The Future of the National Endowment for the Arts
The much beleaguered L.A. Times recently asked a number of artists/cultural figures, etc, what they might do if they ran the N.E.A. This is well timed, as the new administration is about to make a decision on the matter.
I was flattered to be asked. I often think (idly) that I should throw my hat in the ring for the job, however, now that I am middle-aged, and have spent years on the couch, I have little taste for pain of the sort experienced by Prometheus, for instance, who had his liver pecked out daily by an eagle. I am sure that is what the job would be like. Though I do like the idea of being of service to my country right now, as a sort of soldier/diplomat for culture. And I have always admired the legendary Perle Mesta, the 'hostess with the mostes (sic)", a gal who did her best to turn D.C. into Paris.
Here's my response to the Times:
Were I to throw my hat in the ring as culture czar/NEA head, I would start with the following:
I would attempt to pass legislation on a special tax dedicated to the NEA for all artists who make over half a million dollars a year from their work.
I would create a new version of the Federal Arts Project of the 1930s and '40s, which would also be funded by this surtax from the artists who have succeeded.
I would attempt to create a superfund from private donations from all studios or Apple, for instance, in order to replenish the coffers. That money would go to school arts programs, which have been slashed for years.
I would fund arts teaching positions through public/private partnerships.
I would create a national architecture czar in an effort to beautify our cities, the way André Malraux beautified Paris when he was the French minister of culture.
I would move away from the focus that the NEA has had on minor ethnocentric and folk projects and move into a broad, far-reaching series of projects that question the role of religion and commerce in the life of the nation.
I would encourage the high-tech industry to sponsor filmmakers and visual artists on projects, much as Maurice Tuchman did at LACMA in 1966 in the seminal exhibit "Art & Technology," which inspired me to become an artist.
I would present a series of lectures for senators and congressional leaders in Washington (open to the public) on the subject of the arts and their importance. It would feature speakers from the arts who had achieved master-status. I would transform the Kennedy Center Honors into the "American Masters Program."
I would encourage the Office of Faith Based Initiatives to begin a dialogue about tolerance, acceptance, democracy and theology in order to encourage a greater understanding of the powerful link between politics, religion and culture.
I would insist that a percentage of income from networks (both cable and traditional) go to fund both NPR and PBS.
I would bring symphonies to small towns.
I would wear a suit and tie all day, every day, and entertain cultural figures in my Georgetown brownstone and raise money through small private fundraisers there, in addition to initiating an Obama-like Internet fundraising machine for the arts, made up of small donors. I would solicit donations of small works on paper from important American artists to be auctioned online at this site, with money to go to the arts-in-the-schools program.
I would instruct the Smithsonian to develop a wing of political art, whose first exhibition would be about propaganda, torture and the Constitution. I would ask prominent artists and writers to curate shows across the country on this theme. It would be about the effects of war on the soul of a nation. It would be very complex and draw conclusions without simple bromides of either ideology.
I would ask Robert Hughes, Wes Anderson, Bill T. Jones, Frank Gehry, Meryl Streep, Suzan-Lori Parks, Eric Fischl and John Adams for their advice as often as possible, mainly because I admire them. Many others too, but it is too long a list. I would leave the NEA a far more powerful and vital institution than it was when I arrived.
I would make sure that I was a frequent guest at the White House, and I would always bring presents of art for the first children, so that when they grow up, they would include art into whatever magnificent endeavor for the public good that their marvelous parents helped shepherd them into.
If anyone in the administration wishes to discuss this, I am not too hard to find.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The WPA Federal Arts Project felt it was inappropriate for a governmental body to decide who is or isn't an artist, so it employed pretty much anybody who proclaimed him-or-herself to be creative. As I understand it they paid minimum wage, and the artists, writers, dancers, actors, playwrights etc. were given assignments. The WPA opened neighborhood art centers (many of which still exist today), painted murals in schools and post offices, recorded the narratives of former slaves who were still alive at that time, financed theatre companies and orchestras. It didn't pay much, but it was "shovel ready."
There are community and state-wide foundations dedicated to these principles. The Ray School area on the south side of Chicago, and the State of Minnesota are examples of the parents of the consumers seeing the value of the arts in the education of their children, and wanting others to have those experiences. WE LEARN THROUGH THE ARTS!
To the Question of Why the Government Should Pay For Art: Once upon a time governments such as ancient Athens, Rome, and the Renaissance Era Italian city states showed how rich and powerful they were by funding artists. Kings and Princes showed how devout they were by funding Cathedrals and religious art. During the Great Depression the government paid artists to decorate public buildings. They sent out musicologists to preserve folk music. They sent out historians and folklorists to write down oral history and folklore. Art enriches our culture, feeds the mind, and enlivens the soul. Most importantly art is the mirror held up to society, when the artist does his or her job that mirror reflects only the truth. If art is sometimes ugly or hard to look at that is only because the reflection shows everything -- warts and all.
Some Famous Artists Who Made A Living From Government Commissions Include: Michelangelo, Leonardo, Beethoven, Mozart...a
If government is going to provide grants to artists, it must be with the condition that it NOT be allowed to censor any artistic expression at all!
That is in the bylaws of the NEA. Members of Congress will continue to try to censor it, as Jesse Helms did with the Mapplethorpe exhibition.
Some good suggestions here. Thank you.
In terms of what those in the arts are up against:
"Republicans and Eric Cantor to Starving Artists: Eat Cake"
http://msa
I love the NEA! They gave me a $500,000 endowment to create "unique, innovative beach sculptures that depict the struggles of loggerhead sea turtles in their battle to survive humanity."
Thanks again, NEA!!!
