Bush and the NEA

[mcgwillie]

I don't want to be too cynical or too pessimistic. And I don't want to denigrate Mr. Gioia--he sounds like a terrific person and that was a wonderful poem. But I don't think he will be able to do anything for the arts or arts funding that the administration doesn't perceive to be politically advantagous to do. The examples that come to mind are Christie Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and a man named John Diulio. Whitman was appointed to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. largely because she was perceived to have some credibility on environmental issues--a fairly rare thing among Republican officeholders. She didn't stay there long, resigning after a series of instances where the administration backed away from positions taken in the campaign that were environmentally friendly. (At one time candidate Bush said on the record that he wanted a whole series of pollutants brought within certain standards; at the prodding of the energy industry, President Bush backed away from that with regard to a number of the pollutants.) The point being that it was politically expedient for the administration to appoint someone with environmental bona fides but when push came to shove, she had no impact on policy.

Diulio had a gig at the White House to work with some of the faith-based initiative stuff the President has been advocating. He quickly left when it became clear to him that the "Mayberry Machiavellis" were running things, that political expediency always ruled the day, and that there was no real concern with the development of coherent public policy.

I would love to be pleasantly surprised on this issue. But I am not holding my breath.

Mcgwillie

[Amy Reusch]

If only Dance's production costs were as low as Poetry's. On a side note, where would Dance be without poets?

[dirac]

What is likely to happen is that cultural reactionaries (sorry, I refuse to use the honorable word "conservative" in this connection) will cut the NEA funding from a budget that is already badly inflated. The arts funding is miniscule in itself and even in combination with many other cuts will be meaningless to the overall numbers, but that is not likely to stop them.

There's nothing wrong, I suppose, with avoiding any potential political pitfalls and aiming the money at things like Shakespeare appreciation and symphony orchestras, but as Leigh noted, the funding of R&D type work has been one of the most useful applications of NEA seed money. Private money often follows public money, and the NEA grant can serve as a signpost saying, "It's okay to give money to these guys."

No, not all the work that gets funded succeeds, or is even very good. Not all of the scientific work receiving funding is successful, or is even very good. Ditto for weapons systems, rocket launches, tax breaks for business that amount to funding, etc. The arts also have the right to fail. Selah.

Lest any of the foregoing be branded anti-GOP, let me add that there are many Republicans who favor funding for the arts -- hence the Administration's desire to have it both ways by requesting the raise, which they know perfectly well is likely to be cut. And the cultural reactionaries have included Democrats.

As an aside, I was very sad, and angry, to hear that maintenance for the Hubble telescope, a useful and cost-effective device, will be phased out. Disastrous and dumb.

[Funny Face]

Just want to take a minute to thank Vagansmom for setting the record straight about sports being funded by the government vis-a-vis public school, from kindergarten through college. However, in addition to the examples she cited, don't forget about the tie-ins between big business and our government, and the barely discernible line between the two.

[BryanM]

I'm enjoying this back and forth and applaud everyone's active response. However, even though I share the pessimistic view of this potential poison pill, does anyone have the facts on this increased budget?

Did I hear something on the news that this was intended only for "classical" arts?

it would be great to know what the budget really stipulates... anyone?

-Bryan

[kfw]

For what it's worth, I believe it was Clarence Thomas whom I saw at a Renee Fleming/National Symphony Orchestra concert recently. Cultural conservatives, or reactionaries if you will, don't object to funding the arts, or funding experimental work as such, they object to funding work that mocks and assails values they hold dear. Someone correct me in my ignorance if need be, but I could never figure out what Karen Finley needed my money for -- Belgian chocolate?

Anyhow . . . go Dana go!

[Leigh Witchel]

I'm not going to try and defend Karen Finley here (she probably wouldn't be the first thing I funded were I on an NEA panel either) but if the people responsible for the defunding of the NEA in the 90's were attempting something constructive for the arts, it was constructive in the same way as offering to help out someone with a limp by amputating his leg.

Radical artists like Finley and Rick Athey were getting small grants (maybe $20,000) in an organization with a small budget (less than $180 million) that ended up being cut in half. The ability to fund commissions and individual artists was cut out, and now Karen Finley can't get funding and neither can I. And the loss of 90 million affected your local symphony and ballet company as well.

