Sidney Yates

When young Sidney R. Yates first campaigned for Congress in 1948, it was probably not apparent to the good people of Chicago that they were about to elect a man who would become one of the greatest champions of the arts America had ever seen.

Indeed, as Yates crooned for votes at a bingo game, accompanying himself with three chords on his oompah guitar, voters might have decided the most merciful thing they could do for the arts was elect him just so he’d stop singing.

But his victory marked the birth of a 50-year legislative career that would oversee the founding of the National Endowment of the Arts in 1965, shepherd its steady expansion over the next two decades and, most recently, help rescue it from extinction.

It was nearly 10 years ago that conservatives launched a crusade to strip the NEA of funding and shut it down, infuriated that federal money had supported what they considered obscene art by Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano, among others.

That the embattled agency has survived this long is due in no small part to the Illinois Democrat who, at 88, is still one of its most skilled and eloquent defenders--he once blocked a 50% NEA funding cut almost singlehandedly. His keen knowledge of parliamentary procedure has more than once outsmarted NEA foes on Capitol Hill, while his gentlemanly demeanor charms them. He has been known to quote Shakespeare during committee debates, seems to know the words to every song every written, and walks around his Washington office belting out everything from show tunes to folk songs to opera.

Now, the oldest and longest-sitting member of the House of Representatives--one of Congress’ last New Deal liberals--is planning to retire at the end of this term. He leaves when his beloved NEA is most in danger. In July, the House passed a bill that would abolish the agency entirely while the Senate is poised to pass one that would fund it with $100 million--about the same as last year but far less than the $176 million it received at its peak, in 1992.

The differences will be hammered out in a conference committee bound to produce compromises that further restrict the endowment. Many say the NEA is already a shadow of its former self, operating from fear of congressional budget cutters, funding only those grant requests considered safe. Recent self-imposed reforms have reduced the agency’s staff and restricted it from funding almost all individual artists.

While Yates is confident the NEA will survive the latest onslaught, he acknowledges the organization is a hologram of the one he helped found--an endowment that encouraged free artistic expression without fear of consequences and helped quadruple the number of orchestras, nonprofit theaters, dance companies and opera companies in the nation. But he prefers to reserve judgment on the state of the NEA until he sees what incarnation the Congress invents this time. As a member of the conference committee, he will be in the battle’s front lines.

His colleagues are already lamenting the retirement of one of their most effective legislative weapons. If he leaves a legacy, it is probably one of stubbornness--”A lone voice can move mountains,” he likes to say--and a deep sense of loyalty--he has been married to the same woman, Adeline, for 62 years, and has employed the same chief of staff, Mary Bain, for 50. The Yateses have one son, Stephen, an associate circuit court judge in Chicago, and three grandchildren, all musicians.

*

Question: You’ve watched the development of the NEA since its founding 32 years ago. What changes have you observed in both the arts community and in political circles that have caused this collision?

Answer: There has always been controversial art going all the way back to the time of the Renaissance. There have always been people who objected to forms of art. If memory serves, it was either Plato or Aristotle who was opposed to artists because they represented deviation from the usual norms of a society [who] were hostile to artists. I assume that those in power in succeeding times had the same impression, that the artists were not bound by the usual regulations or customs in a society, that they were trying to change things.

But [Robert] Mapplethorpe and [Andres] Serrano seemed to have stimulated some ministers to undertake the crusade against the arts. That came along at a time when there had been a very large drive to try to stop rap music and movies that were considered offensive. There was this atmosphere building up against a kind of so-called adult entertainment and it was felt that no tax dollars should be used for that purpose. That was the big cry: Let the participants in the art do what they want with their own money, but don’t let them use tax dollars. Overlooked was the fact that the tax dollars were being used for very beneficial purposes for the most part and these were on a minimal basis.

Another factor was the effort to balance the budget, which not only affected the arts, but affected the humanities--which never have been criticized for anything offensive in the grants they produced. Still, they were joined with the arts in this crusade. In the context of the total budget, which is in the trillions of dollars, the money that funds them is a small fraction.

*

Q: The arts have proliferated in this country since the NEA was founded in 1965; how much credit can the endowment take for that growth?

A: Recent figures tell us that 20 million people attended arts affairs annually when the endowment was set up in 1965. Today, 76 million do. More people today go to museum tours than sporting events. That change came about as a result of the presence of the endowment and its activity. Philanthropic giving to the arts increased significantly because the endowment would not cover the entire cost of putting a show on, for example, but required the recipient to obtain private funds, as well.

*

Q: The NEA has been criticized lately for funding only art that is considered “safe,” and will not further endanger its federal funding. Is that criticism justified?

