Blogs and Stories
Obama's New Arts Czar: His Wife
Mary Altaffer / AP Photo
Disappointed that the president hasn’t appointed a point person on arts policy? His wife—who’s surprised the art world with her involvement at events like the Met’s American Wing reopening Monday—fills the bill nicely.
Far more excitement than usual pulsed through the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York on Monday afternoon, and it was only partially sparked by the formal opening of its renovated American Wing. The cause of the real buzz was Michelle Obama.
Escorted by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the elegant, light-filled Engelhard Courtyard, Michelle wowed a crowd of about 250, mainly big donors, trustees, curators, and others involved with the renovation. There the first lady, in a stunning purple V-neck dress—with sleeves, by the way, and a bow—designed by Isaac Mizrahi, gleefully wielded a pair of gigantic scissors to cut an equally gargantuan dark-red ribbon held by a group of schoolchildren. Then she hugged the kids, and many others in the room.
Michelle met with arts luminaries in the gallery in the Egyptian wing named for Hatshepsut, the woman who ruled as pharaoh. “We thought it would be appropriate,” says Rafferty.
It was hardly the first time Michelle surprised the art world with her involvement, and it’s looking as if it’ll be far from the last. She and the president have gone to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to watch the Alvin Ailey Dance Company. They attended the reopening of the newly renovated Ford’s Theater, where Lincoln was assassinated. She’s been spotted at Washington’s Shakespeare Theatre, for a Welcome to Washington event that included performances by the Washington Ballet, the Arena Stage, the Washington National Opera, and other groups.
When the White House hosted a poetry jam on May 12, President Obama opened the event but soon turned it over to the first lady, who said: “I have wanted to do this from day one—the notion of standing in this room and hearing some poetry and spoken word.”
And after the museum gig Monday, she went on to the opening-night gala of the American Ballet Theatre at the Metropolitan Opera House across town.
Michelle Obama is coming out strong for the arts. That’s not all that unusual for first ladies, but from her, it’s unexpected. The arts weren’t viewed as one of her priorities. When she campaigned, there was barely a mention of the arts. Her official White House biography mentions nothing about the arts. It says that the issues close to her heart, the ones she’ll work on, are supporting military families, helping working women balance career and family, and encouraging national service.
There was even an amusing moment at the Met when she admitted forgetting one old connection: Introducing her, the museum’s president, Emily Rafferty, noted that Michelle and the president went to a museum on their first date. Said Michelle, to laughter: “Thank you, Emily, for that introduction, and thank you for reminding me. You know, after 20-some-odd years of knowing a guy, you forget that your first date was at a museum. But it was, and it was obviously wonderful; it worked.”
So the sudden, sustained forays into the arts are boosting the morale of those in the arts community who’ve been disappointed by Barack Obama’s failure to appoint an “arts czar,” a point person who would coordinate arts policy across the government and promote the arts. Having Michelle as arts ambassador may just make up for it. She may be able to do for the arts what’s she’s done for interest in fashion just by showing up at the opera, the ballet, the museum, and the theater.
And her role could go further. At the Met on Monday, she toured a few galleries in the American Wing and then walked through the Temple of Dendur, the Egyptian temple that was given to the U.S. As if to inspire her, Rafferty said Michelle was told by officials at the museum the story of Jackie Kennedy’s role in seeing that the temple landed at the Met.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Georgia O'Keeffe's Love Letters
Judith H. Dobrzynski, formerly a reporter and a senior editor at The New York Times and at BusinessWeek, as well as a senior executive at CNBC, is a writer based in New York. She blogs about the arts at www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts.
Can Michelle Save Jazz?
Judith H. Dobrzynski, formerly a reporter and a senior editor at The New York Times and at BusinessWeek, as well as a senior executive at CNBC, is a writer based in New York. She blogs about the arts at www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts.
Obama Stiffs the Arts
Judith H. Dobrzynski, formerly a reporter and a senior editor at The New York Times and at BusinessWeek, as well as a senior executive at CNBC, is a writer based in New York. She blogs about the arts at www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts.
Unless I'm mistaken, Ms. Dobrzynski is not an old friend of the Obamas and, as such, should not refer to the President and First Lady as "Michelle" and "Barack" as if she went to high school with them. Although Mrs Obama (who I have known for 20 years) will often say upon meeting people "please call me Michelle," it is disrespectful of her position to refer to her as such in print and it feels a bit like the old practice of whites refusing to call blacks "Mr" or "Mrs" no matter what their age or station in life.
I notice this too and I've seen it in other articles, particularly where the first lady is concerned. But is it racism or the fresh, youthful, authentic vibe of the first couple? It's a vibe that makes you feel connected to them even when you know they have no idea who you are.
At rallies or town hall meetings when people shout out "I love you" to President Obama he often answers "I love you back." That he sounds earnest and real saying so is one of those things that makes this president so accessible.
