As we face the next four years under the Trump administration, artists are confronted with a landscape that is increasingly hostile to creative expression and the protection of marginalized voices.
There is something to be said for distinguishing self funding projects as resistance. This is the goal. Connecting art with money is what I used to do very actively. The landscape is changing. Where yo find the money is changing too.
Creating proposals for art projects which are effective and realizable in the new environment is key. In some instances, projects may have to be done in other countries and brought in. We don’t know how far our restrictions will go when it comes to looking for free uncensored presses for printing, public spaces that will allow murals which haven’t been vetted politically, or performances in theaters which challenge the new norms without theaters being closed down. There is a whole new set of conditions under which art resistance must take form.
You’re absolutely right. Resistance through self-funded projects is becoming increasingly important in this shifting landscape. It's something I’ve been thinking about deeply, and I actually have something coming out this Sunday that touches on this very topic. It will dive into the challenges and opportunities in navigating this new environment for art as resistance.
I enjoyed both posts this morning, "Preserving Pompeii" and "Silence is not an Option" - thank you! I was struck by the dilemma of appreciating the art and culture of the House of the Faun, owned by Pompeii's wealthiest, while feeling anger toward today’s "Oligarchy" and their influence over the Trump administration. I’m sure the art in some of today’s residences is stunning too. I wonder if artists in Pompeii felt the same way we do now?
It’s a fascinating parallel. Artists in Pompeii may have grappled with similar tensions; creating for or being inspired by the elite while resenting the inequality they embodied. The House of the Faun’s art celebrated wealth and power, yet it immortalized the work of artisans whose names history forgot. That duality feels eerily familiar today. Perhaps they, like us, questioned their complicity or sought ways to quietly subvert power through their creations. The frustration with oligarchic influence is timeless, but so is art’s ability to outlast it, becoming a testament to both the era’s opulence and its undercurrents of dissent.
This is yet another call for subsidy, as opposed to patronage. Subsidy is the compelled redistribution by a state actor of private earnings to those who offer as justification the hallowed privilege of status. Patronage is voluntary.
The demand for subsidy implies the unpopularity of what is subsidized, because it can not live on its own in the wild. There are artists -- and, by that I include all the creative arts -- who have long endured without a handout. These are courageous individuals, some of whom I have patronized.
The museums are full of grotesque, indulgent mockeries of art, thrown together by the untalented, untrained and unskilled: Paid for by just these subsidies. You are welcome to read my essay, Houston's Museum of the Joke, for an exegesis of this perspective in a nutshell.
Your call to action for the state subsidy of Leftist political propaganda, masquerading as art, ironically demands that those you despise for their (our) ideas should pay for your livelihoods so that you may continue to condemn those who are forced to support you.
I will not be forced to pay for loathsome work in any of the arts, certainly not by when approved by a government bureaucrat who also lives off of the dole which I'm forced to pay for, and, after decades of putting up with it, I frankly resent the demand. All subsidies must end.
There is something to be said for distinguishing self funding projects as resistance. This is the goal. Connecting art with money is what I used to do very actively. The landscape is changing. Where yo find the money is changing too.
Creating proposals for art projects which are effective and realizable in the new environment is key. In some instances, projects may have to be done in other countries and brought in. We don’t know how far our restrictions will go when it comes to looking for free uncensored presses for printing, public spaces that will allow murals which haven’t been vetted politically, or performances in theaters which challenge the new norms without theaters being closed down. There is a whole new set of conditions under which art resistance must take form.
You’re absolutely right. Resistance through self-funded projects is becoming increasingly important in this shifting landscape. It's something I’ve been thinking about deeply, and I actually have something coming out this Sunday that touches on this very topic. It will dive into the challenges and opportunities in navigating this new environment for art as resistance.
I enjoyed both posts this morning, "Preserving Pompeii" and "Silence is not an Option" - thank you! I was struck by the dilemma of appreciating the art and culture of the House of the Faun, owned by Pompeii's wealthiest, while feeling anger toward today’s "Oligarchy" and their influence over the Trump administration. I’m sure the art in some of today’s residences is stunning too. I wonder if artists in Pompeii felt the same way we do now?
It’s a fascinating parallel. Artists in Pompeii may have grappled with similar tensions; creating for or being inspired by the elite while resenting the inequality they embodied. The House of the Faun’s art celebrated wealth and power, yet it immortalized the work of artisans whose names history forgot. That duality feels eerily familiar today. Perhaps they, like us, questioned their complicity or sought ways to quietly subvert power through their creations. The frustration with oligarchic influence is timeless, but so is art’s ability to outlast it, becoming a testament to both the era’s opulence and its undercurrents of dissent.
This is yet another call for subsidy, as opposed to patronage. Subsidy is the compelled redistribution by a state actor of private earnings to those who offer as justification the hallowed privilege of status. Patronage is voluntary.
The demand for subsidy implies the unpopularity of what is subsidized, because it can not live on its own in the wild. There are artists -- and, by that I include all the creative arts -- who have long endured without a handout. These are courageous individuals, some of whom I have patronized.
The museums are full of grotesque, indulgent mockeries of art, thrown together by the untalented, untrained and unskilled: Paid for by just these subsidies. You are welcome to read my essay, Houston's Museum of the Joke, for an exegesis of this perspective in a nutshell.
https://birthofvenus.substack.com/p/houstons-museum-of-the-joke?r=e6s49
Your call to action for the state subsidy of Leftist political propaganda, masquerading as art, ironically demands that those you despise for their (our) ideas should pay for your livelihoods so that you may continue to condemn those who are forced to support you.
I will not be forced to pay for loathsome work in any of the arts, certainly not by when approved by a government bureaucrat who also lives off of the dole which I'm forced to pay for, and, after decades of putting up with it, I frankly resent the demand. All subsidies must end.