NEA Mandate More Than Just Looking at Slides

Andy Grundberg’s article “An Insider’s Look at How NEA Awards Its Grants” (Calendar, Aug. 17) is its own best argument for what’s wrong with the National Endowment for the Arts. Grundberg focuses on perceived political machinations in the rejections of three photography grants by the National Council on the Arts, the NEA governing board. Rather, the NEA is in crisis because of the domination by the arts disciplines, the special interests, one of which Grundberg represents. He provides proof for a skeptical public and a doubting Congress that the reforms recommended by the 1990 Independent Commission have not penetrated the consciousness of some sectors of the arts community.

The commission, appointed by the President of the United States, the House and the Senate, was founded in the wake of the uproar over exhibitions featuring photographs by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe with funding in part by the NEA. Its task commission was to review the grant-making procedures of the NEA. While it concluded that artistic excellence should remain a guiding light in grant selection, it recommended that the largely ceremonial council assume a more active role and that panels include lay persons. The photography panel had one.

The importance of non-specialists was emphasized by Kevin Mulcahy, professor of political science, Louisiana State University, in his testimony before the commission. To exclude them is to argue that “defense policy is too complex to be decided by elected representatives and the electorate, but should instead be the exclusive preserve of military officers and defense contractors.”

To affirm the public nature of public funding, the commission recommended amendments to the original Congressional Declaration of Purpose for the NEA.

“The arts and humanities belong to all the people of the United States.” It is difficult to conclude that Grundberg and his panel considered “the people” as he emphasizes the “sometimes exasperating process” of reviewing some 25,000 slides.

Yet remoteness of the arts to people’s lives was highlighted in a study by the National Cultural Alliance, a conglomerate of some 41 national arts and humanities organizations formed in the aftermath of the 1990 congressional hearings: “ . . . Over half of Americans surveyed feel that the arts and humanities play a ‘minor’ role in their lives.” If the photography panel had discussed that issue, would it have concluded that “it’s not our job; aesthetics is!”

The grants should “complement, assist, and add to programs for the advancement of the humanities and the arts.” Did the photography panel concern itself with appropriate responses to that challenge, or did it restrict itself to poring over thousands of slides?

In providing assistance to the arts and humanities, the federal government “must be sensitive to the nature of public sponsorship.” Did the panel ponder the nature of that sensitivity or did it merely examine thousands of slides?

“The arts and humanities reflect the high place accorded by the American people . . . to the fostering of mutual respect for diverse beliefs and values of all persons and groups.” Did the panel discuss how they were to pursue that mission or were they too engrossed in analyzing thousands of slides?

I sincerely hope Grundberg’s article, invited for publication by the Los Angeles Times, does not find its way to the NEA’s opponents on Capitol Hill. In the NEA’s beleaguered struggle over its appropriation, he has conveniently provided justification for yet another hit on its budget by providing evidence of the disregard by a special interest group of congressionally mandated goals.