It's clear Ms. Dorbrzynski is quite impressed with our first lady, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. But yes, I think in print First Lady Michelle Obama is the first way you mention her, and thereafter perhaps Ms. Obama.
I think writers feel OK doing it as the Obamas are black.
I'd give Ms Dobrzynski a pass here. We've all gotten a little too comfortable with "Bill" and "Hillary" and "George" and "Laura." This informality has often been seen in both print and online media over the last 15 or 20 years. It's a natural outgrowth of modern culture, where we've all become a lot less cognizant of the social niceties.
It's a long-standing problem for politicians, though. Mrs Kennedy didn't like being called "Jackie," she preferred Jacqueline. Abe Lincoln hated being called "Abe." He worked hard to arrive in his station in life, and "Mr Lincoln" was a lot more dignified.
A poetry jam at the White House? How wonderful!!!
The arts need our First Lady's attention--so glad she's giving it.
As someone who teaches art to boys-at-risk who live with HIV, I live in the art trenches where it's still survival that is in one's face on a moment to moment basis.
Art journalism always goes for the gold, it's easy journalism, go get the the glittering, the gloss on the relevance of art.
What is new about a First Lady with her magic wand who turns pumpkins into pearls. We're off to the side; us artists, certainly not in the mainstream, we're over here standing in the peanut gallery with the swine.
This piece isn't journalism. It's just another published pamphlet.
For the life of me, I've never been able to understand how or why it is that there's never a dialogue that comes from America about the reality of what it means to be an artist versus the glitz institutions imbue art with as they "celebrate" blah-blah-blah (there is virtually nothing they can't throw an event for).
Michelle Obama will be no different because the people who manage art institutions will see to it that she is kept in her "box" or her place.
Which is to lend glamour to the scripted proceedings.
Events where like everything else in American life, the famously successful bask in the warm spotlight of the golden glow. It's never really art that gets celebrated. This is disingenuous. We celebrate money, numbers, how many books did you sell today. Poetic voices are measured by the competition at a slam. Artists are measured by what they can sell at auction.
Being an artist in contemporary culture is far more a giving up than a celebration of anything. The first thing you usually give up is called a life. You can't afford one.
This is not the world of showing up at the opera, the ballet, the museum, and the theatre. How gala. Art is hard work, sweat, usually a spiritual vacuum, and a financial train wreck. It is completely divorced from the red carpet the First Lady will walk on.
What would be truly amazing and unique (no one is hopeful this could happen) is if the First Lady could see beyond the sparkle of the social scene's dog and pony show. What would be truly amazing would be to have an arts advocate for artists instead of art administrators with publicists and the number of the white house and Charlie Rose on their publicist's rolodex.
Beyond the impossibility of that, what would be revolutionary would be to actually have a National Endowment for the Arts that had a focus on the people who make the arts versus a political focus on keeping culture clean and arts administrators with MFAs endowed.
Culture isn't clean. It's gritty. It's made by human beings who often have no choice in the matter. It's trouble. It's controversial. It asks questions to which answers might be nuanced if they exist at all. It is the job of the artist to ask questions. To challenge. There is none of this in the social scene that art is showcased in today.
What would be shocking would be to have a First Lady who had the gravitas to refuse to be more than frosting on the celebration's cake walk. I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm too busy to hold my breath. I can't afford to care where Michelle Obama comes or goes or arrives in a pumpkin carriage to Lincoln Center's pearly gates. I can't afford the frosting or the cake. I'm too busy kissing the *** of gatekeepers. Most of whom live and work in New York. I'm too busy pretending to teach art when, in fact, what I'm really teaching is the art of survival. We don't have a red carpet to roll out. We don't have Charlie Rose's ear. We don't have a band to play Hail to the Chief as he walks into a room. We don't have a publicist or want one.
If we had a pumpkin, we would eat it.
We struggle for supplies. We make do. We go without. We are thrown out of galleries on our ear. We take the bus. We do not drink champagne. You will never know who we are, and you will never find any of our names next to the First Lady's name published in a social scene report pretending to be news.
We are constantly ripped off by the middle men, the agents, the vampires, the editors, the publishers, the publicists, the assistants in galleries that hate art and loathe artists, the administrators, the journalists who write about money (not art), the galleries themselves, the committees that raise billions to buy bigger and better space for the museums that house the breathtakingly successful, the names, cream of the crop, the boards of directors, the machine, the academics who run from art toward a real paycheck as fast as their little legs can take them. This is the world of pretense, not art.
