In times of political fever pitch, there’s typically a witch hunt directed at the arts. It begins with defunding the arts as a whole, as though they were a mere frill — but the real goal is to snuff out important, critical art. The public is encouraged to join in the roaring condemnation of anything that offends.
In these ways and others, we’re discouraged from considering critical art closely enough to stimulate meaningful discussion. And by and large, it works.
The media was abuzz last week about a New York City theater, the Public, which was staging a modern production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” in Central Park. In it, the title character physically resembled Trump. The show made national headlines when the Trump family denounced it, and the production lost two corporate sponsors.
In a particularly spineless and unnecessary move, the National Endowment for the Arts shirked the opportunity to educate and promote discussion. Instead, it chose to distance itself from the controversy, posting a disclaimer on its site that no NEA funds supported the Public’s production.
The lethal icing to this fluffy discourse: After the shooting at the June 14 congressional baseball game practice, Donald Trump Jr. and others tweeted blame at the play. Never mind the evidence that the shooter had spent months planning this, and for years had been publicly critical of the member of Congress he critically wounded. Never mind the shooter’s reported personal history of violence. And definitely never mind the conservative rhetoric about the Constitutional right to take out a despotic government.
Senator Rand Paul, who was present at the shooting, last June retweeted Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano: “Why do we have a Second Amendment? It’s not to shoot deer. It’s to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!”
Ironically, Trump-supporting detractors took the Public’s staged murder at face value, ignoring or ignorant of the smart, centuries-long debate about whether Caesar or Brutus is the protagonist. The play serves as a cautionary tale about violent revolt. And the Public itself said in a statement that neither the play nor its production advocates violence at all, but “makes the opposite point: those who attempt to defend democracy by undemocratic means pay a terrible price and destroy the very thing they are fighting to save.”
The fact that Shakespearean plays are often modernized but still performed in the original verse isn’t just because people like flowery words. The Bard was a master at using language to explore each nuance of motive or madness and to always acknowledge ambiguity. The same action can seem heroic or condemnable, or some combination of both. Few of Shakespeare’s plays leave viewers with a tidy sense of resolution, not in the way that formulaic, feel-good storylines do.
The outraged political response to the play is nothing new. In a theater review for The New York Times, Michael Cooper points out that “Julius Caesar” was written “during a tense moment when Elizabethan England seethed with political plots,” and has been “banned or bowdlerized” during many totalitarian regimes.
While we didn’t need further proof of the Trump camp’s unsophistication, its reflexive assessment of the play underscores it. Or at least points toward the family’s obsession with controlling the narrative and playing the martyr. And it also says a lot about what they think of American citizens’ collective intellect.
Despite defunding and political pressure, the Public completed its run of the play, which concluded on Sunday. Good for them, good for us, but we certainly have our work cut out. Critical art asks complex questions, and it’s our responsibility to resist the reduction of this complexity. We must find ways to defend the arts and the artists as the classroom that they are, and hold that space open for our most daring and challenging discussions.
Rebecca Rafferty is a CITY arts writer.
This article appears in Jun 21-27, 2017.
While the anti-cultural barbarians are indeed at the gates, it should not be overlooked that many of their weapons were handed to them by pseudo-intellectual, self-styled aesthetic mavens who the artistic community allow to dictate their cultural standards.
A local case-in-point that could provide obvious fodder for those seeking to slash federal spending on the arts was the Memorial art Gallerys ill-advised hiring of Tom Otterness to provide statuary for their Centennial Garden. While the works themselves were bland enough, Otterness previous involvement with his shot dog video (in which he adopted a dog from a pound, tied it up, shot it, filmed its death throes, and presented the video to the world as a work of art) would make any civilized person question why federal monies, either directly or indirectly, should be used to subsidize the work of such a despicable person.
I don’t see what the problem is here. If you are a lover of the arts, simply get your checkbook out and send in a check. The same with those who want the minimum wage increased. What’s stopping you from tipping your burger flipper. Why does everyone else have to support YOUR causes? If you truly believe what you say, put your money where your mouth is.
So the shooter of Scalise spent months planning the shooting? I guess someone forgot to tell the FBI, as an article in today’s NYT quotes them as saying that the shooting was likely spontaneous. See link below. But the FBI is just not as smart or,sophisticated as Rebecca. If those involved with the arts are unable to distinguish between Hamilton and this obnoxious version of Caesar, it is definitely,time to start defunding them. I have no obligation to subsidize trash.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/poli…
Lyrics so appropriate for the Trump Era.
The Man Who Would Be King
This song is by John Stewart and appears on the album Bullets in the Hour Glass (1992).
