Commentary : As Arts Funding Is Debated, Also Recall What NEA Has Accomplished

No one realizes the importance of freedom more than the artist, for only in the atmosphere of freedom can the arts flourish. . . . In an atmosphere of liberty, artists and patrons are free to think the unthinkable and create the audacious; they are free to make both horrendous mistakes and glorious celebrations. Where there’s liberty, art succeeds. In societies that are not free, art dies.

--President Ronald Reagan, April 23, 1985, presenting the National Medal of Arts

As public debate continues over the National Endowment for the Arts’ funding of the two controversial projects (by Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano), Capitol Hill still faces the issues of funding levels for the agency and reauthorizing its continued existence.

Throughout the summer, members of what until recently was known as the Moral Majority have adamantly expressed their sentiments regarding decency in contemporary society and how the National Endowment for the Arts, among others, is contributing to the overall moral decline of our country.

Artists and arts administrators are mobilizing to ward off this latest assault on our fragile history of national policy and federal support for the arts.

The National Endowment for the Arts has been a model program of government policy in action since 1965. Its goal was--and is--to increase participation and the availability of the arts for all citizens and to significantly increase the quality of the arts in the nation. With modest annual levels of federal funds, the government intended to give direction and stimulus to the private sector’s support for the arts.

That these goals have been achieved and continue to be achieved year after year is attested to by the explosion of high-quality theater, dance and opera companies, symphonies and art museums in every state of the nation. Thirty years ago, a Tony award-winning theater company in California would have been unthinkable. South Coast Repertory in Costa Mesa, among others, can now claim that honor.

Professional-quality arts performances and exhibitions are now regular features of nearly every city and town, and the arts are enjoyed by a majority of the population. This evolution marks an extreme change from the situation in our country less than 30 years ago.

A recent Newsweek national poll shows that the U.S. public is not up in arms against the NEA and its two recent controversial grants. In fact, 58% of those surveyed believe that “experts should be the ones to judge what is art,” and just 22% believe that “federal officials should exercise more control over arts projects to ensure they do not offend the public.”

Still Congress, with almost daily exposes of widespread waste or misappropriation of federal money, is acutely sensitized to issues of public accountability of taxpayer dollars. Thus, the rather nominal matter of two very small but controversial federal grants becomes the more symbolic vehicle for varied larger nationally publicized debates.

During its 25-year history, the National Endowment for the Arts has dispensed public funds with a remarkable absence of controversy and has never been charged with the type of fiscal abuse that brings federal agencies into the national spotlight on an almost daily basis.

House Report 101-120 states: “During its existence, NEA has approved 85,000 grants to arts organizations and individuals, less than 20 of which have been charged with violating public interest because of frivolity, indecency or ethnic disparagement. In other words, less that one-fourth of one-tenth of 1% of the total number of grants aroused protest.”

Many another government agency might well be envious of this exemplary level of responsible and accountable disbursement of tax dollars.

Given the remarkable impact that the federal government’s modest investment in the arts has on our nation’s social and economic growth, should we not now instead be turning our attention toward ways in which the arts could help move our country forward in this era of rapid social change and economic internationalization?

How can the arts help in the education of our leaders, executives and public in the ways and motivations of other nations, or open doors of communication to the new waves of immigrants, bringing with them their own cultural traditions and heritage? Can the United States take better advantage of its cultural riches to improve our image abroad?

And, in making our determinations, let us not forget the ongoing value of the arts to the quality of life and overall economic well-being of our cities and states. And what about the level of arts education in our nation’s schools?

The response--or lack of response--to these issues affects the future of our nation even now. There is great opportunity for the Bush Administration and John Frohnmayer, nominated as NEA chairman by the president, to bring a renewed sense of purpose and initiative to the arts in our nation.

As a nation intent on re-establishing its leadership in the world’s economic and social order, we must make the investment in infrastructure and development, or run the risk of permanently losing that prized leadership position.

Whatever compromise is reached as Congress works on the pressing business of the budget, the press and the public will turn their attention away from today’s controversy in favor of tomorrow’s. But the real questions will remain, questions that address where we are headed as a nation, and what role the arts and creativity will play in the United States. When will these questions receive an adequate hearing?