These people can't make art, and they don't make art. They make a mockery of art. To see another First Lady on their arm is nothing new. Jackie was on their arm. Lady Bird was on their arm. Pat was on their arm. Rosalynn was on their arm. Nancy was on their arm. Barbara was on their arm. Hiliary was on their arm. Laura was on their arm. It's the same arm and the same stiff paradigm. These people have as much to do with art as Jesse Helms had to do with insight or self-expression. This is the status quo of the flashbulbs. Smiles. Gowns. Limos. Status. Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. Ho hum. Gigantic scissors to cut an equally gargantuan facade.
We sell our art at the flea market. I am no longer embarrassed to say that. I don't care what you think of me or my art. Take it or leave it, but leave me alone to make it because making it is what I do whether you can recognize that -- or the art itself -- or not. I sit there with my little metal tackle box and keep track of dimes and pennies.
School districts have asked me to come and help promote art education. I can't do that in good faith anymore. If I did I would tell kids: "don't go into art. Don't be an idiot. That universe is pretentious and they will lie through their teeth and tell you that you are instrumental to the building of a culture. When, in fact, it will be everything you can do to put food on the table. Forget about food. Forget about sustenance. Forget about support.'
"You will not be instrumental at anything. The culture they celebrate does not exist. It is a fantasy kept alive for the consumption of the ephemeral and the rich."
Tim Barrus, Beijing
http://le-too.blogspot.com
Hey, like everyone else in their occupations, you need to do what you love best and to make trade-offs in life. I may like art, which I do very much so, but know that my creativity is not as good or may not be as valued as the next person's. Therefore, in order to make a living, I need to supplement my creativity with a job that will afford me with food on the table and shelter over my head. If you are doing something as noble as teaching art to disadvantaged kids, then it should be done straight from your heart but knowing that you will have to seek funding or get a better paying job on a part time basis to sustain yourself. There is no point in being bitter and it does not encourage one to donate to your cause. BTW, I donate to causes that I support and do recognize that at times people need help and think what goes around comes around so I am not saying this because I think people should always be self reliant and that social causes should not receive government or private funding. Good luck and try to find joy in what you do or find some other occupation.
Bravo Michelle Obama for putting the spot light on the Arts. Surely this will elevate the need for great art programs for our public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdijj very creative?
take it or leave...consider the source.
The single most important thing for arts organizations today is money.
Michelle Obama can bring in the big-time donations.
She can also bring big-time publicity and mainstream interest.
Think she can gets authentic arts education into public schools?
TimBarrus -
Wow. As an artist, I hear you. I just wonder if you have eaten a bit too much of the cynical apple of belief that artists must suffer for their art?
It sounds like you are making a tremendous difference in the lives of some young people who otherwise might not have an opportunity for expressing something that can be expressed in no other way than artistic endeavor.
Isn't that art?
isn't that what art is all about?
I agree - the East-coast-psuedo-intellectual-artsy-fartsy-crap spewed out by many so-called contemporary artists is crap.
Teach 'em the difference.
An artist is an artist, not because he has training or technique or gallery shows or magnificent performance venues. He/she is an artist because he/she has something to say that can be said no other way, something that resonates with the participant/viewer.
Authentic art means something profound, something internal, something besides dollars to the beholder and the creator. That is what makes it art.
This is, however, the 21st century and it takes appeal to get public interest, the kind of interest that translates into authentic arts programs in public schools, in non-profit organizations that serve at-risk and underprivileged kids.
If Michelle Obama's magic can generate that kind of interest, more power to her.
I hope she does.
If she doesn't, I will still be an artist, teaching what I know to the kids I work with every day.
And so will you.
I am delighted that the Obamas have chosen to highlight the importance of the arts (sorry, Mr. Barrus, it's ALL arts--the gritty, and also the glitzy). However, all the goodwill ambassadorship will only go so far.
Combined with "feel-good" affirmations of the arts and their importance in our lives, we also need some systematic policy-making efforts that focus consistently and effectively on advocating for this aspect of our national culture.
I don't just mean funding, either, although funding is the vital lifeblood that keeps arts organizations afloat. I also mean legislation that does not impede or hinder artists from doing their important cultural work. This includes everything from Department of Education policies and rules that don't marginalize arts education, a multitude of tax regulations, and many other statutes, right down to municipal zoning regulations that can either shut out or foster budding arts districts in communities.
We all too often talk about how important the arts are, but then we as a nation treat them like the frill they will never truly be, and never really were.
Too few people actually understand their vital cultural function, or the reasons why even very early humans living moment to moment turned their hands to making art, telling stories, and playing music. "Art is Basic" is far more than an old slogan. It's a foundational truth of human existence.
skiffymom- I totally agree. While I appreciate the President's and First Lady's efforts and general gestures, there has to be much more done in our educational system for the arts. The arts that we see on a stage or museum are only a small part of what art does. Art is a way of thinking and learning. Art needs to be integrated into every subject matter taught at schools, just as every subject should be integrated with every subject. All have importance to making an educated person. One "subject" isn't more important while another one is un-necessary. Artistic thinking enables problem solving skills to turn those facts they're learning into something relevant. It's not just about making pretty pictures, it's the process of using one's mind to solve a problem. Most people think art is something you should learn at school only if you plan on being an artist, but we learn how to write, even if we don't plan on being a "writer." We are all these things: a scientist, a writer, a mathemetician and an artist. Art IS basic, just like everything else.
skiffymom - that is a great comment.
