By JOSEPH W. POLISI

It's not every day that a Supreme Court Justice will publicly speak on the artfulness of Abbott and Costello or that Stephen Sondheim will evaluate the work of Britney Spears, but those, and more profound topics, were addressed in the Peter Jay Sharp Theater on September 22 when four distinguished Americans—historian David McCullough, Justice Antonin Scalia, soprano Renée Fleming, and Mr. Sondheim—shared the stage for a symposium called American Society and the Arts.

In his talk, historian David McCullough stressed the integral connection between history and the arts. (Photo by Hiroyuki Ito)

The idea of bringing together leading individuals in diverse fields to discuss the importance of the arts in American society has been something I've wanted to develop for many years, since I believe deeply that the arts are not on the periphery of our society but at the center of all we hold dear in this nation.

In developing a plan for this forum, I first hoped that we could have an eminent historian speak on the role of the arts in American history. The name David McCullough immediately came to mind due to his elegant and provocative histories and biographies. As a fan of Mr. McCullough, I commented at the forum that if he were to write a history of the manufacture of cardboard boxes, it would be an overnight bestseller.

Since Juilliard is one of the world's great performing arts schools, I also wanted to have the profession represented, and we were fortunate to have both Ms. Fleming and Mr. Sondheim accept our invitation to discuss the relationship of their artistry to the commercial demands of today's American marketplace.

Finally, I felt it was important to have a speaker who could address the role of the arts within the context of the individual freedoms protected by the Constitution, with particular emphasis on the First Amendment. During the many years I have been teaching my graduate course, also titled American Society and the Arts, I have been struck by how each class of students has been amazed by the breadth of personal rights protected by the First Amendment, from the freedom to burn an American flag to speech in all forms. I felt that Justice Scalia would be the perfect presenter on this topic, since New Yorkers have rarely heard him speak in public, and his views on the subject might be quite different from the day-to-day discourse that we experience in New York City. I believe my hunch was right, because the justice brought the proper amount of wit, charm, and erudition to the forum, presenting a heady mix of issues throughout the afternoon.

Justice Scalia spoke about individual rights and the First Amendment. (Photo by Hiroyuki Ito)

As anticipated, Mr. McCullough was the avuncular, charming, and mellifluous speaker that I had known through television and vicariously through his literary "voice" in his numerous books. Instead of addressing the arts in the entire country, he opted for the arts within the history of New York City and its environs. Taking that limited geographical area, he then wove a tapestry of images and concepts that enthralled the near-capacity audience in the Sharp Theater. My one surprise was his positive outlook on the arts in our society. He decided to overlook some of the problematic issues I see every day: a lack of arts education in our schools or the undersupply of jobs for our graduates. Mr. McCullough's words cleared my "mental palate," so to speak, by dealing with the wonder and beauty of the arts and their transformative impact on us all. He was able to highlight the extraordinary presence of the arts in our city and our nation, and was not demoralized by the perfunctory issues of day-to-day life that can sap our idealism and our energy.

At the conclusion of his speech he described a high ridge in Brooklyn's Green-Wood Cemetery, where, near the grave of Leonard Bernstein, stands a memorial to those who fought in the Revolutionary War. "It's all part of the same American experience," he stated. He concluded by reciting the "ancient, sacred, and joyous poetry" of Psalm 150, after which we could only add to our applause the word "Amen."

Justice Scalia was charming from the very onset of his talk, commenting that "Today's program reads like some sort of weird I.Q. test: Which of the following is out of place: diva, author, composer, lawyer?" He continued, "In fact, it might be said with some degree of truth that the main business of the lawyer is to take the imagination, the mystery, the romance, the ambiguity out of everything he touches."

In his talk, the justice addressed exactly those topics I had hoped he would. It was intellectually brilliant, playful, and substantive, jumping from contracts to intellectual property to copyright law and, finally, to the First Amendment.

