by Harold McMillan

This piece is probably the first in a several-part series of ramblings on how I, as a cultural worker, experience life here in Austin. My assumption is not that my little story uncovers great truths and inspires personal growth and change. What I want to deal with here, on a really speculative level, is a challengingly complex set of social, cultural, artistic, and political issues. Of course, how I experience them is specific to me. I don't believe, however, that I am the only guy around who is thinking about this stuff. Maybe it's just my newly 40 year-old and slightly porous mind. Maybe I'm thinking more about how and where I want to hang my hat for the next 20 years. Whatever it is, I know I can't possibly get to all that's on my mind in this one column. I admit to being a bit confused about some stuff on which, maybe, most of you already have a firm grasp.

The big thing for me right now is looking at life in Austin and coming up with reasons to live and work here. To be sure, Austin is the only town in Texas that I want to live in right now. Our little college - town - capital - city - third - coast - music - capital - hill - country - River - City ain't a half-bad place to hang out. But, you know, Texas ain't the only place to live in these United States. These united states. And as much as it may sound like I'm about to go into some kinda political rap, that ain't it. (That might be installment seven of the series.) And it's not just about life in Austin; for me it's bigger than that. But I am here. And yes sirs and ma'ams, I'm sure there must be a particular Texas-sized spin particular to us folks down here in the Capital City.

My concerns for this piece are mostly about race and culture and money: about how I see race and culture fitting into the arts scene here; about the pros and cons of doing cultural work in the political climate in which we all operate here. Maybe I said that backwards...but, if I did, that kinda gets to the heart of where I'm headed with some of this. Like I said earlier, I'm confused about this stuff. Can we talk about race without talking about culture? Can we talk about culture without talking about race? Can we talk about the artistic/cultural/political climate in Austin without talking about money?

I guess the bigger question for me is, "Can we talk about culture and race in Austin (the US, the world) and walk away from the conversation without either feeling guilty, victimized, self-righteous, attacked, ignored, angry, beaten or marginalized? At this point -- for most of us, I'd wager -- the answer is "no." But is that bad or just the way it is? And if that is just the way it is, do we just accept that as normal and struggle on?

The pundits line up on all sides of the race - vs - culture - vs - artistic - merit issue. To some in the Austin arts scene, it's ridiculous to suggest that there is a reason to talk about race (as it concerns the arts) at all. To some others in the scene there is little else in the arts scene more worthy of immediate and depth discussion. Of course there are more folks who are somewhere in the middle of those extremes, but some others don't/won't even comfortably involve themselves in the conversation.

Sadly, there are also a few who don't even know that the conversation is going on -- they are above that kinda thing! You know, art!? The people who produce it; those who consume it; those who promote, market, advertise, sell, make money on it are all colorless and color-blind (mostly white, by coincidence). Art is just art! If you don't believe me, just consult the appropriate Western cultural canon for the list.

Now, there is that ethnic art, folk art, functional and "cultural arts" stuff, but here we are talking about true colorless/colorblind art. The thing is, Austin seems to have tons of this colorless/color-blind, above-PC artistic and cultural work, programming that is lily white. And a lot of these same folks who produce this programming are non-profit, tax-exempt, publicly-funded organizations that receive funding from sources that "require" culturally diverse programming and community outreach effort. And what they continue to produce is lily white -- from the artists, to the techies, to the staff, to the board, to the audience, to their advertising. They sometimes also are the folks who get the lion's share of public monies available to Austin's arts groups.

We must also consider that some folks get funds because they address the needs of particular under-served ethnic/cultural groups in town. Black folks who do African American programming, Brown folks who do Mexican American/Hispanic programming sometimes get funds to "serve their communities." Not to worry though, this is never, NEVER, anything close to the lion's share of available public funding.

So, what we have in the public arts community here (and I'd bet this is not all too unique to Austin) is a situation where the folks who get the most money to accomplish their "multicultural" missions, don't. Those who are said to get sufficient money to accomplish their "culturally-specific" missions, don't. Those folks who do the least to address issues of multiculturalism and diversity, but mention them in their proposals, continue to walk away with the lion's share of public arts funding.

To me, this whole scenario illustrates that there should be more conversation going on. Somebody should be talking about this and trying to understand how to put more integrity into the process of acquiring public arts funds. And of course this just brings us back to the fact that this situation is much more complex than it appears to some. Its not just a matter of black and white. Giving a little money to Black folks to do Black programming, giving a little money to Brown folks to do Hispanic programming, and giving the most money to a few "mainstream" major organizations to do their brand of colorless/color-blind programming misses the point of promoting publicly-funded diversity in the arts. It brings us back to debate notions of affirmative action, multiculturalism, and the value of cultural diversity in public arts policy. You know, it's that same conversation that no one seems to be able to walk away from without getting their feelings hurt. The point is, it's a conversation that simply needs to continue until we get better at this stuff.

If we are to come together and benefit from the fruits of the various cultural communities in Austin, public arts funding sources (and the politicians who choose to meddle in the process) need to acknowledge that some rethinking of the process is in order.

Black folks are not the only folks who like blues. Brown folks are not the only folks who like accordion music. White folks are not the only folks who dig Bach. With the little bit of money that folks of color get in this process, you still can count on there being "ethnic programming" produced for Austin audiences.

What should really be looked at here are the "major organizations." Since they get the lion's share of the moneys, shouldn't they also be doing everything in their power to make their programming, their outreach, their artists, their board membership, and the use of their advertising dollars as culturally inclusive as possible. After all, they are the ones who get the big bucks to meet their missions of serving the entirety of the Austin arts community.