Is it Time to Stop Funding the NEA?
Posted on 21. Sep, 2009 by James Devere in American Politics
Art is the reflection of a society. That which a society produces and those works that capture the undercurrents of the culture as a whole are sometimes the only evidence, and some of the most telling evidence we have, to study humanity. But what does state-funded art bring to the table, and is it needed? In 1997 the Heritage Foundation published Ten Good Reason to Eliminate Funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. Art for art’s sake and the need to support artists that are not economically viable on their own is often a reason sited for the NEA’s existence. But their track record over the last half of a century is suspect.
Some art is supposed to be controversial, and provocative works push the envelope in a manner that should invite either personal or cultural introspection. In 1995, Eric Gibson, the executive editor of ARTnews Magazine, discussing a new book by Alice Goldfarb Marquis stated:
“ In one of the most devastating verdicts on the NEA’s success (or failure), Marquis quotes Ronald Berman, chairman of President Nixon’s humanities endowment, who noted in 1979, after almost $1 billion had been spent, that he was ‘hard-pressed to name a single work of art worth recollecting that [the NEA had] made possible.’”
Gibson goes on to note, “The arts endowment was becoming dysfunctional in other ways. To counter charge of elitism, the NEA began funding street-theater groups, graffiti artists and professional clowns, watering down its effectiveness and blurring its mission. There was no accountability, no way of tracking where the money went or how effective a grant had been. No criteria existed to evaluate a visual-arts grant, a failing which eventually would haunt the endowment with the Mapple-thorpe and subsequent controversies. Worst of all, the NEA became a spoils system, easy prey to anyone or any organization which believed itself entitled and was determined enough to get a slice of the pie. The inevitable offshoot of this was the rampant conflict of interest that corrupted deliberations.”
It has been established that some of what the NEA funds is not contributive to the art world; it has also been established that the NEA has a culture of poor accountability when it comes to tracking their expenditures. What is most disturbing, however, is the news today (Read Patrick Courrielche’s Column) that the NEA is using our funds to support the political agenda of a single politician. The Administration’s attempt to hijack public art funds to produce what can only be called propaganda is one of the most dangerous moves the NEA can make.
The danger comes not from any one piece, each of which may seem innocuous. It comes from the fact that art has an influence on national identity; simply stated, art has power. A society’s values, culture, and identity are expressed through art. If you look at what has survived and what images we associate with two of the worst governments of the 20th Century, it is the public propaganda art that represents the period following the Russian Revolution and the Third Reich. Public propaganda art is what characterized these governments and, unfortunately, dominates our impression of these cultures. Art that depicts the struggle of the common man during those regimes is overshadowed by hero worshiping, cult of personality propaganda.
The internet is already filed with comparisons of depictions of Obama to those of oppressive leaders; has the Administration not learned from history? What end is the public funding of such works designed to achieve? There was already a case for cutting the funding of the NEA prior to this scandal; there is no longer just a case now. It is imperative. The “most transparent Administration in history” is becoming more transparent by the minute.