The most recent numbers I can access: In 2002, Germany's total (nat'l and state) arts budget was 18.7 times the US's total arts budget in 2003. This doesn't take into account the fact that Germany's population was about 82 million ppl, ours was about 293 million. The German budget covers some things which would be covered by other agencies in the US (all underfuded, though) so the disparity would be somewhat lessened if we could get 1:1 numbers, but still very significant. However, the City of Berlin alone spends more on arts funding than the US federal government. Now, Germany is always pointed to as an example because it is the best in terms of arts funding and valuing the arts, but most of the developed world has got us beat by far. In France (whose system I am most familiar with - Funding approx. 14x USA's, pop. 61mil) there are very discounted tickets available to the unemployed. Arts are for everyone, they are acknowledged as vital to the nat'l identity, so arts funding does not engender a debate about elitism. Very few developed countries are, like us, without a minister of art or culture. Without one, arts funding is patchy and poorly organized between levels of government.
Our arts funding has never been great, but perhaps the fact that the NEA's budget was cut significantly in 1996 (after lobbying by conservative groups who disagreed with the view expressed by some of the performance artists funded), shortly after the cold war, is no coincidence. Countries who feel the need to promote their culture fund their arts. We are confident in our cultural dominance. Culture is our country's largest export. But why not spend money and energy to make sure that it is valuable and thriving?
I appreciate that the Obamas have had modern and contemporary American artists' work hung in public in the White House. I appreciate how much support Michelle Obama has shown the arts. All of this is valuable and admirable. However, shows of support in no way equal the changes of policy and reorganization which is what the calls for a Secretary of Arts and Culture have been about.
I agree with skiffymom.
However, policy decisions are heavily influenced by public interest. If Obama can generate a broader and deeper public interest in all the arts, then policy decisions will follow.
Or at least, one hopes.
I know many people will start moaning that I am a Republican with a chip on my shoulder. WRONG! I am an Independent who was proud to vote for the Obamas. I am tremendously disappointed. Michelle is a Staford wife. All they do is party on tax dollars at the White House. They continually party with big meals and drinks for all their well heeled friends and Hollywood types. Michelle is hanging out with all the rich folks and wearing 500 sneakers while she gets photos feeding the hungry. Barak has been suckered by Isreal. He is about as great as the Bushes. He has backed down on his word on transperency. . .he has ignited a greater war in Afganistan...and will NOT get our troops out of Iraq. I could go on and on.They nothing but the usual. Hang out with the rich. Do nothing for the people who are hurting. Party as many nights as possible.And break promises. Oh yes, I can hear it now from all you people who have drunk the Kool Aid. They are the Bushes once again. Oh Lord, when are we going to get some real folks. I would rather a thousand Monikas then these phonies....
TimBuris. . . what a fascinating fascinating post. . . I hear you. . . You should send your article to the New York Times or to the White House. . . I hope they see it. . . so many artists and so many "normal" people who love art. . . feel this way. . . its all about the rich and their phony contributions to the art world. . . you said it all. . . I am aghast how so many people are taken in by the "parade". . and the Obamas who I prayed would be different, but alas.. and Michelle Obama who I truly had high hopes. . . is nothing more than another one on the phonies on the red carpet. . love you
Wow. I guess everyone's a critic. Even "artists". The first lady is brining attention to the arts and STILL there are complaints. Skiffymom - what do you want her to do, rip off her sleeves and strong arm congress into compliance? Further, are you aware that we are in a recession? A lot of schools can't afford to even stay open let alone revamp their art curriculum. Why don't all you arrogant holier-than-thou "artists" do yourselves a favor and pull your heads out your as*es. You'll be able to breathe much better.
Bravo Michelle! Keep doing what you do!
Really?? There are schools who can't afford to stay open? I haven't heard of this. And what does the recession have to do with the importance of arts? That's precisely the point. The arts are not a luxury, frivolous item only for the wealthy, or only to be taught when we have enough money. There has never been enough "funding" in schools, and the arts are always the first thing to go. Schools have been cutting their arts programs steadily for the past 30 years, recession or no recession. The NEA's funding got cut(small as it's budget is) in the 90's when we were doing well.
No artist that I've read here, is holier than though, and no one said they didn't appreciate Michelle Obama's efforts, only that they would like more gov't backing in the form of legislation for arts education and programs that impact everyday people. And we can breathe just fine, thanks.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.