Politics – Page 12 – Robert Bettmann

Art and Stereotypes: What is a Gay Character?

I contributed the following piece to Bilerico on July 12th. It’s based on an older piece, which you can see here. I like this version. It’s tighter, I think. Would love some comments if anyone reading has any on it.

A female friend turned to me a few years ago and said, “You’re a dancer! That’s so great that you’re in touch with your feminine side.” It reminded me that my profession is embedded with expectations of gender and sexuality. Dance is not masculine, feminine, straight or gay, but it seems like most people think it is. Why do we see dance as feminine, or gay?

We all live within communities. And so while you could say – for instance – that “Hispanic men like soccer,” to do so would be invoking a stereotype, not projecting a reality. In the practice of theater, stereotypes are used. When you go to create a character on stage, you need to project aspects of character from which an audience will ‘read’ the vision you are trying to create. At the same time, from what I’ve seen, many artists project the same character stereotypes that their work is seeking to dissolve.

Artists are the visionaries who create the new world (at least that’s what it says in our press packets). So while we exist within communities, we are also leaders, responsible for helping others to find a new way, a new truth, and the way away from The Guiding Light. When we pay homage too deeply to existing stereotypes, we lose our ability to express a more complex, holistic humanity.

Art – dance inclusive – has always been a home for the alternative. Artists are ‘different.’ Today as all members of society jockey for full participation, artists are unfortunately making our own acceptance more difficult by producing work that fetishizes notions of masculine, feminine, straight, and gay. The projection of character and community are complex. To the degree that we as artists prepare the audience to see the world in stereotypes, we perpetuate a society that judges us in the same way.

Are there essential character traits to being a man? Are there central character traits to being a gay man? It is fine to answer glibly that, yes, being a man means liking beer, sports, and Jessica Simpson, and that being a gay man means liking fashion, wine-coolers and Jake Gylenhall. But in reality, the fetishization of ‘gay’ characteristics, like the fetishization of ‘female’ characteristics, pigeon holes not just artists – but also audiences – into oppressive roles.

Being a dancer does not imbue one with a definable character. It doesn’t mean that you are sensitive, feminine, gay, or straight. Being gay does not give you a character either. Being a woman does not give one a certain character. Being hispanic doesn’t give you a certain character. We still live in a world where smart people (for example Lawrence Summers, recent past president of Harvard University) actually debate whether men and women have the same intellectual possibility. As long as we cling to theatrical stereotypes of masculine/feminine/gay/straight, we give validity to the limits placed on any of those groups.

As audiences, and artists, we owe it to ourselves to allow individual character to overcome community stereotyping.

Toronto City Council still can’t field a winning professional sports team

As reported on April 3rd in the Toronto Star, the Toronto City Council is increasing arts spending, noting that the arts are “essential to Toronto’s vitality.” As reported by Bruce Demara,

Councillor Karen Stintz, considered a member of city council’s small “c” conservative faction, summed up why, in her view, proposals for the culture portion of the budget were approved.

“When we talk about the National Ballet and TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival), I actually see them as investments in the local economy because they have economic spinoffs that are beneficial for the community at large,” she said.

“So I see them as completely legitimate expenses for the city and good investments.”

Mayor David Miller is pleased to see relative unanimity on the issue from an often fractious council.

“Arts funding is always money well spent. It’s a huge sector of our economy but … in a diverse city, it also helps us learn who each other is. Those are investments that become even more important where the economy’s weak.

“The arts story in the City of Toronto is an example of incredible success in using public funds wisely to help create investment (in a sector) which employs people and helps us become a vibrant, interesting city.”

You can read the entire article here. The article broke down the spending, reporting it as:

Theatres

(taxpayer cost: $3,716,500)

Sony Centre for the Performing Arts: $1,161,100

St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts: $1,495,800

Toronto Centre for the Arts: $1,059,600

Culture Services

(taxpayer cost: $15,402,000)

Community Partnership and Investment Program

($45,332,000 out of total budget)

Art Gallery of Ontario: $520,000

Canadian Opera Company: $1,266,000

National Ballet of Canada: $1,104,000

National Ballet School: $132,000

Toronto Symphony Orchestra: $1,090,000

Gardiner Museum of Ceramics: $130,700

Festival Management Committee (Caribana): $475,000

Pride Toronto: $119,000

Toronto International Film Festival: $675,000

Toronto Arts Council: $11,287,780.

