Luis Camnitzer Art of the State al art salon in Uruguay, Salon Nacional wa ath 4 theatre and Montevideo. ‘The rooms were in the upper ” when I was an art student durin 1950 eed n one of the wit zs of the « p 100% 4 how sandone could only get to them by climb pe ircase with a hardwood handrail. Th yble sta Pee sonservative. Controlled by the Ministry of Culture ey vas ur an endless alon wa by a committee and a jury formed by very old h an academic taste. pple wit Pe day my schoolmates and I had a terrific idea. The shernoon before opening day we bought several pounds of ; hewing gum. We chewed over night and produced a soft 1 plable mound of little pellets. Then, some hours before the iceremony, we went (0 the marble staircase and stuck our along the handrail. We were delighted with our clever ve of such a bourgeois elitist reactionary event. How- it was winter. The unheated staircase was even colder outside, Most of the pebbles fell off to form a trail of Jooked like rabbit droppings. And the few units that ned were far removed from the word “viscosity. P than anything else, the operation reflected our opin- ‘about the state and state sponsorship. However, looking I would say that we were blaming the wrong people. state could be accused of a lack of imagination, but lity of the salon 0 ult of the government,Art of the State 176 & There is a difference between “art of the state” and, subsidized by the state” although both may Overlap, » 2 of the state” takes over and usurps the expression ofa % ut munity, “Art subsidized by the state” facilitates the ctpne sion of the community In the first case, we think how the powerful, who finance and sponsor art pro ci co-opt or coerce art to serve their interests. But, a5 Soon we recognize the exercise of power, we come 10 ee thy the structure we call the “state” is only one of the Nits holding power. Reducing the topic of power over art to “ay of the state” artificially limits inquiry. Moreover, Posing the issue as “art of the state” encourages us to see “the state! as a uniform, monolithic event in human affairs, a nay. ral event, an act of God,(In this way, when we blame “ite state” for its influence on art, we are basically saying that solutions lie outside the state, that our project should be about finding alternatives, but not all states are the sane, particularly with respect to their relation to the arts. The degree to which the state usurps the art agenda can vay tremendously, depending upon the particular regime cu" rently holding the levers of state power. During the chew ing gum incident, the agenda of the Uruguayan regime ¥ actually quite harmless and not much more than tryin® look like France. From the point of view of the artists, at am question is whether or not any power, state or ae should be allowed to “sponsor” art. There verte com thes follow from this—for instance, who take da inflve™™ State is not involved? What agent”, st are the advantages and the we st s of sponsorship? And nae al iy «gentit idee Au yy time OF aboy ! jg more OF less sjdentity” OF to other hand, evolw ceived and name of identity, superfi median emerging individual expressi It is difficult t expression,” since interaction betwee is even harder to cl: ual expression to ci difficulties are magz democracies where viduality and comn of individualism m: community is essent the religion of marke interests for what th “unity, not just buil mot Product; Ntage poi 0) lang © €nd of th e boy BM the pers ig Gat Nazi Gated eloped es er tWK Art of the State ct in 1950, The Dutch project is interestin, ett i mildly solective and relatively unconditiong, ae ty, Khe p defined itvell 4s an enabler for the EXPKession of pt By, Aye ont & eeemeee! munity Holland funded its artis the e above the cost of living and the Condition for Pettey ¥ tion in the program was to donat the yovernment./ Interestingly, the severest Ctiticigy ts at a rate of 2pm HAM GAS F ne BE weg’ seit Na te three works mathe Zao c ener al af program was that it “disrupted the open market,” The ve 20g o ect was terminated in 1987, not for ideological Feasons od me \ because the government was unable to manageacoege TE 7 that by then numbered over 200,000 pieces, won | Close to the Dutch project was the the 1970s and 1980s. Instead of a salary, Cuba gave an. gee ene ists a subsidy for materials and guaranteed em, éi Cuban approahy if? og a d Ploymentg . St" * | gs sta an art-related occupation, Graduates from ISA, the High ge cased Inmtitute of the Arts, could look forward to jobs such a5 ne Cub: working in a gallery or teaching. The selection processin Holl! thin case was strict and Courses of study starts at the time of graduation th need to be fe-evaluated, During the first phase, institutions would request artiss donate work for their walls, Later on, the state