Oh it’s time to tell the children
That it’s not about the war
It’s not about the winning,
It’s not about the score
It’s time to tell the children
That it’s not about the rings
That we put upon the fingers
Of the man who would be king
Oh it’s time to tell the children
That it’s not about the gold
It’s not about the money
Things that are bought and sold
It’s time to tell the children
That they don’t mean a thing
Like the rings upon the fingers
Of the man who would be king
Oh it’s time to tell the children
That it’s not about the plan
To see who is the richest
Or the baddest in the land
It’s time to tell the children
That the birds upon the wing
They would never give their power
To the man who would be king
They would never give their power
To the man who would be king
Don’t you realize?
When you see the clues
Right before your eyes
On the evening news
Don’t you realize?
That the children know
What the children see
Is where the children go
Oh it’s time to tell the children
That it is about the heart
That it is about the people
Of this world we are a part
That it is about forgiving
Those who stole the rings
To put upon the fingers
Of the man who would be king
Johnny…you’ve never received help in any form from anyone? Never received a car loan or mortgage? Ever been part of a group health insurance plan? Any time you needed or wanted anything, you just brought out your huge checkbook? Your tax money alone didn’t pay for the roads your drive on. It was only because many pay taxes that you have roads, water, police, etc.
Come one, Tom. I don’t mind paying my fair share. I understand the need for taxes for the greater good. The issue here is one of economics. I, as a rightee happen to like the arts. Not a lot, but I can see and feel how it adds to the vibrancy of the city. So I’m cool with funding, provided it’s not wasteful.
But back to the issue where we disagree. I and many, many others know that lower taxes will create more business (tax revenue) and thereby have even MORE money for things like the arts.
Your argument as I have witnessed over the years wants the money up front, and thereby throttles the neck of the golden goose, holding back tax revenue, jobs and opportunity for EVERYONE.
Trump is trying to reign in the spending and there’s certainly a lot of fat to cut. He’s doing a great job so far. Let the guy govern.
Johnny…I don’t recall trickle down working well in the long term. More business revenue more often leads to excessive executive pay than anything else.
Well, as I said Tom, there’s plenty of waste. How many CEO’s of non-profits make 6+ figure salaries. This is a NON-PROFIT. Why aren’t they donating their time? BTW, guess which current president IS working for free?
Johnny, guess which President is costing us dearly with weeekly golf trips to the hopefully soon underwater Mar-A-Lago?
Johnny – I feel your pain. I know I hate it when I have to pay school taxes, even though I have no children in the district, just to subsidize the educational costs of other peoples’ children.
Or when part of my state taxes are diverted to help pay for some huge sports complex that I’ll never visit.
Or when my federal tax dollars go to pay for a bloated Pentagon that outspends the next 10 biggest military budget countries COMBINED.
As to Demagogue Donny having done a great job so far, I’ll pass by that comment in embarrassed silence.
Luxembourg —
The Washington Post has been reporting on evidence that the shooting was planned. Here’s a recent example.
“Officials elaborated on Hodgkinsons long-simmering political anger about Republicans and spiraling personal problems but still have not pinpointed what motivated the unemployed home inspector from Illinois to travel to the Washington area, where he spent months living in his van in Alexandria before launching the shootings.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/publi…
The powers of the Federal Government are few and defined.
The powers of the state government are numerous and indefinite.
It’s not up to the federal government to fund our arts and just about everything else they currently fund. It’s a state or local issue folks
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.h…
Sorry Johnny, but only SOME of the powers of the federal government are specifically defined. Many are implied.
For example, where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the federal government has the authority to acquire additional post-1789 territory, either thru purchase or military conquest?
Somehow I doubt that Rebecca Rafferty’s eager support for this play would be so fervent if she or one of her family held high political office and was depicted as the title character instead of Trump. By portraying our current President as the assassinated character, the play in not so subtle a manner encourages same. One can call it freedom of expression or dress it up however one wishes. That does not excuse what it suggests and does not negate the right of those with common sense to abhor it. As the writer has no personal stake in the matter, it’s extremely easy to stand beyond the periphery and issue exalted proclamations from afar regarding artistic complexity and other high-minded blabber. While I care about defending the arts, I actually care more about protecting and defending our president’s safety and this is just one more disgusting example of violence being encouraged against him from the left. It should not be tolerated in the guise of whatever benign label one wishes to place upon it.
Cupid —
There’s plenty of nuance to discuss instead of taking the play at face value.
The play has been performed with the Caesar character resembling countless other leaders, including Obama. The people condemning the Trump version were silent about the Obama version.
And interestingly enough, the Obama version had a corporate sponsor — Delta — in common with the Trump version, but Delta didn’t pull its funding from the Obama version.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-a…
I’m afraid you’re comparing apples to oranges Rebecca. Simply put, it’s a different environment. During Obama’s term, there was nothing like the cacophony of maniacal demands and sick jokes for and about the president’s assassination from Hollywood “celebrities”, comedians, and numerous media drones like there is today regarding Trump. That’s why people are not being as silent about the Trump version of the play than the one about Obama.