How to fund the arts
You’ll want to start by giving them all the same assignment. Art has always been best when structured, monolithic, and informed by the ruling class. Something like: “foster AI competency” or “make America healthy again.” These are good directions to give arts organizations and the artists they engage. Michelangelo could have been truly great, but nobody forced him to promote ice baths and Ivermectin. Think of what he would have done with the Sistine Chapel had he only used ChatGPT.
You’ll want to create your own sweeping definition of art. Art has always been straightforward, never up for individual interpretation. For instance, you could define art exclusively as something that works to “make the District of Columbia safe and beautiful.” Frida Kahlo failed at this, and that’s why this is the first time you’ve ever heard her name.
You’ll want to nationalize art. Art has always been in service of a unified, militarized messaging strategy. For instance, you might want to insist that art must “support the military.” Consider Bob Dylan, who would have been an influential and revered artist had he chosen to be a champion of the Vietnam War. With your help, he could have called it, “Blowin’ Up in the Wind, On Purpose, Is Good.”
You’ll want to deploy art as a tool for lionizing would-be emperors. Art has always been a method of propping up authoritarianism. For instance, you could decide that art must “celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence.” Had Basquiat understood this as the goal of all art, he might have made an impact on culture.
You’ll want to directly connect the goal of art with the economy. Art has always been better when tied to financial success. For instance, you could proclaim that all art must “foster skilled trade jobs.” James Joyce didn’t understand this, which is why nobody has ever read his books.
The arts have always been a means toward the end of the arts. Famously, all pieces of art are finished and have a clear end-stage. This final form can be reached much faster through proper support. That’s why the best way to distribute funding is to redefine art until it’s unrecognizable—and then pay for a new fighter jet instead.
Behind the writing
In an email to hundreds of arts groups around the country, the Trump administration announced new rules for NEA funding. Priority projects will include those that “celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence,” “foster AI competency,” “make America healthy again,” “support the military and veterans,” and, yes, even “make the District of Columbia safe and beautiful.”
Control of the arts is a weapon of fascism. It is a means of stifling and silencing dissent, individualism, and multiculturalism. Fascism uses control of art for the purpose of propaganda. These rules for funding so clearly and intentionally bastardize and mischaracterize the role of art, to the point (and intent) of silence and obedience. The administration that shrieks about censorship is, in fact, most dedicated to censorship.
What I’ve been reading
A Message from the NEA’s Literary Arts Staff
“…and while budgets aren’t meant to be interpreted literally, it’s clear that even if something called the NEA exists in the future, it will have very little in common—in orientation, scale, and capacity—with the agency that has existed since 1965. (…) The Trump Administration’s assault on civil society has taken many forms; Stolls, Day-Yapa, Flynn, and Sheriff’s note is an eloquent tribute to one crucial element of that assault.”
Yes, think of how influential Woody Guthrie might have been had his guitar not been adorned with a sticker that read “this machine kills fascists“
That new fighter jet is art.
They can take down those "Pardon our noise, it's the sound of freedom" billboards and replace them with "Have you thanked us for the free concert(Sound of Freedom, Opus 1)?"