Art, Autonomy, and the Fourth of July

Not far away from my own home in Maryland, there has been a scene of strange juxtaposition in the leadup to the typical festivities that herald America’s birthday. By technicality, it is a momentous event in terms of significance - the country’s semiquincentennial - or its 250th anniversary. While this particular landmark occurrence has gained significant traction - with reenactments, performances, and festivals throughout cities such as Philadelphia, Boston, and Los Angeles, there is one particular setting that has garnered more controversy than renown. It is ironic, perhaps, that under the Trump administration, the nation’s capital has become host to the strongest division of this July. 

Of late, coverage of the 250th has been frequent and polarized. Outlets have primarily reported on the festivities’ planning split between the bipartisan organization America250 and that of Freedom250, the president’s personal fund. Division over two conflicting agendas - with Trump seeking to instate a particular conservative vision of the celebration, one sometimes criticized for being self-venerating rather than universally celebrating, has led to sharply conflicting imagery in its depictions. Right-wing media have proclaimed a successful, widely celebrated effort by the president, while more liberal outlets have in turn drawn attention to undermining factors such as the conspicuous lack of crowds. It is perhaps a microcosm of perception altered by political division: but fundamentally, there is something else to this particular controversy that is of more insidious concern - how creative expression has been caught ever-consistently in the crossfires.

Among all that participated, artists experienced the most direct impact. Among the lineup that had originally planned to perform, primarily musicians, more than half withdrew due to the increasingly polarizing direction of the two venues. Many stated they simply did not want to incur any division - and were nonetheless immediately fired back at by the president, being called “highly paid, third-rate artists.” Trump later suggested that the performances be cancelled completely, replaced with a speaking rally alone.

What this suggests is a fundamental disregard for creative work - and a simplification of art into the frame of pure imagery and glorification. While a common saying is that all art is political, the phenomenon taking place has instead become an inversion, an attempt to center nuance into total singularity. The idea that existing art must be, without room for interpretation, reframed into a self-promoting schema is not just a vain one, but a dangerous sort of notion. 

Another hallmark of D.C bears a similar weight. The Kennedy Center was another attempt by the president to simplify existing art and fulfill a personal agenda - the dismantling of its prior board of trustees and the much-focused-upon advances to rename it. Beyond ideology and convention, it is once again unsettling how a creative institution can be so quickly dismantled for any outlying motive. Whatever sense of righteousness or lack thereof is entailed in such a decision, no autonomy is given to artists themselves - and the true conceptual value of their art is disregarded.

What is perhaps most worrying about the future of the humanities - as written before, clearly seen in attitudes towards writing, is a fundamental lack of choice given. If institutional protection towards key tenets of learning are not fulfilled, it further denigrates the value of creative work where it had already become steadily precarious On this Fourth of July, I would recommend thinking about your fundamental role as a writer - across time - past, and future.