I did not know about The Federal Theather Project, but it made intuitive sense to me when I read about it for this week's class. Government-sponsored arts offer decent pay, job security, stable funding for projects, and decrease the limits created by profit-centered artistic decisions. However, such a dependency also creates the political limits and vulnerability that ultimately ended the TFTP. In a capitalist world, I am torn by how artists should go about funding their endeavors- particularly large productions that require immense funding, personnel, etc. Relying on the state for funding allows political actors to co-opt, defang, and stop the proliferation of generative and dissenting art. But relying on the market also sanitizes art- disincentivizing new experimental modes, and encouraging more mainstream politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bgbHlqa8mg
This is part of a stand-up set that Trevor Noah did about a massacre of miners on strike in South Africa. I think the jokes and orientation of this bit are in bad taste. I question if he hadn't produced specials for the private marketplace if he would have had different sensibilities for this topic? How might his funding and curated audience shape the stance he takes in this set?
Good questions, Ahmad--how performance (and the arts in general) is funded makes a big difference in what content can be presented. I also appreciate your notion that Noah was catering to capitalistic (and hegemonic) tastes with this stand-up routine--do you think there is any way out of this funding "loop"?
ReplyDelete