The Kennedy Center: A Stage for Politics, Always
In recent times, headlines have focused on performers who have publicly stated they won’t grace the stage of the Kennedy Center, now named after President Trump. These actions are often portrayed by the press as a principled stand against the former President.
For example, composer Philip Glass announced his reluctance to have the National Symphony Orchestra perform his symphony dedicated to Abraham Lincoln. Similarly, the musical Hamilton canceled a scheduled performance, citing that some institutions should remain untouched by politics. Other artists, including Rhiannon Giddens, the Martha Graham Dance Company, and Bela Fleck, have reportedly followed suit.
It’s understandable that some artists, like many Americans, hold differing political views. No one should be forced to perform where they feel uncomfortable, respecting any contractual obligations, of course. However, the narrative that President Trump has somehow injected politics into a previously neutral Kennedy Center is inaccurate and overlooks history.
The idea that the Kennedy Center was ever free from political influence is simply not true. During past administrations, the presidential box was undoubtedly filled with supporters of the sitting president. The notion that political motivations are absent from such a prominent institution is naive.
It’s also worth questioning whether every cancellation is purely political. Economic factors or scheduling conflicts might also play a role. Richard Grenell, the president of the Kennedy Center, has raised concerns about the media’s accuracy in reporting these events. He questions whether the artists’ boycotts or the administration’s policies are driving the perceived politicization.
President Trump himself emphasized his efforts to improve the Kennedy Center, stating that it had faced significant financial challenges before his involvement. He aimed to revitalize the institution and enhance its standing.
Perhaps a more equitable approach would be to refrain from naming government buildings after living politicians altogether. This would apply to the Kennedy Center, as well as other landmarks named after prominent figures from both parties.
The Kennedy Center, established by Congress under the National Cultural Center Act on federal land, has always been intertwined with politics. Its board includes political appointees, and its very creation was rooted in political considerations.
Agnes Meyer, chairman of the District of Columbia Auditorium Commission, articulated the political rationale behind building a performing arts center in Washington during a House subcommittee hearing in 1957. She emphasized Washington’s role as the capital of the free world and the need for America to capture the imagination of all free peoples during the Cold War.
Meyer highlighted that a cultural center in Washington would enhance its prestige globally, addressing concerns that foreign visitors perceived American culture as lacking. The proposed Great Hall was envisioned as a venue for government hosting of international officials, akin to President Trump’s vision for a new White House ballroom.
Upon its opening, the Kennedy Center faced criticism from New York’s cultural elite, who perhaps viewed it as a challenge to their dominance. The architecture was even likened to that of Nazi Germany and Soviet Communist structures.
However, the use of art for political purposes predates these regimes. From Solomon’s Temple to ancient Greece and the Italian Renaissance, art has long served as a tool for political expression and influence. Like the politicians who patronize it, the quality of the art can vary.
Ultimately, the Kennedy Center, like any institution with ties to government and culture, will inevitably be influenced by the political climate of the time. This is not a new phenomenon, but rather an inherent aspect of its existence.
