The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., was almost 60 years ago hailed as a shining example of a new, world-class center for the performing arts. It has now become the epicenter of a nationwide political fight. Upon Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017, he assumed the chair as chair at the Kennedy Center. Having assumed this controversial position, intense debates have emerged over the relationship between art and politics.
Alongside the plethora of other arts organizations residing in the Kennedy Center, sits the Washington National Opera (WNO), which holds the largest endowment of the institution by far. Recently, corporate management announced their decision to “part ways” with the WNO. This is an important departure from the Center’s artistic direction. This somewhat surprising decision has caused quite a stir. It has raised fears about the future of the nation’s opera company, one of the cornerstones of the Kennedy Center’s world-class artistic palette.
Just like the Kennedy Center—they feared losing their coveted role as the nation’s cultural beacon. It accomplished this, in part, by hosting a resident opera company and curating all-star artistic teams. It anticipated welcoming back blockbuster shows such as the musical “Hamilton.” That vision seems to be focusing down the road as the WNO gets ready to vacate the building. As a point of transition, the administration has claimed this decision was mutual. That’s not how most Americans view it.
The overwhelming majority of general observers find Donald Trump’s gesture absolutely hilarious. He allegedly yearbooked himself for months with gags like proposing that the Kennedy Center be renamed after him. Briefly, references emerged suggesting the name could be changed to “The Donald J Trump and The John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” Even with these comments, conversations about a possible name change continue to be controversial among stakeholders and nearby residents.
Gianandrea Noseda, the Kennedy Center’s artistic director, issued a statement that seemed to reflect on the WNO’s departure. He emphasized the importance of community in relation to the National Symphony Orchestra, stating:
“The National Symphony Orchestra is your orchestra; it is part of the community in which you live, and, in some way, part of your family.”
This enthusiasm, stronger than perhaps ever before, lays bare the ties that local audiences felt to their cultural institutions. These connections are in jeopardy as some once loyal customers make their displeasure known. One audience member remarked:
“I’m never setting foot in there until the ‘orange menace’ is gone.”
This split between patrons illuminates a growing divide in the community. Once united in support of the Kennedy Center and its art, they now find themselves at odds.
Plus, artistic and logistical changes have led to the shifting of a concert initially planned at the Kennedy Center to one in the historic photo above. This only goes to show the dramatic changing winds inside this previously immovable pillar of Congress. The Kennedy Center has recently installed external telling signage. Ironically, its defenders sometimes liken it to the letters hastily slapped up at Four Seasons Total Landscaping, a touch that evokes a disorganized branding attempt.
As political tensions have escalated, other civic institutions have redrawn lines on their affiliations with Trump. Even the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery has now recast its portrait of Trump. To no longer be associated with the damage done during his presidency, they altered the labeling. Such actions contribute to a climate where cultural institutions are navigating their identities amidst polarized public sentiment.
Still, the future of the Kennedy Center grows more and more grim. Critics fear it would become a “monumental mausoleum of a convention center,” devoid of the cultural dynamism that characterized the original. As discussions continue about its role and mission, many wonder how it will reconcile its artistic aspirations with political realities.
This framing ignores the incredible stress these cultural institutions are under to support and promote a narrative that aligns with the much larger prevailing national mood.
“The American people will have no patience for any museum that is diffident about America’s founding or otherwise uncomfortable conveying a positive view of American history.”
This perspective emphasizes the pressure on cultural institutions to maintain a narrative that resonates with broader national sentiments.