Art doesn’t seek common denominator

JOSEPH N. BELL

The uneasy relationship between government and the arts has been on

display both in Washington, D.C., and Costa Mesa recently, and the

issues -- one national, the other local -- have much in common.

In Washington, the Bush administration is trying to diminish the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting by cutting its funding while

turning it into a public relations arm of the White House. And at

home, our mayor in Costa Mesa is -- in his own words in the Pilot --

arguing vehemently against the “use of taxpayer dollars to fund art.”

In both instances, there is clearly considerable discomfort with

public support of the free expression of art and its salutary

importance in the well-being of our society.

Both parties have also paid lip-service to their positions by

pledging their affection for the arts. Mayor Allan Mansoor said: “As

much as I like art, I will not use public funds to pay for it.” And

the chairman of the Congressional sub-committee that cut funding for

the CPB in half told a Los Angeles Times reporter: “I am a fan of

public broadcasting and public radio... but keep in mind that we have

limited amounts of money.”

So apparently what we have here is tough love. Those who oppose

public funding will tolerate the arts -- up to a point -- but will

always look at them with dark suspicion for subversive messages. And

keep in mind that we’re talking small change here. The funding for

public radio and television, for example, even with a portion of the

congressional cuts restored, is probably comparable to what taxpayers

spent supporting those 19 CIA kidnappers in 5-star hotels and

restaurants in Milan, Italy. Or Congressman Tom DeLay’s expense

account. Pleading poverty as a reason for withholding a pittance of

support for the arts is a high order of dissembling. At least Mansoor

isn’t guilty of that. He’s out front with his opposition. Way out

front.

A while back, for example, he opposed the reading at a City

Council meeting of a pro forma proclamation celebrating National Arts

and Humanities Month. Instead, he substituted a statement of his own

objecting to public support for the National Endowment for the Arts

that was mentioned favorably in the proclamation. His reason: the NEA

uses taxpayer dollars to fund artists who create works that some

consider anti-religious or pornographic.

Contrast this with the views of Mark Robbins, dean of Syracuse

University’s School of Architecture, who wrote in a recent op-ed

essay in the Times: “It is of more than symbolic importance that the

country support its creative voices. Government funding for the arts

is not a luxury. As a nation, we must help the difficult to get made

and get heard. Privatizing it risks pushing the arts ever closer to

the embrace of the market and away from its real purposes.”

Underneath all of the surface reasons given for opposing public

support of the arts is fear of uncomfortable ideas that might

challenge convictions rigidly held or possessions -- including power

-- carefully guarded. The thought of taxpayer dollars being used to

encourage the expression of such dangerous ideas through the arts is

anathema to those who would prefer to avoid uncomfortable new

challenges we might never explore otherwise.

Some of these dangerous ideas are reflected in what Mansoor

defines as anti-religious or pornographic. These are his perceptions;

nothing more. He’s welcome to them, but not when they prevent support

for art that a lot of us would see as provocative or fresh or even

funny. I certainly don’t want Mansoor deciding what is suitable for

me -- or my grandchildren -- to see or hear or read.

Art, in whatever form, doesn’t seek a common denominator. Mark

Robbins said it eloquently: “If stories, music, buildings and

pictures merely replay our own notions and cultural mythologies, then

they reduce us to the simplest of equations, mirroring too closely

... the seductions of the market.”

*

A caller to the Pilot properly took me to task for referring to

boxer Max Baer in a recent column as an “evil German.” Actually, he

was neither. I blew this one.

Max Baer was born in Omaha, Neb., and grew up in Livermore, Calif.

He won the heavyweight title from Primo Carnera in 1934 and lost it a

year later to Jim Braddock, as dramatized in “Cinderella Man.” But

Baer deserves some footnotes that weren’t covered in the movie.

He did, indeed, have a history with Germany. In 1933, he knocked out a real German named Max Schmeling, who was a favorite of Hitler.

Later that year, Baer starred in a movie called “The Prizefighter and

the Lady” that Hitler banned in Germany, partly in revenge for Baer

beating up Schmeling and partly because Baer was Jewish.

Baer won 53 of his 84 fights by knockouts, had his own vaudeville

act and appeared in 20 movies -- which I should have remembered since

I was around then and probably saw most of them. He’s also a member

of the Boxing Hall of Fame, has a park named after him in Livermore,

and died of a heart attack when he was 50 years old.

All of which is probably more than you want to know about Max Baer

but helps to assuage my guilt for treating him cavalierly in my

column.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.