Funding the NEA: The Debate Goes On

Christopher Knight spells it out, and you better get used to it (“Why Is Congress After NEA? It’s Simple,” Calendar, Feb. 27). The Republican revolution was “swept” into office by a well-organized coalition of conservative Christians and a wave of hysterical talk-radio fans.

No one is pointing out, however, that fewer than 40% of voting-age citizens went to the polls in the last election (and the “landslide” was only a portion of that). This revolution clearly has no mandate.

If a few of us speak up we could stop these politically motivated payoffs.

RICK SHEA

Covina

Most taxpayers believe it is wasteful for the federal government to be spending our money on programs that have undefinable parameters. Nobody in the government or in the National Endowment for the Arts has bothered to define what is, and what is not, art . Art has become, for the NEA, anything that anyone wishes it to be--including projects that are at best, interesting and, at worst, disgusting.

In the real world art is defined as “an expression of the beautiful,” and it hopefully should ennoble and uplift the human spirit. Under this definition, almost no one, with the possible exception of Knight and the NEA, would consider a bottle of urine art --whether or not it contained a crucifix.

N. C. BAYLEY

Playa del Rey

For every actor getting $12 million for six weeks work in front of a camera, there are hundreds getting $5 a night or no pay at all in Equity-waiver productions. This is absurd.

Since Hollywood talent scouts frequent NEA-funded ventures looking for new stars, let Hollywood support these ventures. If a studio spends $50 million on a film, let it contribute $500,000 to NEA or its replacement.

And those $65 seats at the Shubert and the Ahmanson should be worth 65 cents to the nonprofit sector as well.

RICK ROFMAN

Van Nuys