Local art services organizations: $522,950.

Toronto Artscape: $258,840

Royal Winter Fair: $920,700

Several small non-city-owned museums: $79,050

Possibly in related news, the Toronto Raptors went 33-49 last year, and the Toronto Blue Jays went 86-76.

Why the cuts to the DCCAH don’t make sense

I just got off the phone with the DCCAH’s budget officer in the OBP, and have been corrected about some of my misunderstandings in reading the proposed 2010 budget.

District Arts funding appears in the DCCAH’s budget in two ways. Money approved for management by the Commission, and earmarks. The grants are competitive. You apply, go through panel review, and if you are selected, you receive money. Earmarks are written into the budget. They are non-competitive, there is no review, and no oversight.

Looking at the planned FY 2010 budget, it looks like the general fund is down over 50% from the 14 million FY 2009 level. In fact, the planned FY 2009 budget looked very similar to this year’s budget at this stage. Last year, five million in earmarks were tacked on outside of the agency’s budgeting process. This year the same thing is happening. They are apparently still closed-door haggling about the exact earmarks, but in the end, the FY 2010 budget will look quite a lot like the FY 2009. Looking at the FY 2010 budget right now, it looks like we’re experiencing massive cuts. But that is only because the earmarks haven’t yet appeared. They are not public – in consideration – and only appear on the actual, approved budget. Excuse my alarm in misreading the budget. Things haven’t really changed at all. It’s just that almost half of local arts funding dollars go through politicians, not the DCCAH budgeting/granting process.

It should be noted that the earmark system – while wickedly abusive of political influence and back room pandering – is currently necessary. The largest grants that the DCCAH offers is 250k. If you are a District arts org needing major funds the only way to get them from the District is through an earmark.

______________________________________________________________________________

As some of my readers already know, local arts funding has been particularly targeted in DC’s recently submitted FY 2010 budget. The DC Advocates for the Arts, and I as chair, are engaged in conversations considering what might be an appropriate response to the slashing of local arts funding.

The cuts to the DCCAH dont make economic sense. The only way to understand the cuts is to understand how our priorities shift – as a whole – based on economic trends. For a number of years Gallup has been tracking the interaction of economic issues with concern over environmental trends. The poll below shows that we stop prioritizing the environment when the economy is in trouble. This may not be in our best economic interest. For instance: green economy/green energy jobs would be local jobs, not exportable, based on creation of energy in the United States. Even if we are cutting, the government still spends a lot money. How should we prioritize that spending? Our public officials need to look beyond poll numbers to make decisions in the best interest of the local economy.

Funding local arts is an efficient means for government to stimulate small business, and support livable communities. The Districts FY 2009 budget was a 9 Billion dollar spending plan. The DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities granting budget – which is the money distributed to local artists, was 13 million in FY09. It is easy to look at rising deficit numbers and assert that we have to cut everywhere. But cutting money that makes you money — that isnt where you start if youre smart. Local arts grants stimulate local tax revenue from emergent and small arts businesses. On top of that – the cuts are far too small to make any difference to the big numbers.

From FY 2009 to FY 2010, the DC Department of Human Resources has been cut from 17 million to 15.3 million, a cut of 10%. The Office of Finance and Resource Management has been cut from 246 million to 240 million, a cut of 2%. The Office of Contracting and Procurement has been cut from 15 million to 12.8 million, a cut of 15%. From FY 2009, the budget of the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities has been cut by 37% overall, and the general fund (the grants) have been cut 51%, for FY 2010.

Cutting the arts is the wrong decision economically. If cuts must be made, the arts should not be cut more than other lines in the budget. Local government arts spending provides services to district residents (through arts and continuing education) and contributes back through tax revenue. While it might seem antithetical, now is the time to increase, not decrease, individual grants to artists and small arts organizations.