Thanks to today’s Guardian, I learned about the US project, Picturing America. Schools can apply for it and in return they receive 40 pictures of American arts/crafts for the school. Sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Library Association, it is spearheaded by John Updike.
So the thought of Updike determining the national treasures sent off alarm bells. I went and looked at the announcement and then the official site. And then I tried to find some critical commentary other than the “great opportunity” boilerplate stuff. There is none. None?!? The NY Times doesn’t even mention it. Somewhere around 25,000 schools have the kit; NY City alone has about 1,700. And no critical comment? And I really searched, using both popular and university search engines.
It is not that it is really bad. In fact, there’s enough there to mildly irritate the anti-PC people. But the representation of women? One women painter and one women photographer. So suppose they allotted 2 places for women, 2 for blacks, 2 for native americans and 2 for Hispanics. That would leave…. . Well, I’m so sick of counting conference participants that I didn’t do the sums, but 2 out of 40 for over 50% of the human race. OK, maybe so women have been typically as excluded from art as from philosophy, but still. Not even a little Georgia O’Keefe?
Too late? Then why the 1963 Dibenkorn?
And then the pictures are taken to illustrate great American themes. Forget “as American as motherhood and apple pie.” Domesticity in any form isn’t one of them. Nor religion in fact. Of course, not wealth. Well, have a look.
And let us know what you think. I am particularly concerned that for many children it carries the messages I got as a child. Which is that the production of American art is seriously disconnected from ordinary folk. You know, the non-elitists, and particularly the mothers and sisters and daughters.
Here’s the announcement and here’s The website.
And finally I broke down and did count. Out of the list of 40 named artists, it is really true that only 2 are women. Looks like a philosophy conference!
As it turns out, John Updike has an essay about the project at:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21552
His perspective seems nicely captured by the following remark:
Wow– that’s inevitable, huh? Good to know.
Well, certainly not mother and apple pie.
The next sentence in the Updike speech referenced by JJ is this:
“Yet my skimming survey of our sensitively diverse set of forty artworks cannot avoid these founders.”
Wow wow wow. He thinks the set of forty is “sensitively diverse”? How the heck would he come to that conclusion? Part of the problem is definition. Supposedly, the set of 40 is to represent “significant American art”. And it’s called “Picturing America”. So it’s a history of significant American art? If so, you certainly have to INCLUDE these “founders”. But there surely are questions about the meaning of significance, and significant to WHO that seem not to have been asked, never mind answered.
Has sensitive diversity had it’s brief moment? Well, when John Updikes thin patriarchal lips don’t determine what’s significant anymore, maybe. Although there are probably many similarly thin lips where his come from.
[...] of their lips, but it doesn’t seem controversial to agree that they are patriarchal. JJ’s post points out that only two of the forty are women. And, as she notes, thus far there doesn’t [...]
Have you looked at the text, though?? Here’s part of what it says for the theme ‘Freedom and Equality’ (after the obligatory Abe Lincoln/Declaration of Independence blurb):
“From the first stirrings of the War for Independence through the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, the pursuit of freedom and equality has been the central aspect of our nation’s history. Americans, whether standing alone or marching together, are united by their devotion to these principles. Picturing America calls to mind the great sacrifices this devotion has inspired, and the hope of greater equality yet to come.”
Wait, what? Surely the whole point of the civil rights movement was that Americans *weren’t* united by their devotion to equality… I’ve rarely heard such propagandist rubbish.
Heg, you are brave. And thoughtful. Thanks for calling this to our attention. I am very sad that NEH has so discouraged critical thinking about our past.