(left to right) Composer and lyricist Stephen Sondheim, soprano Renée Fleming, and President Polisi discussed artistic integrity and commercial entertainment. (Photo by Hiroyuki Ito)

Justice Scalia's analysis of the individual rights protected by this powerful amendment is too profound to be summarized, but I was particularly pleased that he addressed the complexity and multifaceted nature of the First Amendment. One particularly salient comment summarized a great deal: "The Bill of Rights was designed to cover not the most important rights, but the rights a tyrant was most likely to infringe … Given this criterion for selecting the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, it surprises me not at all that forbidding the censorship of music, dancing, painting, and sculpture is not included."

Probably Justice Scalia's most frequently referenced quote by reporters covering the event was: "The First Amendment has not repealed the ancient rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune." Although certain newspaper accounts implied the justice's desire to cut government arts funding, his view was more complex and balanced than such a conclusion suggests. What I understood him to say was based on the justice's comment that "the only way to eliminate any government choice on what art is worthwhile, what art isn't worthwhile, is to get the government totally out of the business of funding." His point of view has been borne out by many previous scholarly articles and court decisions.

Since the government is in the business of funding art through the National Endowment for the Arts, long-term practice has established that the N.E.A. may put applications in a priority order based on artistic excellence determined through peer review and the limitations of funds, which precludes the possibility of giving grants to all worthwhile projects. Far from stating that the government should get out of the business of supporting the arts, Justice Scalia rather clarified why the government cannot fund all art.

This issue has been made more complex in recent years by the N.E.A.'s almost universal prohibition against funding the work of individual artists, a clear outgrowth of the Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano controversies of 1989-90. Some artists have contended that it is, in fact, the responsibility of the federal government to provide funding for individual artists with no recourse on the government's part if the artistic result is viewed as objectionable. Certain European countries have been periodically identified with this type of unfettered support.

President Polisi (in the foreground) was the moderator for the symposium on American society and the arts. (Photo by Hiroyuki Ito)

Personally, I don't view this position as politically viable in America of 2005. The federal government has never had a history of such a "hands-off" approach to arts funding, from commissioning statues of George Washington to the design of government buildings. For artists to be totally unencumbered by a donor's/commissioner's point of view in developing new art, they should only accept commissions from private citizens or institutions who respect each artist's aesthetic and who will be less problematic to deal with than the federal government.

After intermission I had the pleasure of asking some questions of Renée Fleming and Stephen Sondheim. Both artists have realized enormous success in their chosen fields, and I wanted to delve into their views of the ongoing struggle in America between commercial forces and their rampant consumerism with the need and desire to develop and present works of artistic depth and integrity.

The first question I asked would be familiar to anyone who has taken my class in the past 10 years: "What do you see as the difference between art and entertainment in America today?" Sondheim was quick to respond, saying that such a distinction was a 20th-century phenomenon: mass entertainment was created "and suddenly there was high art, middle art, low art … and that's an unfortunate distinction."

Ms. Fleming, for her part, was discreet yet direct, noting that "political correctness" had often forced Americans to not make a distinction between the two. That said, Ms. Fleming presented a very personal view, saying that "anything that affects me strongly, that I'm still thinking about the next day… that has a potential for really changing me, moving me, that I can learn from I think of as art."

The full panel, (left to right) Stephen Sondheim, David McCullough, Renée Fleming, Antonin Scalia, and President Joseph W. Polisi, gathered at the end of the symposium to answer audience questions. (Photo by Hiroyuki Ito)

From my perspective the question is almost impossible to answer (in public, at least) unless you really put forward a personal perspective on your own artistic viewpoint. As Ms. Fleming said, political correctness often forces a public discussion to be equivocal as to the difference between art and entertainment. If one states (and believes) that the complexity and profound intellectual and emotional power of the Grosse Fuge is superior in experience to a Bruce Springsteen song, one will probably be dubbed an elitist by the vast majority of the American populace.

