#10: Art, Responsibility, and Taxpayer Dollars: Constant on the Dept Cultural Affairs controversy

Pete Constant, former San Jose Police Officer, former San Jose City Councilmember, and professional visual artist, discussed why he was deeply troubled by the city-funded art show ("Holding the Moment") that arguably promoted violence against the police. He provides thoughtful insight into the problematic nature of government-funded art.

Opp Now: Let's start with first principles. Why is the city government even involved in putting on art shows at the airport? Why do we even need a Cultural Affairs department?

Pete Constant: To answer that question, we need to look at the intersection of arts, culture, and government.  People in big cities have grown up with art around them in different places, such as museums and parks. What has changed is that art used to be something that was fueled by private philanthropy, where artists, the community, and wealthy people would create works, then give them to the public. Historically, that's how millions and millions of Americans were exposed to art.

But that dynamic has morphed over time, and now there is a growing opinion that government should actually be the generator of art.

ON: How can a city generate art?

PC: In San Jose, for example, the city government requires art as part of all public projects--a certain percentage of the projects' funding must be allocated to new public art. It's a policy that has been indiscriminate in its application. For example, when we built the police substation in south San Jose, there was a requirement to have public art inside the station--a place where basically nobody from the public would ever see it – in fact I would say it’s improbable that any one would go to the police station just to see art. Look, I was with the SJPD for 14 years and I never noticed the absence of art at the police station. Even in times of tight budgets and big deficits, this public art requirement remains.

ON: As an artist, how do you respond to the complaints about the Cultural Affairs show?

PC: I have been a professional visual artist for decades. And I see and appreciate the value of art and its role in society, and the importance of educating people about art. But I am not a believer that my - or your - tax dollars should be spent on political or cultural expressions most people wouldn't even recognize as art, and certainly not displayed in places where art needn't be.

ON: A lot of people are understandably made nervous when the vast powers of government start choosing one piece of art over another.

PC: It's a disconcerting change in the role of art. Art should influence culture and government from the outside-in, but government in particular should not be influencing art. And that's what we're getting with these government-funded art projects. Government not only funds the art, they often choose one message over another as we clearly see here.

ON: When you look at the controversial Americana piece, what do you see?

PC: It's clearly disturbing. I showed it to my children ranging from 14 to 19 and each one was offended and disturbed by it. But that's not the problem: there is a place for art to be disruptive and controversial and to express points of view and to move people--especially viewpoints that may not be able to be expressed in other areas. But you cross a line when you target a particular audience. Here's a thought experiment: what if you flip the characters in this piece, and you have a police officer standing triumphantly on top of a protestor that has been attacked?

ON: Political and progressive community leaders would be livid and demand retraction and some sort of reckoning. But those people are silent about Americana.

PC: Look, just because police are the ones being attacked doesn't make it right. But the real issue here is: the government is paying for and displaying it. Any artist can put any of their thoughts into their artwork--that's their right. And I certainly don't believe that anyone should be persecuted or prosecuted for what they do from an artistic point of view.

But here's the problem and the irony:  this is a piece of art being displayed inside a government building paid for by government funds. So even if the Office of Cultural Affairs didn't intend this—they, and the city as a whole, are essentially endorsing the art's viewpoint and messaging by their actions.

ON: But what do you say when an artist says: hey, I'm not responsible for how people choose to interpret my art, it's subjective.

PC: The vast majority of artists are expressing themselves to an audience--they want to be seen, they want to touch and move people. And if that's true, it brings a responsibility to think about how your art might move people or be understood. This is not to say you should self-censor, but it is to say you can't wash your hands of your art's impact: you should know it may move people to action; how it may cause disgust. And part of that responsibility is knowing the venue in which your art will be displayed. Americana clearly was intended to move people in a particular direction--is a city-owned airport really the right place to show it?

I've been a visual artist and a commercial and artistic photographer for most of my adult life. I have never once thought about nor sought government funding. I did my art for myself or my clients.

ON: Is it possible that Cultural Affairs just messed up here and it wasn't pernicious? Just a case of virtue signaling gone astray?

PC: The fact that the city isn't talking about the failure of process and procedure that allowed this piece to get funded and shown at a city building really needs to be investigated.  Look at what happened at the SVO:  they published (accidentally they say) a racist ad on their website photo that hardly anybody saw. They apologized, but the response from city leaders and the community was swift and fierce: they were compelled to have their CEO resign, disband their PAC, and institute diversity and inclusionary training. Fair enough.  But the Cultural Affairs image is arguably even more offensive, as it's an assault on police officers and they used taxpayer funds and a city venue to display it. They haven't apologized, and our government and community leaders are dead silent. That silence is deafening.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity.