Sometimes I think all these statues should be installed in museums, if only to rescue them from vigilante vengeance. Yet that puts them into venues where they must be sought out (nowadays, for an admission fee) and are subject to “contextualization,” which sounds helpful but is so only in the rare instances in which it is truly thoughtful, nuanced, and informative, rather than tendentious. God forbid that the passing citizen in the public square, whatever his color or creed, might interpret it for himself. This brings us to such questions as who, if anyone, should be up for public monumentalizing in the first place, or why the passing citizen should not be trusted to interpret what he sees (see education, above). And rather than go there, I’m going to leave off these quarrels over objets to bring us into the realm of the arts of the act, which already come to us in pre-interpreted form. This means considering some of the current developments in the worlds of theatre, music, and opera. (With apologies, I’m bypassing that of dance, wherein the same conflicts are going forward but I do not feel professionally qualified to make artistic assessments.)

˜ ˜ ˜

The Play’s Not the Thing—”Diversity” v. “Quality.” I’ll begin with theatre. But first, here’s a recent statement from Steven King: “I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong.” He also notes that “The best artistic decisions are not necessarily the easiest sociopolitical ones.” Now, these thoughts were in response to an interview question about the Academy Awards, where quality, as represented by the word “best” (as in picture, director, actor, etc.), would seem to be unequivocal enough. And of course we who are dedicated to art often claim a special status for it, and so attach special importance to artistic quality. But think about it—isn’t quality the value you place at the top of whatever endeavor means the most to you, and particularly if that endeavor has about it something that transcends questions of profit and competition, something of a spiritual nature? Would you even consider another? And diversity, per se, simply has nothing to do with quality. As King observes, there’s “a difference between diversity and actual accomplishment.”

The catch is that “quality” isn’t a strictly objective, verifiable thing. There are neither stats on artistic quality nor proof of the effect of, say, diversity on it. Who, then, gets to define quality? My answer is that a rough consensus on quality in an artform emerges from debate among those most intimate with it, who display knowledge of it and talent for analysis and judgment of it—in short, expertise. In individual cases, it is decided by whoever is in the position to do so—a teacher, an agent, a dramaturg, a director or conductor or, at one degree of separation, a critic. Their evaluative acumen and taste will vary widely, but usually something other than corruption or sheer nepotism has put them in the seat of judgment. This is a far from perfect answer (there is no perfect answer), but it is better than one that proposes standards derived from debate among those of no expertise, or of individuals with only outside knowledge of the circumstances and requirements. To those who might raise the objection that this answer is suspiciously like a way of ensuring that I am placed among those deemed qualified to make such judgments, I can only say “Well, of course.” I figure it should be me, in my narrow areas of expertise. And honestly, don’t you think it should be you? I thought so. This is passionately personal.