Newport Art Museum Sues NEA to Halt ‘Censorship’ : Litigation: Federal suit seeks to stop National Endowment for the Arts from requiring anti-obscenity oaths of its grant recipients.

The Newport Harbor Art Museum on Wednesday became the nation’s first museum and third arts organization to file a federal lawsuit against the National Endowment for the Arts over its controversial anti-obscenity rules. But the museum stopped short of following other organizations that have rejected their NEA grants in protest.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, the suit seeks an injunction against the NEA’s requirement that grant recipients certify they will not produce or exhibit work the NEA might consider obscene.

The NEA’s obscenity provision “is something we find unacceptable,” said museum President Thomas H. Nielsen at a crowded news conference. Nielsen referred to the provision as a form of “government censorship.”

The museum, which has been awarded four 1990 NEA grants totaling $100,000, names as defendants the NEA and its chairman, John E. Frohnmayer. This year, NEA grant-acceptance forms include a clause requiring recipients to promise not to use the money to produce works that the NEA could consider obscene.

Instead of rejecting its 1990 grants, Newport museum officials said they hope to win the suit and accept the money. The NEA grants make up just over 5% of the museum’s current $1.8-million budget.

If the suit fails, however, the museum will not comply with the anti-obscenity oath--even if that means forfeiting the grants, said trustee James V. Selna, an attorney for the law firm O’Melveny & Myers, which is representing the museum free. Selna said the museum plans to sign and return the NEA’s grant acceptance forms, noting their noncompliance with the controversial pledge.

No hearing has been set in the court action, Selna said. The endowment makes no comment on pending litigation, a spokeswoman said.

The suit is similar to those filed by the New School for Social Research in New York City and choreographer Bella Lewitzky, head of the Los Angeles-based modern dance company that bears her name. All three call for a court order barring the NEA from using the obscenity certification on grounds that it violates the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.

The museum is “not attacking the NEA,” Selna stressed, but hopes to free the agency from the obscenity restriction.

Selna denied, however, that the museum is taking the action to improve its standing in the art world, which has been eroding on several fronts this year. Foremost was severe criticism leveled at the museum earlier this summer by the California Arts Council for lack of leadership, which resulted in its state arts grant being slashed

from $60,000 last year to $19,000 this year.

The institution has been without a director since November when Kevin E. Consey resigned. His departure was followed by those of chief curator Paul Schimmel and associate curator Lucinda Barnes.

Both men resigned to take similar posts at more established institutions: Consey going to head Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Art and Schimmel joining Los Angeles’ Museum of Contemporary Art. Barnes left for personal reasons. None have been replaced.

In addition, in June museum trustees fired renowned Italian architect Renzo Piano as designer of a new, $30-million building, replacing him with William Pedersen, a prominent New York architect who, unlike Piano, had never designed a museum before.

The actions have stymied a fund drive for the new museum and critics denounced the architect switch, some regarding it as a divisive “power play” among trustees. Others were disturbed that the critical decision, one that will impact programs for years to come, was made without a director on board. Indeed, that fact led at least one prospective candidate to reject a preliminary offer for the job.

Only hours after the museum announced its suit, an international group of prominent modern and contemporary art museum directors and curators was scheduled to attend a reception and take a tour. The group, members of the Comite International pour les Musees d’Art Moderne, is holding a weeklong conference in Los Angeles.

Selna, however, described the museum as being in sync with actions of other mainstream arts institutions nationwide.

But board chairman Nielsen did say that the suit would have a “positive effect” on candidates who he believes “would respect the action of the board.”

Since 1972, the small but nationally respected contemporary art museum has received 56 NEA grants totaling $1.3 million, the suit notes.

Ellen Breitman, acting curator of the museum, said museum officials are already pursuing funds to replace the NEA grants, should the museum lose its suit. So far, she said, the efforts have been unsuccessful.

Without the funds, projects that would be subsidized by the four pending grants would not be jeopardized, she said. Those projects are three exhibits, one featuring renowned British sculptor Tony Cragg, and acquisition of works by living American artists. But other exhibits in early planning stages and educational programs may have to be scaled down considerably, postponed or eliminated, she said.

The museum’s court action represents the strongest protest in response to the NEA controversy to date in Orange County. Only one Orange County organization, the Arts Institute of Southern California in Laguna Beach, has rejected an NEA grant to protest the anti-obscenity clause. The Laguna Beach school recently declined a $15,000 award.

Five other Orange County arts groups have accepted 1990 NEA grants, though several have written the NEA to protest the anti-obscenity certification.

Legislators are now trying to negotiate a bill that would extend the life of the endowment beyond Sept. 30.