Art Funds and Censorship

Bogosian’s defense of NEA against the tirades of Helms misses the point. Much of what is funded by the NEA can and should be funded at the local level. But California, while second in the nation in the number of artists, ranks only 20th in state funding of the arts. (See “Hot Line for Writers,” Book Review Section, Aug. 6.) California taxpayers have the right to wonder why their tax dollars should subsidize New York artists.

Beyond the question of funding, the NEA has sought to promote the myth of the avant-garde, that controversial art and artists can be encouraged with state funds. This amounts to moral schizophrenia, an atmosphere in which art is supposed to be subversive, but not offensive. Is the public ready for this? Well, no, not yet. Bogosian says finally that he would have no career without the NEA. Would he still be an artist? If the answer is yes, then he has made it in spite of the NEA and should be commended.

DAVID C. REUTTER

Vista