As the story of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts progresses, many of us understandably focus on the vandalism to the face of the building committed last Dec. 19.
The defacement we focus on is the name of the president who led a scheme to rename this memorial to JFK after himself, after replacing the center’s directors, making himself chair, and having its voting rules changed to exclude ex officio members (the ones whom Donald Trump did not pick himself). The part of all this craziness that happens on the outside of the public building where the legal name has been restored, which the administration now spitefully covers with tarps to hide the correction, naturally gets the most media attention.
The more impactful part of the May 29 order by US District Court Judge Christopher Cooper, aside from restoring the Kennedy Center’s name everywhere from the building’s entrance to websites to bus signage, was to stop the illegal two-year closure of the Center that the administration had ordered, ostensibly for renovations. Any such plans will have to follow the legal process of review involving Congress, and the Center is expected to continue programming in the mean time. The voices of the ex officio members of the Center’s Board of Trustees were likewise restored (not that this levels the balance of power on the board, but it’s something).
After failed appeals, Trump has more or less given up this humiliating fight to make this particular, and uniquely national, expression of the arts a monument to himself.
There may be a hundred ways to look at what Trump was up to all along. One easy answer: he simply threw his cartoonish vanity into yet another distraction from his other scandals and policies.
In “Art is Not Optional”(The Anti-Authoriatarian Playbook, June 15), Scot Nakagawa points to another chilling motive: authoritarianism needs to choke the arts. That is, arts beyond its own self serving imagery and marketing, of course. This is typified by efforts to deplete the National Endowment for the Arts. “What is being defunded is the democratic imagination – the capacity of a pluralist society to recognize itself in its full complexity.”
Especially right after most of us joined the No Kings Coalition in the Concert for the First Amendment Sunday evening — what is your perspective on the priority of the arts in preserving our democracy?
Susan Williams
Dunes City Indivisible, COIN Leadership Team, and COIN Comms Team / Florence
Although I don’t claim to be an artist in the technical sense of the word, I have come to believe that the arts humanize us by helping us see the world through other people’s eyes and experiences; express emotions that are hard to put into words; and connect us with one another across differences.
The arts remind us of our shared humanity, encourage empathy and reflection, and help us find meaning, hope, and beauty in both ordinary and difficult times. And God knows, we can use a boatload of all of that right now. We must fight for the arts, now harder than ever before in my lifetime. From Jimmy Kimmel to Victor Quiñonez, whose exhibition at the University of North Texas with works touching on immigration and identity was abruptly removed shortly after opening; to Gabrielle Goliath, who saw her selected project for South Africa’s pavilion at the Venice Biennale canceled by government officials after controversy over references to Gaza — we need to stand ready to defend our First Amendment rights.
Why? The First Amendment protects not only popular or agreeable art, but also art that challenges authority, questions social norms, criticizes government, or expresses unpopular viewpoints. The principle is that a free society benefits when artists are able to explore ideas without government censorship.
Peter Bergel
Salem Regional Indivisible, Indivisible One Million Rising, The PeaceWorker (Founder/Editor) / Salem
The arts are a form of speech, and as such, they are protected by the First Amendment. A society is only as free as its citizens are free to say what they wish in any forum and in any manner they deem appropriate (within some reasonable boundaries of safety, e.g. the prohibition to falsely “yell fire in a crowded theater”). Whether the art produced finds more detractors than supporters is not relevant to its role in civil discourse. The arts – and the freedom to engage in them – are a way to measure how free the country is. If there are limitations placed upon the arts on the grounds of some people’s beliefs or preferences, the country’s freedom is in jeopardy.
Equally important: the arts offer a variety of opportunities to communicate ideas, feelings, thoughts and dreams that go beyond words. Some of these connect directly to our hearts in powerful and motivating ways.
For at least these reasons, the arts are crucial sustainers of our democracy and require our support if we wish to restore that democracy. Losses of freedom in the area of the arts quickly convey us onto the slippery slope leading to autocracy.
Bobby Sample
Dunes City Indivisible & COIN Comms Team / Florence
The National Endowment for the Arts, in these merged-corporate times more than ever, is crucial to fostering the arts beyond their commercial value alone. As Nakagawa’s article explains, philanthropy (which the arts have already fully tapped) cannot make up for the single largest funder of arts and arts education in the U.S.
Art as product and product only was on display Sunday evening on the White House lawn. There’s nothing wrong with martial arts fandom, but as Ultimate Fighting Championship fighter Bryce Mitchell put it — to say the least — “our government is desecrating its role in society” with events like that.
I can’t rush to judgment about the involvement of the government with sports per se or with any other entertainment, as the point is not some notion of low art vs. high art. But we know an important line has been crossed when an event with our national seal on it — using our resources, no matter how much the administration claims other sponsorships footed the bill — is used to advertise Donald Trump’s personal crypto and media companies. And, with $1.5 billion in annual revenue, the folks at UFC didn’t need promotional help from us, either.
The need to save our nation’s artistic soul goes beyond preventing the White House lawn from getting this close to filling up with stray car parts and planters made of toilet bowls. It’s really about preventing the ever-fewer corporate overlords from swallowing our cultural identity, regardless of taste.
Justin Lloyd Ludwig
Florence Indivisible, City Club of Florence, Florence Young Professionals, Florence ORganizes, COIN Comms Team / Florence
I’m noticing a common theme as the Trump administration supercharges the consolidation of wealth among corporations and wealthy supporters. Whether it’s in the arts, promoting human rights, protecting the environmental, or simply the president’s rhetoric, a similar pattern emerges: it’s a race to the bottom.
Cut funding for medical care and food assistance. Slash environmental regulations. Approve monopolistic mergers among large corporations. Disregard due process for migrants. Replace a national celebration with a cage fight.
In the arts, I see this race to the bottom every day in the form of AI slop replacing art in local marketing and event flyers. It’s everywhere these days, and not in a good way.
Trump’s financial supporters are profiting heavily from the AI boom, and the administration is pushing construction of large data centers across the country.
As we continue to learn more about the environmental damage caused by AI, many people are re-evaluating their use and support of the technology. I have personally seen a shift in discussion around this topic over the last few months.
The rapid expansion of AI data centers is occurring during a time when the EPA (gutted by DOGE) has faced over $29 billion in canceled or frozen grants, making it easier for large corporations to reap windfalls in profit from construction with minimal regulation.
In some areas, clear cutting projects have removed natural habitats and residents have been forced by eminent domain to give up land to support construction of the massive AI data centers.
Not only are they raising electricity costs for millions of Americans, the data centers that power AI have also polluted local water supplies and run the risk of draining water aquifers in areas where water is already a limited resource, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently discussed during congressional questioning of the EPA.
The backlash has grown in many communities across the country, on both sides of the political aisle. It’s a unifying, nonpartisan topic, and has become a trending theme among 2026 college commencement speeches.
AI-created art is also contributing to the loss of jobs among artistic communities.
Where I live in Florence, Oregon, there is a wonderful art community. I’ve spoken with several local artists who have expressed frustration with AI being trained on their work (without permission or compensation).
Once a person’s original art is uploaded to the internet, AI companies like OpenAI have trained their systems to learn from and imitate that art. This allows these companies to create amalgamations (AI slop) for users based on the work of thousands of artists.
The artistic community is already one where many people struggle to earn a living. This shift in the industry may further exacerbate that problem.
What will become of our cultural identity after the AI revolution under Trump? I hope more people will consider the implications.
Add your voice to the comments below! If you would like to contribute to future installments of Our Voices, let us know.