Theater Advisers’ Resolution Condemns NEA’s Critics : Arts: Confidential note to Chairman John E. Frohnmayer protests delay of approval for 18 prestigious fellowships.

An advisory panel to the National Endowment for the Arts, in a confidential note to a top NEA official, has condemned “zealots, bigots and homophobics” that the committee contends have savaged the arts agency, bringing unprecedented delay in approval of 18 prestigious theater fellowships.

The rare action of sending the strongly worded resolution to NEA Chairman John E. Frohnmayer was taken by the 12-member theater program panel at a two-day meeting in Washington last week. A copy of the document was obtained by The Times on Friday.

Meanwhile, in a statement further emphasizing the precarious situation of the NEA in Congress, a key Republican senator said that if a vote on the arts endowment’s future was taken now, “I see the NEA losing heavily.” The comment, by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), appeared to emphasize the uphill battle faced by the arts endowment to have its legal mandate renewed with no restrictions on the kind of art it can support.

Hatch’s conclusion was significant because the maverick conservative has emerged as an unlikely supporter of the NEA. Hatch said that, despite mail from his Utah constituents running 500-to-1 against the arts endowment, he hopes to find a way to retain the agency without gutting its artistic integrity through overwhelming restrictions.

The strong statement by the NEA theater panel came as concerns continued to grow within the arts community about a controversy surrounding the 18 fellowships, approval of which was delayed until early August after a conservative newspaper column condemned work of one of the recipients, New York performance artist Karen Finley.

Rumors circulating in the arts community and unconfirmed reports in at least one Washington newspaper have indicated Frohnmayer may be moving to reject five of the grants outright--including Finley’s--out of concern that the artists involved may include material in their performances likely to inflame NEA critics.

Finley’s work is stridently feminist in tone. In some past performance pieces, she has appeared partially unclothed with her body smeared with mud and alfalfa sprouts to symbolize repression of women.

NEA sources have said Frohnmayer recently attempted a telephone poll of the 24 members of the National Council on the Arts--the NEA’s advisory body--to garner support for outright rejection of five potentially controversial applications, including Finley’s. The national council voted in early May to defer action on the fellowships until August because of the Finley dispute.

However, three national council members said they were never called by Frohnmayer, and a fourth council member who said he was contacted gave a version of what the NEA chairman proposed that conflicted with accounts from other sources. There appeared to be a consensus, however, that Frohnmayer was trying to find a way to avoid a bruising new fight over work by Finley and the four other artists.

Separately, The Times learned that Ryan Gilliam, director of the Downtown Art Co. in New York, had twice written Frohnmayer to protest the possible denial of a fellowship to Holly Hughes, a member of his company who is among the five theater grantees in the controversy.

Frohnmayer was not available to comment. But the situation appeared to confirm reports that he has been unable to fashion a strategy to simultaneously placate NEA critics, strike a political balance in Congress and not inflame the nation’s artistic community.

The resolution by the NEA’s theater overview panel avoided a direct attack on Frohnmayer and the national council, but the theater committee did call for preservation of existing endowment grant-review procedures. The statement termed the system as “the best method of ensuring a full review of all applicants on artistic grounds while protecting against decisions for political expediency.”

The panel demanded that Frohnmayer and Congress reject “the ideas of a small group of zealots, bigots and homophobics who would seek to dismantle the agency and stifle the freedom of expression.” The panel said the continuing controversy risks “contributing to a climate of fear that is anathema to the creation of art in a free democracy.”

Hatch’s comments in a telephone interview came as the senator sought to personally smooth over a misunderstanding apparently created when his aides circulated in his name copies of two regressive amendments that would have required the NEA to pay the legal fees of anyone who successfully sued an arts endowment grantee for creating obscene work. Hatch characterized the drafts as “stalking horse amendments” mistakenly distributed outside of his office to key arts supporters and other legislators.

“I don’t approve of those,” said Hatch of the two drafts. “I’m trying to find some way (to) resolve this that would bring people together rather than push them apart.”

Hatch said the task of preserving the beleaguered arts agency has been made significantly more difficult as the controversy has continued and undergone major escalation in the last few weeks. He was pessimistic about the chances the agency can be saved from attempts by other conservatives led by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) to dismantle or gut it.

“As of right now, I see the NEA losing heavily. I think it’s going to be very difficult for it to withstand some of the (right wing) criticisms,” Hatch said. “I do think great countries should support the arts and we should not have censorship in that process.”