Interesting Saturday morning read here.
This article discusses the process by which American art is acquired and commissioned for embassies, consulates, and other American outposts abroad. It states that this art can act as another arm of American influence and understanding abroad (mentioned in the same breath as our cinema and television and music).
I wonder if the true goal of this program - exposure to American culture - is achieved by placing the art in buildings that aren’t often reached by a majority of foreign country’s citizens…. seems a bit beyond the golden gates to me.
I’m a HUGE advocate of cultural diplomacy - the “soft diplomacy” of state sponsored concerts, tours, art exhibitions, etc. The key is that these must be able to be consumed by a mass portion of the country the work is being performed/displayed.
As an American, I don’t get exposure to foreign artists by visiting the embassies of their home countries - but through visiting scholars, artists, exhibitions, and musicians.
There needs to be a more public face.
Like Lorin Maazel taking the Phil to Korea two years ago (I think), or American students being invited through their academic institutions to visit countries (I think of my Chinese politics professor who as a student at Cornell went to China even prior to the pan on Americans visiting went into place), or perhaps even public/touring lectures (Benazir Bhutto in the 80s/90s speaking publicy in the states).
These are the sorts of efforts in cultural diplomacy we should try to stress more.
8 months ago