In almost every society throughout history, the government and the arts of each society are intrinsically linked. Some governments, such as dictatorships or monarchies, dictate what art is, what art is allowed to be performed, and when it is performed.  Other governments that are more focused on democracy and personal freedoms often are less controlling about what art is and what art is performed. Even in the most democratic societies, the government still plays a part in the creation of art. The National Endowment for the Arts provides funding for art in the United States. This organization is in charge of developing grants, reviewing the grant applications and select which art programs receive government funding. This makes the NEA something of a gatekeeper in art development – deciding who gets funding and who doesn’t.

While almost every government provides funding for the arts, Thai royalty’s influence on the arts seems to be more pervasive. Where as many governments provide funding, the readings discuss how Thai rulers not only fund the arts, but are often the performers of Thai performance. Additionally, they are often the leading experts, critics, and scholars. This creates a very risky power imbalance. If the ruling party is the driving force behind, and the main contributors/actors/innovators to the arts, the party can dictate truly what is performed. Art can be performed that allows the ruling party to spread their propaganda without control. Art has often been used to protest injustices and bring attentions to issues that are against the government. With the way the ruling party of Thai is infused into the arts, it is difficult to see art that presents an alternative message to that of the ruling party being performed.  In the United States, we have the freedom to express ourselves in multiple art forms that often go against the governments. After reading this article, I appreciate that fact even more.

Ken W.