That Parochial Eastern Tilt of Clinton’s ‘National’ Council on the Arts

The National Council on the Arts, the presidentially appointed body that oversees the National Endowment for the Arts, has long been composed of a majority of members who reside along the Eastern seaboard, from New England through New York to Washington. On Mar. 25, it was shifted even further in that parochial direction.

Before President Bill Clinton finally nominated eight prominent Americans to fill long-standing council vacancies--nominations almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate--13 of the 25 available slots were held by citizens from the East. Now, it’s 17.

The problem with the ratio is far more than the lack of geographic diversity in a government body that claims national standing. Other criteria are also legitimate. Areas with a higher density of exceptional artists and outstanding arts organizations should have greater representation than others. Drawing heavily on a seat of abundant merit for talented nominees makes sense, since the council shapes arts policy to foster excellence.

What riles is that the East, especially New York, is not the only area of the country that qualifies. The emphasis in Clinton’s current council picks is obsolete.

I’m talking about the pitiful level of arts representation from California--specifically Los Angeles. By far the biggest, most diverse city in the most populous state in the union, Los Angeles wasn’t just pivotal to Clinton’s election. In the 1980s, its expansive arts scene joined the rarefied ranks of internationally significant artistic milieus--the only U.S. city other than New York that can make that claim.

National Council membership does not yet reflect that stunning development. A single Angeleno sits on the panel. That’s the same number as from Boise, Ida.

The term of University of California, Los Angeles ethnomusicologist Robert Garfias actually expired in 1992. He’s one of nine sitting members whose terms were extended, many of them when President George Bush was keeping a low profile during the political brush fire that engulfed the NEA late in his tenure.

Two other distinguished Californians also sit on the panel: Peter deCourcy Hero, a foundation administrator from San Jose, and Catherine Yi-Yu Cho Woo, director of the China Studies Institute at San Diego University. This November, the terms of Garfias, Hero and Woo end.

Three of Clinton’s nominees are from New York City; one each hails from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington. Sole exception to the Right Coast tilt is Colleen Jennings-Roggensack, president of the Assn. of Performing Arts Presenters and head of public events at Arizona State University.

Eyebrows rise skyward when you realize that, once confirmed, a total of eight council members will hail from New York. That’s one-third of a board that acts on behalf of the nation--a percentage unchanged from the Bush Administration.

In November, due to staggered terms, seven seats on the National Council will open up. The current gross imbalance of its membership could change dramatically by the end of the year--for the better.

A significant number of California artists, patrons, historians or administrators must be nominated. In fact, several from Los Angeles should get the nod.

Culturally, Los Angeles is worlds apart from the traditions of older, more European-oriented American cities. The model for a suburban rather than urban social matrix; the crossroads for Asia, Latin America and the United States; the global capital of pop-culture--any number of defining distinctions are obvious. Los Angeles’ artistic coming of age in the 1980s has made its cultural life a widely recognized touchstone for America today--one that the National Council on the Arts ought to reflect and benefit from.

NEA Chair Jane Alexander, a prominent actress and the first working artist to head the agency, has strong ties to the L.A. community. Still, the chairman reports to the council, and the council’s composition says something about federal understanding of the state of the arts today, and of their critical relationship to the diversity of American life.

The current nominations, regardless of the qualifications of individual nominees, say that only New York and its equally Old World vicinity matter--as if important Eastern artists and arts institutions are singular standard-bearers that should be followed with conformity by a homogenized American culture. The nominees look less appropriate for a 1994 National Council on the Arts than for a 13 Original Colonies Plus-a-Few Council on the Arts.

Clinton can be expected to have put his defining stamp on the National Council by the end of the year, since by then he will have named 15 of its 25 members. Here’s one certainty: Because terms are staggered, at least six will reside in New York.

A worst-case scenario, which is unlikely, is that none will be from Los Angeles. The next worse, entirely possible, is that Los Angeles will again claim only token representation. If so, the serious artistic life of the nation will be the poorer for it.