A: The NEA occupies a tenuous position at the present time. It’s threatened with extinction by the House, which has refused to make any money available except for closing purposes. The Senate is trying to keep it going. We don’t know where that clash will lead. So I can understand why the NEA would use every precautionary measure to try to persuade opponents and try not to give them arguments they would use.

The national endowment is being criticized now for not taking on controversial subjects and that, of course, may be due to the congressional pressure. Mr. [Peter] Hoekstra (R-Mich.) has been checking on NEA for at least a year as chairman of an investigative subcommittee. I know the NEA has been compelled to provide grants and explanations for many of its actions and I think that’s having an affect.

*

Q: If the NEA were to become so restrictive that it dared not fund controversial art, would society as a whole suffer?

A: I’m not speaking in favor of pornographic art but there is such a thing as controversial art that is not pornographic. Artists have always been willing to walk new roads away from existing patterns and I think that’s essential. What may happen is you may find them doing that without government grants and that would be unfortunate.

*

Q: Should there be any limitations on the kind of art that government funds?

A: What you are talking about is controlling the content of art and I don’t think government should do that. It’s a censorship question. The NEA should be judged in the same way as other government agencies. None of them is free entirely from mistakes. The Department of Defense has made any number of mistakes, and yet nobody seeks to close it.

*

Q: Critics of the NEA say that asking someone to do without entitlements like welfare while the government funds the Metropolitan Opera is absurd. How do you respond?

A: I think government should fund both. One is not in substitution for the other; they both contribute to the well-being of the American people. Art has always been funded by government, even going back to the Renaissance. I think it was Pope Julius [II] who funded Michelangelo’s painting of the magnificent fresco on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Beethoven, Hayden and others were financed by grants from those in government or in government circles. Every western country in the world today finances art in one form or another because that’s one of the qualities that makes for better living of its citizens.

*

Q: How is this drive to abolish the NEA different from the government support it has received over the past three decades?

A: The largest annual NEA increase took place in President Nixon’s time, and a speech he made in support of the arts, I think, is the best one to come out of any of the White Houses. President Nixon said he faced some critical budget decisions but the arts are an integral part of the United States system of values. All of the presidents without exception have supported the NEA.

You’ve had a puritanical tradition going back to the pre-founding of this country, but I think the founding fathers were enlightened. John Adams said he wanted his sons to be educated in mathematics, literature and the basics of what was considered necessary in those days so that in later years they could spend more of their time developing the arts and music. His son, John Quincy Adams, was primarily responsible for accepting the gift from Mr. [James] Smithson that founded the Smithsonian Institution.

*

Q: How do you think the NEA ultimately will survive this movement to eliminate it?

A: There are some who think you may have a merger with the endowment for the humanities, you may have a diminution of the national supervision by the Congress voting more grants to the states and letting the states take up the burden. You may have an emphasis on channeling the funds to arts education for schools and teachers. It’s difficult to know where this is going and we hope the conference will not further restrict the freedom NEA enjoyed some years ago.

I don’t know how long it will take to go back to the funding we had. I don’t see that being changed as long as there is a Republican Congress.

*

Q: If the critics were ever to prevail and the NEA were to be abolished, do you think philanthropy or anyone else would step in to fill the gap?

A: No. I don’t see private organizations stepping in to fill the gap. And I worry that if NEA is abolished, the National Endowment for the Humanities would be, too. Philanthropy never has been able to do it. In fact, funding by philanthropies for the arts has been diminishing lately, according to recent studies. If it were left entirely to such organizations, there is no question in my mind, that arts in America would suffer.

*

Q: How would they suffer?

A: Part of the glory of NEA is the fact that the arts have been stimulated throughout the country, not only in the big cities, but in the rural areas as well. One of the big complaints made against NEA is that the funding primarily takes place in certain art centers--New York gets the biggest portion because most of the arts are in New York. What is overlooked is that a New York institution may receive a grant from NEA, but the funding may go out to rural parts of the country. In Jepson, Iowa, a string quartet was given the money to perform for a rural community of 2,500 people and stay there for six months teaching the kids music. That money came from New York.

*

Q: Do you worry about retiring when the NEA is so under siege?

A: Oh, there will be others to take up the cause, there are lots of good people in the Congress who support NEA, both from big cities and rural communities. For a number of reasons, I don’t like to retire; and were I younger, I wouldn’t retire. But it seems to me having reached the ripe age of 88, I ought to make way for somebody who is younger. The torch can be passed for NEA and NEH as well.

I’d like to think that through NEA I’ve made some contribution to the progress of the country and to its well being. I think the stimulation and protection the arts have received through the NEA have raised the standard of living--the standard of culture--of the American people.