the price. Today a child’s access to arts education is largely a function of his or her parents’ income.

The consequences of this trend, and its effects on future generations, are grave—a threat to the very fabric of America, of democracy, of civilization. Without arts education, we risk losing much: independent and critical thinking, creativity and innovation, appreciation for the world around us and insights into the human experience, both self-expression and the sense of community.

“Art addresses us in the fullness of our being—simultaneously speaking to our intellect, emotions, intuition, imagination, memory, and physical senses,” Gioia said. “There are some truths about life that can be expressed only as stories, or songs, or images.”

Money, or the lack thereof, is not the sole problem. No Child Left Behind (Unless They Fail to Sufficiently Shade the Correct Circles on Standardized Tests), which bases a school’s performance on—almost solely—annual standardized tests of reading and math skills. As a result, educators are forced, out of necessity, to dramatically reduce or eliminate the amount of time allocated to arts education in order to spend most classroom hours teaching to these tests, which are limited in scope and subject matter.

Lack of mainstream media attention on the crisis (and it is indeed a crisis) has only furthered political indifference and public misperception. The topic, it seems, lacks the hyper-sensational, hyper-controversial talking points required for the sound-bite-obsessed commentariat. The issue fails to sway any large voting bloc, and national politicians fail to make it a priority, whether on the campaign trail or in the halls of power. Among all three groups, a misnomer prevails: the belief that arts education is merely vocational training.

That thinking needs to change.

While arts education will likely spawn a new generation of artists, its impact on participating students is much more immediate and important—engaging them in ways a math class doesn’t, reshaping their attitudes about school, influencing positive behavior, raising their own expectations, improving academic performance in non-arts classes, and revealing how focused and sustained work can produce more than just a test score or a grade.

“The purpose of arts education is not to produce more artists, though that is a byproduct,” Gioia said during his Stanford commencement address. “The real purpose of arts education is to create complete human beings capable of leading successful and productive lives in a free society.”

Until that “real purpose” begins to shape the country’s collective consciousness regarding arts education in public schools, things will remain the same: funding will continue to dissipate, class time will continue to be consumed by narrowly focused test subjects, politicians will continue their silence, and we—as a society—will continue down a path that leads to a dead-end, where missed opportunities to renew the educational experience will remind us of the other choice.

Only it’ll be too late.

A NEW DAY

February 9, 2008. By now, my rabid obsession with the coverage of the presidential primary battle began to consume me, and I found myself in front of the television on this Saturday night, watching and listening to Barack Obama—who, a month after his victory in the Iowa caucus, a few days following Super Tuesday and the night of four more victories, had become a real contender—deliver a speech at the Virginia Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond.

Then, about 18 minutes in, as Obama laid out his thoughts on education, he said something surprising—something I hadn’t heard any other candidate (now or in years past) pronounce.

“[W]e also have to make sure that we are not having teachers teach to the test,” he said, “because I want our students learning art and music and science and poetry and all the things that make an education worthwhile.”

A presidential candidate who recognized the dangers of No Child Left Behind and understood the value of arts education—articulated in one simple, declarative sentence. Obama’s stance was encouraging but would his rhetoric, I wondered, find its way into his policy agenda in any concrete, meaningful ways.

Then, about two months later at a town-hall-style event in Wallingford, Pennsylvania, Obama received a question about reforming the education system, answering by again addressing the need for comprehensive arts education in all schools: “So these things aren’t just extras; they are part of a well-rounded education.” Even more promising, Obama used the opportunity to espouse his beliefs, albeit briefly, in public funding of the arts. “The other thing is that we have to just improve arts and music funding generally—in schools but also outside of schools,” he said. “The Endowment for the Arts, our support of the public arts, our support for arts institutions—all those things should be a priority. And they don’t cost that much money…but you get such a big payoff.”

Yes, yes, yes, I thought: a national figure, who obviously commanded attention, promoting arts education and public investment in the arts. I still wondered how much attention each would garner in his official platform should he receive the Democratic nomination for president. But, after visiting the campaign’s Web site, there was little doubt: these issues mattered to Obama and, as a result, were finally gaining the much-needed and long-deserved priority in a political candidate’s policy agenda.

First, he established a 33-member National Arts Policy Committee, which would lead to a detailed platform in support of the arts: reinvesting in arts education, including the formation of an “Artists Corps” consisting of young artists working in struggling schools and their communities (simultaneously helping artists earn a living and re-instituting arts education for students); increasing funding for NEA; promoting cultural diplomacy; providing artists with affordable health care; and establishing tax fairness for artists.

“As president,” the document reads, “Barack Obama will use the bully pulpit and the example he will set in the White House to promote the importance of arts and arts education in America.”

Perhaps this strong position shouldn’t have come as a surprise; after all, Barack Obama is a writer—the author of two overwhelming successful, both critically and commercially, books and arguably the best writer among all past presidents—and someone who clearly appreciates the power of words and self-expression.

For the sake of comparison and context, I searched for his Republican counterpart’s thinking on the role of arts in our schools and in our society, on the role of government in advancing the arts in America. It soon became evident that John McCain wasn’t thinking about these issues. Nowhere—not on his campaign’s site, not in media reports—did he elucidate any principles or philosophy or policy regarding the arts. Eventually, about a month before Election Day, McCain—under pressure for 18 months from the Americans for the Arts Action Fund to submit an arts policy proposal—issued a four-sentence statement, which only reiterated  the failed policies of recent years. “McCain has voted repeatedly to cut funding for or terminate the National Endowment for the Arts,” according to the Los Angeles Times:

Elizabeth Currid, assistant professor at the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development, said McCain’s near silence on the issue shows ‘indifference’ toward the arts. ‘No one says they don’t support the arts,’ she said. ‘But they say it implicitly.’