I can't say that the defunding of the NEA was an attempt to reform or improve it, or a pro-arts manuever. It was done by people with a deep seated distrust of both government and the arts. It's good at this point that cultural conservatives such as Gioia are getting involved in the process instead of cultural reactionaries in congress trying to dismantle it.

[Alexandra]

I think what often happens, in arts politics as well as other politics, is that someone(s) doesn't like a particular program and they find the ONE cheating welfare mother, $6 million dollar toiilet in the Defense Department, etc., or Karen Finlay to say, "SEE, it's all like this. This is terrible! Let's shut it down!" instead of looking at the whole picture. It's the "60 Minutes" syndrome. One person dies from a drug that helps millions, one person is defrauding the Medicaid system, etc, and because it's so much easier to focus on an individual, one story, one weeping widow, we cut a program in half.

[dirac]

That's not how it worked. These people object to arts funding, period, and things like the Finley grant gave them an opening.

kfw, it's nice that Justice Thomas can be seen at high profile cultural events, although I was not actually thinking or talking of him. But other areas of artistic endeavor need official encouragement, too, even though some may regard them as outrageous, or not art at all.

As an aside, I can't help noticing that those with a "deep seated distrust of government" tend not to object when said evil gov'ment sends pork barrel projects to their state, or federal aid in the case of natural disaster. But never mind.

[kfw]

I have no interest in trying to defend the Bush administration, or people who are either consistent or inconsistent in their objection to "big" government. I'm merely saying that you can't expect cultural conservatives to agree to fund work by people openly hostile to them and often of highly questionable aesthetic value. And from the experimental work I see (little nowadays, granted) and hear of, the Finleys and Mapplethorpes and Serrannos ar just the worst ofenders.

I can hear an objection here -- we're a democracy and everyone deserves representation. Quite right -- political conservatives (I hold both liberal and conservative views) deserve far better represention on NPR and PBS. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm really sorry to see work like Leigh's lack funding, but I think that's a needed perspective.

[dirac]

kfw, this point was made earlier, but many of us fund through our tax dollars projects and programs we find dislikable or offensive. Yet we don't demand, or ask our representatives to demand, that those projects and programs have their funding stripped away and their leadership driven out or intimidated. The politicians who took forty whacks at the NEA can hardly say their views were not heard.

As for PBS, NPR, and Justice Thomas, I'd like to reiterate, politely, the need for all of us to keep to the issues at hand without venturing too far afield. It's impossible to discuss funding for the arts without bringing in who is dis/approving the funding, which is how the President and Congress have come into the discussion, but let's try to avoid fanning the partisan flames by bringing in parties not directly related to the topic. Thanks to all for a spirited discussion!

[kfw]

dirac, I think we all vote sometimes with an eye towards how our money is going to be spent. Again, I'm no friend of the NEA slashers, and I think they're terribly misguided, but I have some degree of sympathy. And I have no interest in fanning partisan flames -- and as I've said, I'm rooting for Gioia anyhow -- but I think if we're talking culture wars here, which I'm afraid we are, fair allocation of resources in one agency relates to fair allocation in another. But I'm not trying to start a fight.

[dirac]

Neither PBS nor NPR have been showered with Congressional largesse recently -- they've been under steady attack, in fact. No worries, there.

[carbro]

Neither PBS nor NPR have been showered with Congressional largesse recently . . .

And, especially in the case of PBS, it shows.

[kfw]

Yes, PBS is in sad shape. NPR just received a huge gift from Mrs. Kroc, at least. My point was just that when it comes to publicly funded political art and other programming , the Right may hold the purse strings at the moment, but the Left is pretty much in charge of how the allocated money is actually spent. Three cheers for Scott Simon and Bill Moyers and Garrison Keillor, but until their conservative equivalents (OK, Keillor's in a category by himself) get airtime, the Left's cries about cultural reactionaries shutting them ring a bit hollow to me. That's because both sides are playing hardball.

[Leigh Witchel]

One lasting contribution Gioia could make would be to depoliticize the NEA, and that can probably only be done by someone who's in the same party as the congressional majority. He sounds like a good man, and a back to basics approach for the time being is not something I would quibble with. But it wouldn't hurt for him to reinstitute individual granting (maybe he could try a program similar to Japan's Living National Treasures) and it wouldn't hurt for him, once he has the "capital", to stick up for something controversial, the same way it wouldn't hurt for the head under a Democratic administration to stick up for the occasional Dead White European Male. Adrienne Rich said that "Everything is politics" years ago - it would be nice for some things to be taken at least partially out of the arena.

[dirac]

kfw, the idea is not to use arts funding as a political weapon in the first place. It's regrettable that anyone would defend that notion. The ideal of state support for the arts is something I think all sides can agree upon, with negotiations, of course.

I wish Gioia the best. He's in a tough spot. Let's hope, at any rate, that the money stays in the budget.

[Alexandra]

I agree that it would be ideal not to use arts funding as a political wepaon, but has that ever been the case? Art and politics have been intertwined since kings had courts; we just claim to be more democratic about it. There are so many issues.

First, I think it's true that people use the One Bad Example -- or find a hot button -- to further a different agenda. It may be social conservatism, or liberalism; it may be "let's reduce government"; it may be "government shouldn't fund arts." Whatever it is, they'll find the one museum showing "dirty" photos, or the one theater company that is doing "Miss Saigon" (or pick any play) without enough actors of the "right" ethnicity. And whamoo, funding should stop.

Second, you have the censorship problem -- should the government fund an anti-war (any war) play/painting? Should government funds be made available to an anti-abortion work? anti-religious? How one feels often depends on how one feels about war, abortion or religion. Karen Finlay offends some people, "Gone with the Wind" offends others.

Should the individual artist worry about not pressing this or that button? Some artists exist to press buttons. Some artists make a work of art in which they genuinely believe and are shocked themselves when it shocks.

Any additional funding is welcome, as far as I'm concerned (depending on the strings, of course) and it will be interesting to see what the new head of the NEA does.

[stinger784]

Last night on the O'Reilly Factor (2/17/04) on Fox News, they were talking about the budget increase. Bill went on to say that its great that is funding, but its what the money is going towards that doesn't seem to make sense. Much of it is for the further education of Shakespeare, but the other is for plays that are geared towards the three letter word known as s.e.x. What happened to preservation of art? I mean it is great and all that the NEA wants to fund new programs to give someone a push in this business, but at what cost? But apparently sex does sell as we have learned with the advertisements of, was it Joffrey? Correct me if I am wrong, I'm sorry.

Did anyone else see happen to watch the Factor last night?

I was watching it subtitled while I was working my part time job, so if I got some info wrong, help me out. I tried to follow as best as I could.

[carbro]

There's no sex in Shakespeare? News to me!

[dirac]

carbro is right on the money! Even a fairly cursory reading of Shakespeare, especially (but not only) the comedies, will reveal a number of sexy references. I remember a production of Much Ado About Nothing that was set in the late Victorian era, and there seemed to be no consciousness on the part of the stagers that it was absurd for Victorian ladies and gentlemen to be exchanging these bawdy Elizabethan jokes.

[kfw]

dirac, I don't think the money should be used as a political weapon, ideally, but as we know, artists often use their art that way, and NEA opponents are just fighting back. (Would you pay to have someone mock you?) I'm sure we agree that City Ballet deserves NEA money. Self-indulgent, self-consciously experimental "artists" whose work would not find an audience were it not for its politics does not, in my opinion, merit public suppport.

Of course what's self-indulgent and what's a worthy if failed experiment is a judgment call, but political conservatives can't be faulted for not always deferring to the judgment of liberals. We're talking human nature, and to some degree the self-styled "progressive" arts community has reaped what it's sown. Gioia has brains and taste, as others have observed, and I know we all hope he'll succeed in getting more funding by using it wisely.

[dirac]

kfw, I think I've already commented on the above, and so I'm now going to refrain from flogging this soon-to-expire-horse and keep to the topic of the budget. Thanks.

[stinger784]

Ok, ok, you got me about the Shakespeare and the sex, I understand that, but I think Shakespeare is above what people are creating today. Should money really be going to things such as the "Sex Parasite" and things of that nature? That is what the Factor was all about. Sorry if I used some touchy words in here, but that is what Bill O'Reilly was dwelling on.

Can anybody back me up on this if they saw the Factor or not? I will try to get a link on this info.

[stinger784]

ok, this link is from the Fox News website.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111799,00.html