Thus, we tend not to address the question in public. The key to resolving the problem is the presence of a focused, curriculum-based arts education and a resulting understanding of what, in fact, Beethoven created. Popular American culture has clearly diminished our desire to be discerning individuals, with American Idol and Tosca thrown into the same arena and asked to survive side by side through the lens of an uninformed public.

As the discussion progressed it became even more animated, with Mr. Sondheim and Ms. Fleming interjecting rapid-fire observations while I tried—with little success—to redirect the conversation. It must have been my reference to Britney Spears as a potentially artful performer that shocked Mr. Sondheim into a decisive statement about art: "The fact that it's 500 years old," he said (referring to Shakespeare in this case, not Britney), "and people are still interested in it makes it art, perhaps." In fact, when the question was subsequently re-addressed, the issue of longevity as a characteristic of art, not entertainment, was reinforced.

My next question about commercial pressures on my guests on stage didn't really resonate, because both artists are so distinguished that they are, in fact, above those pressures, although both agreed that such pressures do exist. The remaining time allowed us to rapidly jump from Rent to Rodgers and Hart, to Manon and, finally, to the importance of including the arts in primary and secondary educational curricula.

Popular American culture has diminished our need to be discerning individuals, with American Idol and Tosca thrown into the same arena and asked to survive side by side through the lens of an uninformed public.

The forum concluded with all four guests joining me on stage for questions from the audience. Stepping back from my role as moderator for a moment, I marveled at the presence of these four extraordinary individuals at Juilliard representing such an exceptionally high level of achievement in each of their respective fields. Would that their ideas and commitment to the arts could be communicated to the rest of the country so that we could reinvigorate our educational systems on the primary and secondary levels by infusing them with a strong arts curriculum.

In fact, the first question from the audience focused on exactly that point, when someone asked what the individual citizen can do to promote the arts in schools. Mr. McCullough responded immediately by saying: "Speak up … [In the arts] you learn by doing … you can teach something about writing, but you can only learn to write by writing [my emphasis] … you can only learn to play the piano by playing the piano … and if the student gets that idea, that in itself is a huge step toward the joy of learning … learning as a lifetime adventure."

When I asked the next question dealing with the impact of the religious right on artistic creativity in America, I expected sparks to fly, but our guests saw no impact whatsoever. I found the reaction (or lack thereof) curious, but I also realize that, as with commercial pressures raised earlier, these artists are so distinguished that such pressures, if they do exist, can be ignored.

The ensuing question also had the potential for some controversy when the issue was raised that although "the halls of Juilliard are filled with students of color and diversity, the audience here today is 99 percent white. How can we change this in the future?" Justice Scalia proffered the concept that "kids are going to be affected more by their parents than by anything else … It's not a surprising phenomenon, and it's not a phenomenon that has anything to do with race or color. It has to do with, I think, family stability more than anything else." But the consensus of the panelists returned to education as the only substantive way to realize a nationwide inclusiveness through the arts.

This part of the forum also amusingly raised the question of whether or not the famous Abbott and Costello skit on the weirdness of baseball names ("Who's on first; what's on second …") was art, with Justice Scalia forcefully asserting that just because it had lasted for more than 50 years did not make it art. Mr. Sondheim strongly proclaimed that no one in the audience even knew of the skit. When he then asked for a show of hands from those who were well aware of the routine, the theater was filled with outstretched arms. However, Mr. Sondheim rejected the impromptu poll, based on what he saw as the perceived advanced age of the audience members!

Suffice it to say that a unique and lively time was had by all in the newly-named Sharp Theater. Organized and impromptu discussions continue to resonate in our classrooms and hallways as to what took place on September 22. In some ways that was the most important goal of this gathering: to stimulate serious thought and discussion as to why the arts are of such great value to each of us and how we must continue to work to assure that the arts are a powerful and positive force in our nation and in our world in the time ahead.

Joseph W. Polisi is the sixth president of The Juilliard School and author of The Artist As Citizen.