Three Contempory Issues
Three Issues / Possible Thesis Topics
Julie VW
SMU
Contemporary Issues AA630
May 19, 2003
#1 The State of the Symphony
Are symphony orchestras dying off? Are symphonic organizations healthy enough to survive economic challenges and "graying audiences?" According to Martin Bernheimer, "Subscriber lists are shrinking, recording contracts lapsing, broadcast commitments collapsing [and] competent kappellmeisters are hailed as towering geniuses." Last week the Florida Philharmonic essentially shut down, and the Louisiana Symphony failed to meet payroll obligations. "Serious music is expensive," Bernheimer writes. "It requires generous subsidy from the private sector if not from the city, state, or national government. America, unfortunately, places a low priority on symphonies." In this age of shrinking corporate support, dwindling endowments, and state budget cuts, can classical music survive?
David Patrick Sterns argues that opera companies and symphony orchestra are "stronger than ever" and dying orchestras are the result of mismanagement, or part of a natural lifecycle. Sterns believes the press makes industry wide generalizations based on the problems of a few orchestras (such as the San Jose Symphony). The resulting publicity and conversations may not paint an accurate picture, but it keeps the general public from taking great music for granted. "Orchestras will survive because the public, more unconsciously than consciously, knows that when its opera company and symphony orchestra go away, the only thing left in many cities will be congested strip roads, plastic burger signs, abandoned bowling alleys and cable TV."
This debate extends far beyond Behnheimer and Sterns. Every few weeks an expert editorializes on the incredibly robust health, or demise of classical music. The issue includes determining what makes a "healthy" orchestra, what (if anything) can be done to save a dying genre (organization), and at what point should corporations and governments stop pouring money into classical music.
#2 Arts Education - What's the Point?
We, as members of the human race, deeply value art. In an article for Educational Leadership, Robert Sylwester writes "Because the arts can be expensive, their presence throughout human history reflects their importance." He cites archeological discoveries of beadwork and jewelry which required intense investment of both time and resources to produce a product that did not contribute to physical survival. We have "a seemingly innate desire to go beyond the mundane, and to do it with style and grace." Even a primitive culture of section of society consider to be in poverty will have art, music, stories, dance, and other celebrations of creative activity. We willing pay to have, create, or see great, and not-so-great art.
The people in charge of allocating funds for the public often want to reduce or eliminate money for the arts and arts education. The issues of accountability, evaluation, and measurement complicate the job of those trying to appropriate money efficiently. Advocates in turn, try to justify arts program via improved test scores and the visibility that comes from public performances and exhibitions. Sylwester observes, "it's a real stretch to imagine that the arts emerged aeons ago to enhance spelling and algebra. . . . Must math also then enhance music to remain in the curriculum?"
As an arts educator who has lived through several budget battles, I am intrigued at the arguments for and against arts education. I feel like I'm "stooping to their level" when I need to cite research on the "academic results" of music education. This paper will examine the debate on funding arts education in the public schools and the reasons arts educations has been justified. Charles Fowlers book Strong Arts Strong Schools could serves as a primary text for this issue
.
Pickle Brine isn't Art
(but it makes for some tasty cucumbers!)
If one wants to preserve cucumbers, one generally prepares a vinegar, sugar, salt solution and immerses the cucumbers in it until the vegetable has pickled. The brine, in a sense, immortalizes the cukes by preserving them and making a form of cucumbers available to anyone who wants to eat it (even out of season!) The pickle juice is useful, but no one would mistake it for a pickle!
By definition, arts organizations ought to be on the cutting edge of creating culture. Artists create, design, imagine, and form new things. Historically writers, composers, painters, poets, sculptors, and storytellers have lived on the very edges (or beyond) of what the dominant society considers acceptable. Artists create culture. Many of our arts of organizations however, are essentially pickle brine, preserve art instead of creating it. Art museums, symphony orchestras, and theater companies are all guilty of being stuck in the past. Preservation has a role in the creation of new art, but does the act of preservation constitute art? Can a preserving organization really be called an "arts organization" if they aren't involved in creating art? Would arts organizations have a difficult time attracting audiences if they were living in the future instead of the past?
This paper would look at the reasons so many arts organizations seem to be behind the times when arts ought to be leading our society.
