Art for Art’s Sake, or Art as Propaganda?

Breaking with Republicans in the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee last week approved a spending bill that gives the National Endowment for the Arts a $100-million budget, a slight increase over its current $99.5 million.

The vote came a week after the House passed a bill that would abolish the 33-year-old agency, a frequent target of criticism among Republicans in that chamber.

Supporters of the NEA claim that the agency’s grants serve as a catalyst for funding from the private sector and help contribute to the economic and cultural enrichment of society. Opponents question the agency’s purpose and decry the appropriateness of some grant recipients.

Should Congress continue to fund the National Endowment for the Arts?

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.):

“For the price of one postage stamp per American, the NEA helps bring culture, dance, music and art to all of America. Public funding of the arts is very good for the economy. That is why the NEA is supported by such a broad base of the community. Investing in the NEA is an investment in the education of our children, the strength of our economy and the preservation of America’s cultural legacy.”

David Horowitz, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture:

“The NEA was destroyed by Jane Alexander and [her administration] when they decided they were going to fund avant-garde, in-your-face agitprop. . . . They are a bunch of radicals who want to use the endowment to attack conservative and Christian and religious people generally. . . . This is not about a de-funding of the arts. Anybody who’s concerned about or interested in the integrity of the arts should be concerned with the NEA running on about the existence of a ‘national endowment,’ which puts a government imprimatur on the arts. It’s not the amount of money they give; it’s the stamp of approval [that I object to].”

Steven D. Lavine, president of CalArts in Valencia:

“There is good evidence that no agency of the government has worked more effectively than the National Endowment for the Arts. That’s true if you think about the availability of music, film, dance, theater and art all around the country. It’s equally true when you think about the role the nonprofit arts play in generating the new approaches and new ideas that power the commercial entertainment world. For anyone living in Los Angeles, it should be self-evident that an investment in the NEA is a contribution toward our cultural, social and economic well-being.”

Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale):

“I believe there is a governmental role in the arts. When you fund them through the Washington bureaucracy, however, you get an elite group of bureaucrats who get to sit around a big table and pick the winners and losers in the art marketplace for our whole country. As an alternative to the NEA, I supported the Ehlers Amendment . . . which would have funneled our funds through block grants to the states, [giving you] more bang for the art buck and more accountability in how [the money was] going to be spent.”