So, under the Obama administration's lead, the National Endowment for the Arts recently hosted a conference call with 75 arts leaders from across the nation, during which artists were called upon to "make work that will support the efforts underway in this administration's agenda."
You heard me. Here's just one chilling excerpt:
Obama has a strong arts agenda, we were told, and has been very supportive of both using and supporting the arts in creative ways to talk about the issues facing the country. We were “selected for a reason,” they told us. We had played a key role in the election and now Obama was putting out the call of service to help create change. We knew “how to make a stink,” and were encouraged to do so.
Throughout the conversation my inner dialogue was firing away questions so fast that the NRA would’ve been envious. Is this truly the role of the NEA? Is building a message distribution network, for matters other than increasing access to the arts and arts education, the role of the National Endowment for the Arts? Is providing the art community issues to address, especially those that are currently being vehemently debated nationally, a legitimate role for the NEA? I found it highly unlikely that this was in their original charter, so I checked.
Patrick Courrielche describes this chilling example of how far we've come in such a short time. This is scary stuff, kids. The post, "The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?" appears on the Big Hollywood Blog and you can read it by clicking here. [Big thanks to Thomas Cott (of You've Cott Mail) for alerting us to this.]