would buy Pieces from the artist and then deliver them to the institu- tions, luring the 1980s. ere is an artistic elite that does not isis in Cuba caused by z ‘Uuban St a Y eCORnized that ae ems Were remarkable 1 POMENt in the life of g at art is not. nly an important Port lety, but also ther tre Must, | also that artists with- . ie - ing Wasted "presented a valu ee. these two extre because of its g emment finan tures of publi hand, both de » the subsidy pro policy starkh © CConomic crisis j Promote exp Take firs land, the m invests $9 1 iNnchuc ®remmer ied by protracted. In Cuba, tracking in all ales of | an early age. This assures that by The ined emp! mnt for: danger of bet ti loyme: Tates. Of t “employment in Endownmv Luis Camnitzer 179 | ted as a social negative; to be taken as seriously | an trea ment in other forms of production. Moreover, | june Dutch nor the Cuban system predetermined eit or direction of artistic output. The Cuban the ee particularly notable, because during its more oe in the decade of the 1980s, it led to an unprec- | ied flourishing of the arts. In fact, one could say that | ae there was no explicit identity agenda, it generated form of national artistic identity. The other end of the spectrum—what we can call the totalitarian extreme—failed completely. Individual crea- tivity was disregarded when not outright punished by pre- determining a desired cultural identity and selecting art- iss to implement it. Proof of the failure of this project was that as soon as state sponsorship ceased, the imagery it had pomoted ceased with it. This was not the case in either Holland or Cuba, where the removal of subsidies was not accompanied by a demise of particular forms of expression. The rest of the world seems to be operating between these two extremes. The US case is especially interesting because of its glaring contradictions. On the one hand, gov- ‘mment financial support for the arts is meagre and struc- lures of public support for culture are thin. On the other and, both domestic public discourse and national foreign Policy starkly emphasize American cultural identity and Promote export of American cultural products. Take first the issue of financial support for the arts. Fin- “and, the most generous country with respect to the arts, 'nvests $91 per capita per year in the arts; the US invests only including the financial support from state and federal Sovernments, as well as all private donations and expendi- _ lures, Of this $6, less than 1 percent (or six cents per capita) * Comes from the federal government through the National * Endowment for the Arts (NEA). As a consequence, the |Art of the State 180 rtists actually able to survive from their w, pan ae jobs in the arts is appallingly small, ang the subsidy that could remedy that situation is Completey non-existent. Given the financial precariousness of the Pro. fession of artists, it is very difficult to differentiate in an production between freedom of expression and mercenary compromise. One must live. / Meanwhile, culture is prized as a part of foreign po, icy. Federal subsidies for the export of American culeue, begun after World War II, have continued to this day. Dur- ing the 1950s, when the Cold War was consolidating, the US government subsidized exhibitions abroad of American abstract expressionists and tours by jazz musicians to pro mote a national image of freedom and racial equality. The US still uses culture as a dimension of foreign policy, mair taining radio stations specifically targeted to audiences is “enemy” countries and promoting sexual abstinence. The official justification for minimal government subsr dies for the arts is that a hands-off policy is the hallmark of a free society. Yet, in practice, the freedom part of te formula is not always honoured. Under President Resgs® in the 1980s, the government felt seriously threatened y pornography. Congress demanded and the executive bras agreed that recipients of grants from the National Endo" ment for the aa should be forced in advance to sign a beard mitment that they would pornographic Many artists found this pee a eae and refased: grants from the NEA rather than defer to the NEA #0” tures, Its rule against Pornography did not survive utional challenge: in 1990, a federal judge forced the NEA to retract it. Artists had Performed righteous and got their money. It was like eating fat with sugat- : __ The contradictions in the American official version its hands-off policy are laid out surprisingly clearly ioLuis Camnitzey lowiné statement made in 209 181 cee eee on Radio Marti. In an up cuba a gest and his views about its role, Gj » Gioia make ‘S two major wnt Atone point he argues that the NE oe like a centralized ministry of culture. 4 never has oper- resources £0 impose its will on the Amer abiainibin not command or control the politics a. arts world, ions" ‘And yet, at another point, he says as insti- it Endowment represents less that one percent of ih pilamthrOpy in the US, tt nonetheless remains the nation’s ingest annual funder of the arts.... Just because a system : Jized doesn't mean that it lacks leadership, trends or lor the stock market, where a single company’s 2b ieee Gioia, chairman dated > It was broadcast to Profile of the Endow- pa direction. Consid | amings cam IrIBer @ rise and fallin overall market results. the only rich country in the world ‘The US is probably that treats culture as unworthy of a national ministry. The - implicit policy seems to be that if the market cannot bear - j,at should not be produced. This does not mean that art production is treated as equivalent to the production of corn, but is actually placed far below on the ladder of value to the eof the country. Accordingly, art is either profitable busi- tes ora selfless hobby. (A tax auditor inspecting my return save advised me to change professions.) The official creed ithat the market is apolitical and lacking in any agenda rou compromise artistic freedom. However, in the » Where there is a lack of strong support for a critique 0 “Pialism, and where markets operate S in myths, “nomic fairness is seen as “class war” 4 1 noe of democracy is “free markets.” In this context, it see uPrising that private sponsorship of the art is Per. a disinterested generosity and called “phil ; ee the pric Sector. While it is assumed that a democratic stateSs iD, 182 Art of the State is accountable to its citizens, the Private sector lag... accountability. Corporate power is very interesteg jn thi lic image, and accountability to the public is Conceiveg a task for advertising and public relations. Given the relationship between business interests and government all levels of the political system the choices made in 7 | porate public relations offices are shaved and edited to fk dominant ideology. In 1970, a majority of the artists Pattici. | pating in the First Biennial of the Latin American Print in | San Juan, Puerto Rico, signed a manifesto dedicating thei. | work to the “liberation of Latin America” and demanded that the text accompany the exhibition throughout all the venues. It was too late to cancel the show, so Phillip Mortis, the sponsor of the event, bought all the pieces so that they could circulate as a collection, without the text. When the philanthropic gesture is made by an individ- ual, accountability is to the taste and/or vanity of the col- lector. With foundations, greater rigour is possible because of the role played by technocrats who possess the training and experience to make professional judgments. Still, most foundations are driven by the goal of gaining and maintal™ ing respectability, which basically translates into doling estitution money for past buccaneering in the building fortunes. The examples of Rockefeller, Ford, and Gues™ heim in the US is today being replicated in Latin Am by Colombian drug lords, who, undoubtedly, will ee fit in time from the same amnesia about their explotts . achieve the same degree of acceptance in the public of : . would seem irresponsible for any national gover’ be © hope and expect that the vitality of cultural li _ of through the natural sprouting of — ie - in enlightened countries, governments * | ig foundations, without waiting for the sprouting f° S ries? its modest way, the National Endowment in the CloseLuts Camnitzer 183 function like a foundation. Like government museums in other COUNETTES, the NEA functions autonomously, to the extent that in the lower ranks of staffing, care is taken to appoint technocrats with experience and credentials in cul- rural production who are not ciphers of political taste. Even though the higher ranks of the organization are political appointees and rotate with every change of government, the same as in Mexico and other countries, the NEA man- apes to achieve some significant degree of independence from political fashions and favouritism. The downside is that the NEA has nowhere near the funding level, politi- cal clout, public visibility, or networking possibilities that a Ministry of Culture would have. An interesting case is that of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. Venezuela is presently going through a centraliza- tion process with respect to art and the state. Technocrats ing appointed at lower levels of staffing, where they ed to apply, to some extent, professional stan- judgment. Meanwhile, all the government arts iknown as “foundations”) are being consolidated de administrative body. The new Venezuelan pol- een criticized on a number of grounds: loss of ini- Pby the museums, growth of suspicion and distrust ding traditional museological criteria, and a relaxation fin standards in the acceptance of art for national competi- tions. Parallel to all of this, there is also a marked neglect in the upkeep of public sculptures, including those of some nation: us Soto, Alejandro Otero, and o al glories, such as Jes s Cruz-Diez. One would think that these Venezuelan gtists had given Venezuela a form of visual iden- ;. however, this image is considered as reflecting . market and not local reality. The Chavez cs the language of populism and class iden. er, it is not clear yet what new cultural forms184 Art of the State this may generate, or whether in the process, a TBidty yg develop that may stifle cultural vitality. | am reluctant to express a blanket Condemnation state agendas in sponsorship, because if a preset isn commanded, the results need not be stultifying . form of problem-solving, and projects and Commissions problems to be solved. As long as We, as artists, are allie to find “our” own solutions to the Problem, there is not that much difference between designing an ane advertisement for Absolut Vodka, Painting a mural for the Mexican Revolution, or producing work intended to fitthe market profile of a particular gallery. Postcolonial societies, in Particular, need to develop an iconography that can anchor co; is the use and this enterprise that may invalidate the project. Just as se i absorption and self-indulgence can invalidate individel S 5 & =< ; truly artistic language. Much greater is t* When ot Sate policy on the marker or anti products When the state commissions art for public use, it influeo® i the direction of artistic work. Demand, in other words, ences supply, Artists competing for commissions are ¥™ Ing within the Narrow Parameters of the project on = Art projects, whether Publicly commissioned ao Vately demanded” can be defined by the constraints for 7 artist, Art expression Tanges widely. At one ae '§ the unintelligible Monologue, which function io 48 therapy for the arti i : Ust; at ¢ eme 13 EY" declaration that ig he other extr ato? wht i i HI d chiefly é 'ng to insecure Powe Y programmed an ex : Tholders, Art at these two almost always Benera tes nothing of interest. Eve? ;UU” Luis Camnitser 185 ossesses an artistic rigour, therapy art rarely contributes to the development of community. Total programming on the other hand even if it consciously addresses community interests, produces work much too predictable to inspire interest. Somewhere in the middle, between therapy and empty repetitiveness, lies art that offers the kind of dia- Jogue that builds an authentic culture. It is to the support of this middle ground that art sub- sidy should be tailored. The goal is as much as possible to free art workers both from market pressure and from fash- ion. When artists have freedom to set up projects, creativ- ity is maximized. Unfortunately, subsidies are not as wisely administered as they could be. There is a marked prefer- ence for short-term subsidies, which provide insufficient time for major innovation. The dominant cultural dis- course privileges consumption by fetishizing objects. This strongly affects cultural subsidies: much more money goes to museums than to artists currently engaged in creating new work. And, even in those preferred venues, the per- centage of space reserved or the exhibition of art is getting smaller as more is invested in reception areas, shops, and food service, The utopian society might be defined as one in which every Person is ensured survival and is paid to live, instead Paying to be alive. While this ideal seems ever more dis- Sof eet try to find ways to stall and reverse the pro- d pan e uetion. In culture, what we seek is the time rough dia tesearch who we are—to discover community prima fon The modern state has been perceived as mmunity ‘oundation of collective identity, but state and power ee not the same thing. The state is a vehicle Preserve gas to police boundaries, collect revenue, ural identi € peace. A state is not the same thing asa ty. States work hard to propagate an identity lt186 Art of the State because it’s an efficient and relatively cheap way to tem obedience and promote loyalty. The question is how ; vehicle of the state can be put in service to communis, in ways that are wise and healthy, not shortsighted, five: vating, or worse. This question, of course, is much bj than things pertaining to art. It encompasses all of those things—in fact, art is a big part of the answer, 1. This paper was first presented at “Phe: A panel at the University of British ¢ sium of the same name held 8 Selby Hickey. Divi 2. Virginia Hollister, “Vi Research Project,” Nat Arts, June 2001, https://filli 3. Antonio Eligio Fern State” panel discussion Vancouver, April 8. 2006. 4 National Endown the Arts,” October 29 ‘Art of the State” was,