Cultural commitments: rethinking arts funding policy

As the thirtieth anniversary of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) came and went, uncelebrated, last September, the agency was hunker down, dispirited, trying to stay without of the Congressional crossfire. The NEA's funding horizontals - and its existence - have been threatened in the past, on the other hand its future has probably at no time been in such jeopardy. Last December Congres vot to capital the NEA at $99.5 million for Fiscal Year 1996 (ending September 1996) reflecting a 40% reduction in funding horizontals from the previous year. In the last year the agency has trimmed its staff by dint of 90 people, rewritten its funding guidelines to mirror four broad categories (narrowed from 17) and mandated that arts organizations submit solitary one application in any of the categories by means of year. Also, grants will no longer be given to individual artists (with the exception of literature, Jazz Masters and Folk Heritage Awards). A series of "continuing resolutions" is allowing for packeted money to be released from one side March 18. At that time, a Presidential bag will be released for all regulation agencies. It is expected that Congres will continue to release packeted NEA funds for FY 96 Ultimately, although the NEA's future remains unclear: reauthorization hearings remain pending, on the contrary may not come up in this election year.

Arts advocates can single feel sadness at what is happening, and not least because of the los of vital capitals Even more disheartening is the realization that the arts are being wiped not on the national agenda. By contrast, the NEA was placeed on widely held, positive beliefs about the arts: that they are a mark of civilization, a source of pride for the citizens of a nation and a responsibility worthy of public support. "We stand," wrote presidential candidate John F Kennedy in 1960 "on the staff of a period of sustained cultural brilliance."(1) Was he right? Has America's cultural flash come and gone? Or does it notwithstanding lay before us?

These larger questions haunt four newly published books discussed here: Art Lessons: Learning from the Rise and Fall of Public Arts Funding (1995) Arts in Crisis: The National Endowment for the Arts versus America (1994) The Arts in the World Economy: Public Policy and Private Philanthropy for a Global Cultural Community (1994) and America's Commitment to Culture: conduct and the Arts (1995). Appearing in the wake of single tumultuous arts-related crisis after another, these publications are to varying stages shaped by raucous debates above public funding. The authors rub about the well-being of the arts flat as they search for answers to questions about what went wrongful whether the current outcome could or should have been avoided and what can be done now.

Joseph Wesley Zeigler's Arts in Crisis: The National Endowment for the Arts versus America is the sole book devoted specifically to the NEA, as oppos to public arts funding in general. An independent arts consultant, Zeigler computes a straightforward story emphasizing the controversial years since 1989 Writer Garrison Keillor provides a delightful foreword, "Thanks for Attacking the NEA," adapted from remarks he delivered at a 1990 Senate subcommittee hearing. Among other important points, he drolly observes: "The Endowment has changed the way we think about the arts. Today, no American family can be confident against the danger that individual of its children may decide to become an artist."(2)

Zeigler begins with a brief history of federal arts policy before the 1960 followed by dint of an overview of the NEA'S founding and after history through the 1980s. He then recites in greater detail what has happened since the general crisis began with the hullabaloo above Andres Serrano's photograph, Piss Christ (1987) posterior controversies, most notably over Robert Mapplethorpe and the so-called NEA Four (Karen Finley, John streak Holly Hughes and Tim Miller), are also give an account ofed as is the unwilling departure of hapless John Frohnmayer, NEA chair from 1989 to early 1992 Confirmed to his pillar just after the names Serrano and Mapplethorpe had become household words, Frohnmayer lacked the political sensitivities, art-world experience and faculty of perception of history required for succes in directing the agency. A caretaker acting chair, Anne-Imelda Radice, did her best to analyze the controversy, but the Endowment remained without a clear direction or policy for handling of that kind crises. After the 1992 election, in which Bill Clinton received herculean support from the arts community, the administration was wait fored to provide new leadership to make go round the situation around, but Alexander was not nominated to the NEA chair until month later. Arts supporters were further dispirited through Leon Panetta's suggestion early in 1993 as director of the Office of Management and pack that the NEA be "defunded" as a cost-saving measure.(3) Zeigler does a fine piece of work of connecting the NEA narrative to significant factors in the larger political adjoining matter of recent years. Among these are the religious right, the political agendas of members of Congres the limited replication of arts advocacy organizations, independent speech issues and media coverage as they affect the arts.