 |
|
|
No Controversial Works will be Funded |
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has a new chairman and a new conservative outlook. No longer the primary target of free-market conservatives and Religious Right leaders, the agency has found a measure of equilibrium, peace and acceptance from many of its former adversaries. For this reason alone the NEA might just as well stand for No Experimental Art. In mid-December, a new NEA chairman was confirmed and according to the New York Times, "hardly anyone noticed." After years of major conflicts over everything from the selection of its director to which artistic organizations and individuals would receive grants, it is now all quiet inside the Beltway. And the silence is deafening. Michael Hammond, a composer and Dean at Rice University in Houston was confirmed by the Senate without so much as a public hearing. In the past, whenever the agency came-up for renewed funding, conservatives yipped and yapped about obscenity-laced performances, blasphemous art exhibitions, just about any project by gay and lesbian artists and nudity in any shape or form. The NEA chairperson would traipse to the Senate, hat in hand, trying to assuage the concerns of Jesse Helms & Co. Christian Right organizations sent videotapes of the most controversial performances it could find to each and every Senator. Press conferences would be held denouncing the agency's spending priorities. "Zero-out the agency" became the battle cry of both libertarians and Religious Right leaders. Defund the NEA, once a solid-gold guarantee for right-wing fundraising appeals has lost its allure over the past few years or so. The NEA, while certainly not the darling of the right, is no longer one of its major targets. According to the New York Times' Robin Pogrebin: "The transformation [of the NEA] came with well-publicized budget cuts and heated confrontations in Congress in which the existence of the agency was called into question. The overhaul was accomplished in far quieter ways, with the scalpel of Washington insiders executing a series of small-print rules changes."
"The changes, in seemingly mundane areas such as who is eligible to apply for grants, how many grants can be awarded to a single organization in a year and what proportion of money goes to state and local governments for distribution, have cumulatively turned the agency from one that supports the making of art for art's sake -- no matter how hotly debated -- to one that largely supports art that more clearly serves a communal purpose." Is there any Art left in the National Endowment for the Arts? Sort of. These days the lion's share of NEA grants go to what the Times calls "conventional artistic endeavors." And make no mistake, these programs need public support. But what about support for artists that challenge society's commonly held assumptions? Unfortunately, as the Times reports, "more experimental artists and organizations have either given up on applying for funds or have carefully tailored their proposals to what they think a much more conservative endowment would support." That means artists identified with controversial performances, exhibits or projects -- say, exposing racism and sexism, challenging dominant political and religious institutions, and gay-positive art -- will have an even more difficult time finding financial support than they've had during the past several funding cycles. Although the negative fog of anti-NEA advocacy has lifted, Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus reported in late November that many conservative organizations still believe the agency should be disbanded. Travis R. Pardo, a research associate at Focus on the Family's Public Policy division, suggests a new approach -- one that shows conservatives are "pro-art" but anti-government funding. The argument that some have termed "The Separation of Art and State," Pardo writes, piggybacks off "the reasons why we don't want a state-run church."
" 'Government funding of anything involves government control,' stated one pro-art social critic. 'As we should not want an established church, so we should not want established art.' Thus, people should not be forced to fund what amounts to government-approved ideology through art. With this third argument on stage, maybe we can bolster our strategy and bring the curtain down on the NEA." Long ago, the NEA had a semblance of vision and a smidgen of backbone. It was willing to stand up to the yahoos and Nervous Nellies of the Christian Right. But today, the soul of the NEA appears severely damaged and is in desperate need of revitalization. Bill Berkowitz is a freelance writer covering right-wing movements. Contact him at wkbbronx@aol.com |
The National Endowment for the Art's funding of works such as those by Robert Mapplethorpe in the 1980s brought controversy to the federal agency, which today has become much more conservative 
NEA Chairman Michael Hammond 
© 1997-2002 BEI