Continuing Controversy Over Federal Funds for Artists

In all the recent published material on the NEA mess, one significant fact, which probably served as an opening wedge for the newly proposed grant restrictions, has gone unnoticed. In 1989, when I received a visual arts grant, I had to sign an oath that I would not use, manufacture or sell illegal drugs during the grant year. When I won the same award in 1983, that provision was not there. So I signed it. I mean, how often do you get a chance to cripple the Colombian drug cartel and rid America of all its dope-fiend artists by simply affixing your signature to a piece of paper?

But the proverbial camel had shoved its snoot under the nation’s art tent. This year our increasingly reactionary officialdom ups the ante with new restrictions--condemning artists who deal with sexuality and religion in “socially irresponsible” ways.

What next, if this trend in the art world goes unchecked? The demand for political orthodoxy, of course. And remember, societal repression generally begins with the creative community. Who would define “politically correct”? Whoever has the power, is who. For society and the artist, it really wouldn’t matter.

KARL BENJAMIN

Claremont