Kennedy Center Reflections

Work at the Hirshhorn is progressing along quite well. I’ve been involved in some wonderful projects, some a bit less glamorous and then some that have found me continuing to learn my way around this place. This week, we open a new exhibition: “Refract, Reflect, Project: Light Works from the Collection.” Here’s a little bit more about the exhibition:

Throughout the history of art, light has been linked to fundamental questions of vision and perception. Refract, Reflect, Project: Light Works from the Collection explores objects in which light—as substance and subject—is central. Encompassing important practices and movements from the latter half of the twentieth century to the present, these works include examples of Minimalism, kinetic art, immersive environments, experimental film, and conceptual art. Among the artists featured are Giovanni Anselmo, Chryssa, Dan Flavin, Joseph Kosuth, James Turrell, and Thomas Wilfred. The exhibition also will highlight recent acquisitions by such artists as Olafur Eliasson, Spencer Finch, Christoph Girardet, and Iván Navarro. This exhibition is organized by associate curator Anne Ellegood.

In other news, on Friday, February 9, our class met to venture to the Kennedy Center for a day-long visit. We met with three representatives, from Education, Development, and Event Planning, as well as enjoyed a tour and a free performance at the Millenium Stage. For this class, I was asked to write a reflection on my experience at the Kennedy Center, and I have enclosed it below:

---

Friday’s visit to the Kennedy Center was my first time at the hallowed institution honoring John F. Kennedy’s dedication to the arts in Washington, DC. As Ramien Pierre explicated, the Kennedy Center, is a “living memorial.” It doesn’t differ too much from other notable Washington, DC memorials, in that it is honed of exquisite marble, designed with sensitive yet epic architecture and vision, and executed in a style showing a strict dedication to proportion, balance and harmony, but the Kennedy Center has an additional sphere that is absent from many memorials: it lives fiercely in the present and future tenses. While it serves to represent the legacy of our 35th President of the United States of America, it also works to serve the local and global communities by providing innovative, thoughtful, and beautiful performing arts programs. The Kennedy Center is a forum for forward thinking art lovers, up and coming artists, established and well known dance/theatre/singing/musical companies, donors, and new patrons to experience the performing arts and to revel in their transformative powers.

The history of the Kennedy Center is quite illustrious and interesting in light of the current administration’s policies regarding the arts in America. The idea of the institution was signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958 under the title of The National Cultural Center. It was the first time in United States history that the federal government financially espoused the genesis and construction of a building wholly devoted to the performing arts. In much of the same way that Andrew Mellon envisioned and articulated the importance of an exceptional gallery of visual arts in order to bring the United States onto the “international stage,” the original proponents of the Kennedy Center understood the necessity for a space to house the performing arts in Washington, DC. Eisenhower was instrumental in legislatively realizing this project, but it wasn’t until after the assassination of John F. Kennedy that the development of the Center truly gained considerable momentum. Given a large sum of money (upwards of 86 million dollars) with which to cover construction, annual running costs, bonds, and a formal starting grant, the Kennedy Center began with large governmental support, but also ardently sought private donations from the likes of the Kennedy family, Marjorie Merriweather Post, and John D. Rockefeller 3rd. It is important to note the relationship of the Kennedy Center to the United States government—the Center is made up of a private/public partnership that involves the government and the private donors, trustees, and members of the Kennedy Center. While the government funds the annual running costs of the institution, the programs and events are all covered by private funding, gifts, corporate sponsorship, ticket sales, and merchandise revenue.

While it is certainly generous that the government funds the necessary running costs, why doesn’t it give a heftier monetary figure to subsidize the arts at the Kennedy Center? Over the past thirty-six years, the Kennedy Center has defined its character based on artistic excellence and integrity, so why doesn’t the government provide the Center with a greater amount of funding? The Kennedy Center also embodies many educational ideals by providing a wide variety of outreach programs around the nation to infuse schools and communities with artistic conceptualization, presence, and appreciation. Isn’t this a venture that the government would want to support? To try and personally be as “fiercely bipartisan” as the Kennedy Center claims to be, I find no excuse for the minimal amount of funding that is given to the arts in Washington, DC and the rest of the nation. Often people will refer to the arts as merely entertainment, but after witnessing the inner workings, careful decision making, and advocacy that fuels the Kennedy Center, I can not even reconcile this claim of art acting solely for amusement. The Center houses some of the most accomplished, talented and skilled performers around the world—this is a dedication to complete excellence embodied in so many different forms. As Garth Ross indicated, the Kennedy Center attempts to bring together the best performers to complete the purpose of the Center’s mission—to provide excellence and relevance while appealing to the public and pushing them to expand their concept of the performing arts. While many performing arts venues would claim this mission as their own, the Kennedy Center is in a critical position, because they, in essence, represent the true intersection of the global and American performing arts spheres. The Kennedy Center houses all the flags of other countries with whom there has been exchange, contact, and a relationship—many diplomats, ambassadors, and foreign visitors come to the Kennedy Center to be in a space that promotes American arts culture while still presenting international ideas, trends, and ideals. The Kennedy Center must act with prudence, for it stands as a symbol for many as our interaction with other countries through the lens of the arts. So why doesn’t the government fund it more? Should the Kennedy Center have to rely on Target to financially subsidize the Millenium Stage and Performing Arts for Everyone ventures, which act to bring all different types of arts to the public, free of charge? Absolutely not.

The United States government should fund these programs, as they provide an excellent chance to engage in the globalization not only of public paradigm, but of the artistic and performing world today. These programs help enrich the local and international community and reflect highly on the United States and its supposed dedication to the arts. Although I advocate an increase in funding by the government, this should not coincide with an increase in governmental influence and opinion, for it is incredibly important that the arts be allowed to thrive without the censorship and suppression imposed by outside legislative forces. I applaud the private/public partnership in place at the Kennedy Center, and it certainly has proved that the director and staff can create some of the most intriguing, compelling and significant programs in the world; however, if the government were to pledge a larger grant, they couldn’t use that to gain clout and decision making status in the organization. It should simply be enough that the government allows the Kennedy Center reign to create its program, as it currently does. The Center is not going to go off to proverbial deep-end and only showcase experimental, risqué and controversial pieces. While these have the capacity to be good additions to any catalogue, the Center has a fantastic understanding of the pulse of its constituents and public support, and I doubt they would abandon this backing. They know what the people want, but they also try to expand the public’s awareness and sense of what they want.

Although the tour, graciously given by Catherine Russell, was informative in regards to the origins of the gifts to the Center and very basic background information, I was not really aware of the express mission of the Center until Garth Ross’ dialogue with our group. While Ramien Pierre addressed the necessity to garner private funding and corporate sponsorship, I still was not sure of what the Kennedy Center was really trying to do. Mr. Ross’ presentation allowed me an inside look at the decisions that form what the Kennedy Center looks like to an outsider—the program of events. This is provides breath into the Center. It allows it to be a true “living memorial.” I applaud Mr. Ross and his colleagues, such as distinguished president Michael Kaiser, who daily work to supply a collection of concerts, plays, and events that incorporate as many different perspectives, backgrounds, and voices as they can. The Kennedy Center is a very special place, because despite the pitiful lack of government funding for anything other than running costs, it continues to strive for the utmost excellence in artistic ability and integrity, while reaching out to a public, both local and international, that may or may not need to be reminded of the vital significance of the arts to the human condition.