Politics and Art

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


The NEA conference call nano-scandal has probably gotten all the attention it deserves already, but Conor Friedersdorf brings up an issue I’m curious about.  Ben Davis says the whole thing was a tempest in a teapot, “essentially a pitch for artists to make glorified PSAs about volunteer work,” and Conor responds:

That sounds about right to me — the call wasn’t about furthering controversial elements of President Obama’s agenda, but it was about deliberately politicizing art — that is to say, encouraging artists to advance particular public policy goals rather than enabling them to spend their time and energy creating works of truth or beauty to the best of their ability….It is that effort that I find objectionable, as should anyone who values art or the autonomy or creative people.

So if this conference call had been with, say, a bunch of educator types, urging them to promote public service among schoolkids, would that have been OK?  Or how about law enforcement groups?  Or veterans groups?

Because I don’t quite see the difference.  Artists don’t exist on some kind of pristine plane of their own and they don’t do their work in a vacuum.  They’re all part of the same culture as the rest of us, and they react to it and try to influence it just like everyone else.  In fact, artists themselves probably view their work as more explicitly political, in the broad sense of the term, than practically any group of people outside of politicians themselves and the professional pundit/lobbyist/think tank industry that hovers around them.  The whole idea of “politicizing” art is as redundant as the idea of militarizing the Pentagon.

It seems to me that trying to persuade people to promote public service is either a good idea or it’s not.  If it’s too heavy handed, it’s not.  If there are overtones of political payoff, it’s not.  If there are insinuations that people who play along will get more grant money, it’s not.  But I have a hard time buying the idea that it’s affected one way or another by the allegedly delicate artistic sensibilities of the people involved.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest