I also cited mute inglorious Miltons in this context, but closer to the original. Billions of children never get the opportunity to create, and increasing the population, without improving health and education, will only produce more
I agree completely with this -- I will be curious about the later discussion of Rawls, there are ways in which the details can get thorny but I think the call to sustain a rich culture for future generations is compelling.
I would add the (obvious) extension of your point, that this also requires opportunities for participation. I occasionally mention Jane Alexander's book about her time running the NEA and one of the things I appreciate about it is that she defends both some of the controversial avant-garde art and also the NEA support for local arts programs. She talks about the importance of local theater and summer stock programs in her own life and her desire to support them going forward.
(Or, to take another example, my parents were actively involved in the [local county] homemade music society when I was growing up. It didn't have any financial support or subsidies but the building that it used for practices and concerts was owned by the parks department and was later closed which ended the concerts.)
The problem with the compelling suggestion that we owe the future a cultural structure is that there's no way to keep these structures neutral in the way Dworkin suggests. They get captured, so what ought to have been a mechanism of creative possibility ends up reflecting the moral and political priorities of career bureaucrats. The NEA is a famous case, but similar examples are ubiquitous. As I've written, most funding opportunities in the arts are doled out based on a regime of identity-based favoritism.
That raises the question of whether they could be made neutral once captured, as with the president's executive order against DEI. Consequently, since energy (hence money) has to be expended to assure the neutrality of the programs, is that arrangement preferable to defunding them and letting those tax dollars and legal expenditures flow back to people to spend on the arts as they want?
Dworkin is addressing an audience whom he assumes will know what he means by arts funding, namely High Art, though he is doing this just as arts funders were turning away from that focus. He is trying to square a circle of not being what he calls "paternalist" (which I might call "exercising critical judgement") and engaging in active policy to preserve culture. And I don't think you can do that - there is no "neutral" cultural policy. And so we have to abandon it altogether (which is Rawls's conclusion, a point to which I will return later), or be ready to make some choices.
I also cited mute inglorious Miltons in this context, but closer to the original. Billions of children never get the opportunity to create, and increasing the population, without improving health and education, will only produce more
https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/mute-inglorious-miltons
I like this post, thank you for posting it, and yes you are closer to Grey’s original intent
I agree completely with this -- I will be curious about the later discussion of Rawls, there are ways in which the details can get thorny but I think the call to sustain a rich culture for future generations is compelling.
I would add the (obvious) extension of your point, that this also requires opportunities for participation. I occasionally mention Jane Alexander's book about her time running the NEA and one of the things I appreciate about it is that she defends both some of the controversial avant-garde art and also the NEA support for local arts programs. She talks about the importance of local theater and summer stock programs in her own life and her desire to support them going forward.
(Or, to take another example, my parents were actively involved in the [local county] homemade music society when I was growing up. It didn't have any financial support or subsidies but the building that it used for practices and concerts was owned by the parks department and was later closed which ended the concerts.)
The problem with the compelling suggestion that we owe the future a cultural structure is that there's no way to keep these structures neutral in the way Dworkin suggests. They get captured, so what ought to have been a mechanism of creative possibility ends up reflecting the moral and political priorities of career bureaucrats. The NEA is a famous case, but similar examples are ubiquitous. As I've written, most funding opportunities in the arts are doled out based on a regime of identity-based favoritism.
https://dissidentmuse.substack.com/p/priority-retort
That raises the question of whether they could be made neutral once captured, as with the president's executive order against DEI. Consequently, since energy (hence money) has to be expended to assure the neutrality of the programs, is that arrangement preferable to defunding them and letting those tax dollars and legal expenditures flow back to people to spend on the arts as they want?
Dworkin is addressing an audience whom he assumes will know what he means by arts funding, namely High Art, though he is doing this just as arts funders were turning away from that focus. He is trying to square a circle of not being what he calls "paternalist" (which I might call "exercising critical judgement") and engaging in active policy to preserve culture. And I don't think you can do that - there is no "neutral" cultural policy. And so we have to abandon it altogether (which is Rawls's conclusion, a point to which I will return later), or be ready to make some choices.