The differences were stark, the choice clear.

Not only did Obama champion the arts and promote the virtues of arts education, as the election season progressed, he inspired the creation of art—in ways no public figure in history ever has. Numerous new songs from a wide range of musicians, from James Taylor to will.i.am, from Ralph Stanley to Joan Baez to Nas, were being recorded and released—as evidenced by the recently posted playlist on iTunes called “Songs About Obama” (link requires iTunes) and by the Commemorative Inauguration CD. Obama and his message roused the muse for hundreds of visual artists, too. Renowned street artist Shepard Fairey created the iconic, and ubiquitous, “Obama Hope” image, which now hangs on a wall at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. (He also designed the cover of Time‘s Person of the Year issue.) In the days leading up to the election, Pearl Jam released on its Web site a documentary, Pearl Jam: Vote for Change? 2004, by filmmakers Rick Charnoski and Coan Nichols: “We think now is a great time to dig it out and remind people why it is so important to vote.” And even those who might not have created new material were affected and inspired; live performances to rally Obama supporters were common, and scores and scores of diverse artists made public and repeated endorsements.

Michael Chabon, Pulitzer-Prize winning author and Obama Arts Policy Committee member, eloquently expressed the importance of the arts at this critical juncture in the nation’s history:

America’s artists are the guardians of the spirit of questioning, of innovation, of reaching across the barriers that fence us off from our neighbors, from our allies and adversaries, from the six billion other people with whom we share this dark and dazzling world. Art increases the sense of our common humanity. The imagination of the artist is, therefore, a profoundly moral imagination: the easier it is for you to imagine walking in someone else’s shoes, the more difficult it then becomes to do that person harm. If you want to make a torturer, first kill his imagination. If you want to create a nation that will stand by and allow torture to be practiced in its name, then go ahead and kill its imagination, too. You could start by cutting school funding for art, music, creative writing and the performing arts.

WAVE THAT FLAG

It’s been more than 40 years since a champion of the arts has occupied the White House. That will change on Tuesday when Barack Obama takes the oath of office. And it’s hard to doubt that he will live up to his promise to “use the bully pulpit and the example he will set in the White House to promote the importance of arts and arts education in America.” He will be one of only three presidents to have selected a poet to read at their inauguration, and the inauguration festivities fittingly kicked off Sunday afternoon with a concert, billed as “We Are One,” at the Lincoln Memorial; the MANIFESTHOPE: DC Gallery will celebrate the role of artists in the grassroots movement that catapulted Obama to victory. Even during the transition period, he reiterated his message about the role of the arts in our culture.

It’ll will be tough, however, for Obama to top what he was able to accomplish less than a month before Election Day. On October 13, The Dead—the post-Jerry Garcia incarnation of the Grateful Dead, consisting of founding members Bob Weir (guitar), Phil Lesh (bass), Mickey Hart (drums), and Bill Kreutzmann (drums)—played its first show in about four years at Penn State University. For many Deadheads, aware of the strife and tensions among the four (which many agree adversely affected the 2004 tour), the announcement was a surprise—a pleasant one, though, as the 15,000 tickets sold out in mere minutes.

Deadheads have one man to thank: Obama.

In February 2008, Lesh, Weir and Hart joined together on stage to play some Dead classics at an Obama benefit in San Francisco. “It broke the ice,” Hart told Rolling Stone. “We were able to let some of these skeletons in our closet just fall away.” Then, prodded by the Obama campaign, all four members officially reunited as The Dead for another, larger Obama benefit in the key swing state of Pennsylvania during the homestretch of the race. For Deadheads at least, Obama delivered on his pledge to bring people together.

In the immediate aftermath of the performance, rumors about a 2009 tour began to swirl. One could only hope.

I never had the opportunity to see the Grateful Dead live in concert before the death of Jerry Garcia in 1995, but I’ve been a tie-dyed, die-hard fan for much of my life. I have experienced both of the band’s attempts at a post-Garcia life, first as The Other Ones, then as The Dead—and was excited by the speculation of another tour. So when, in the first week of the new year, I read the news, I vowed to score tickets.

The closest stop on the tour would be opening night, in Greensboro, North Carolina—about a five-hour trip. I knew the demand, as usual for a Dead concert, would be greater than the supply. So I prepared, registering on the band’s official site to get in on the ticket pre-sale. I was ready, I was fired up, and at noon last Tuesday I logged on, credit card in hand. After some frustrating, nerve-racking site crashes and unsettling minutes in a virtual waiting room, success: I’ll be there to witness—on Easter Sunday, appropriately enough—the resurrection of The Dead.

And for good measure, Obama has offered the band a fitting warm-up gig, which they, of course, accepted—the Mid-Atlantic Inaugural Ball on January 20, when tickets for the spring tour officially go on sale to the general public.

With a “Deadhead” and “champion of the arts” leading the free world, there is indeed hope. We just might finally achieve the vision John F. Kennedy professed during a 1963 speech honoring Robert Frost (his inaugural poet):

I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist….

I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well.

And, whether Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, every great civilization in the history of the world is remembered and celebrated for the art it produced. Sure, President Obama faces some daunting challenges, but it is important that other issues not diminish the role the arts can play in the renewal of the country, from reinvesting in arts education to save our failing school systems to recognizing how the arts can help stimulate the economy to simply inspiring us to be and do better.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Inspired by the decades-long effort by Quincy Jones, two musicians have started a petition in an attempt to persuade Obama to create a Cabinet-level Secretary of the Arts. Americans for the Arts, joined by 15 other organizations, are lobbying the Obama team to establish the position as well. Do you support the creation of a such a post?