The NEA doesn't give endowments.
Put another nickel in and try again.
It's important to note that spending money on the Arts is one of the best economic returns the government can make. For every dollar that the government puts into the arts, approximately $20 is returned into local economies. Artists and arts groups who get NEA funding do NOT rely on the NEA for their sole source of income. The get federal dollars, combine those with other monies they receive and then spend that money in local communities. How many government programs can boast that?
Very innovative Jon. Love of art starts as a child, exposure is critical. I remember we had regular art and crafts time at school, we'd pull out our oil cloths, cover our desks, and go at it, paint, whatever. We''d take field trips to concerts, plays, sometimes just seeing a high school play as an elementary school student is enough. Hope you get a chance to be involved in this, the country would be better for it.
Excellent ideas, all. You've got my vote.
This is wonderful stuff. Thank you!!! I hope you are contacted. :)
WHERE IN THE HELL IS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CONFISCATING FUNDS FROM THE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY TO GIVE TO THE NEA AND ARTISTS?
What is the point of a society without culture? Civilization has two outputs: philosophy and art.
A society without culture is what we just all lived through for the last eight years, unless you consider what we did to stimulate art and culture in Baghdad.
Also, it could be derived from the 10th amendment.
WHERE THE HELL IS IT IN THE CONSTITUTI
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
- Preamble to the United States Constitution
The same place where it says that we should be giving my tax dollars (earned by making a productive living in the arts for the last 45 years, btw) to ranchers and tobacco farmers, the auto industry and the banks or to employ our military to kill tens of thousands of normal, regular, loving people in other countries for no good reason, just because we can.
What have you got against the arts? I guess you don't read or listen to music or read the funny papers (do we still have funny papers?) or go to movies or watch television or buy greeting cards or look at advertising or (god forbid!) go to museums or only like buildings made out of recycled cargo containers (or is that too much like Art?)
Don't you just love the screamers? You can't stop reasonable discussion with capital letters.
On September 11, 2001, I had just completed my first week of classes at the Yale School of Drama. After a week of amazing new experiences, the attacks made many of us reevaluate our place as artists in society. I think in all the panic, we thought that our work was somehow trivial or inappropriate in a time of national crisis.
I recall hanging out at the local bar that night and listening to some of the patrons wax on about what had happened that day, and what our response, as a nation, should be. It was mostly a mix of fear and anger; that we needed to strike at someone, anyone, now...fast and hard. There was a real apathy towards any consequences our actions might have, however justified they may be. And it dawned on me at that moment: THIS is why I'm a theatre artist. It's our job to ask the questions that no one is asking. It's our job to not only explore our darker aspects, but to put them on display so we can better understand ourselves.
Self reflection is seen as a weakness in America today. And I would argue that it's due to our devaluing of art as a legitimate subject, both academically and economically. Art can't solve our problems, but I can't help but think we'd all be braver citizens if we became more aware of our humanity and learned to embrace it rather than run from it.
I support much of this. It does not speak to a cultural trend that is not insurmountable but is confusing. What is American culture? When so many non-artists envision art as outside of their experience there can't be much buy in.
I think that many Americans feel that "if I can't relate to it and do not understand it, then it must be very good art indeed!!"
Don't forget ballet --
I say ballet because all other dance is derived from it.
To foster the arts is the most noble thing we can do as humans.
It puzzles me beyond words, that we hold lawyers, bankers, mill workers, CEO positions, technicians, politicians, etc. as jobs that have more value than teachers, nurses and artists.
How could we survive without music, the story tellers, the designers, etc.
We, the artists, need to do a better job of promoting why our art is so important. We need to reduce how much our art speaks for us, and use our words to tell those people who oppose art funding why funding art is so important.
I'm not big on the idea of the government (NEA) funding artists per se. But, the government can certainly do a better job of promoting infrastructure and commerce. Build more buildings where artists can hold private studios, give more money to art supply producers of paint or oil or chalk makers and the stores that sell art supplies.
Use the NEA to fund more art schools, more film and tv production studios outside of Hollywood. Give tax breaks to the smaller more involved artists who are really making real art, not smatterings of paint on a canvas to make a buck.
For God's sake, don't make people produce art that *HAS* to say something. No forced moral stories on the people please. Let the art speak for itself. Let the artist speak for him/herself. The moment you endorce an agenda on an artist, you remove the point of art as an expression of The Soul
Someone has to fund the arts. Why shouldn't the government fund art and generously-- doing so could ensure that more Americans have access to the arts. As it stands, the government plays a vital role funding arts in our country -- but more is needed for the arts to truly prosper. And why not?
We are spending $341 million dollars a day in Iraq-- by comparison we spend $155 million a year for the National Endowment for the Arts.
.
I agree The Arts need to be funded at a rate 10-20 times what they are funded at now. I just don't like the idea of the government, or in fact anyone telling me what my art has to say because they are paying me. And that is precisely what this article says would happen. Art comes from the heart and soul of the artist, not the mind of the person funding the art as a way to say something meaninful or political.
If an artist wants to do something political or meaningful, talk about politics or religion, then I applaud them, but once the government gets to govern WHAT art is being produced, it turns from art to propoganda.
I agree with almost everything you said. However, your program seems very heavily weighted to the elite crowd of artists who are the top 1% in their field. There are many really good mid-career artists who have worked very hard all their lives with not much fanfare. It just seems your ideas are good but it remains limited to the elites and the school children with nothing in between.
How about programs that up the 1% funding for the arts for new government or city works to 2%?
How about bringing programs that involve issues of art and design to the dept. of the interior or the dept. of energy? Perhaps with the dept. of the interior there could be some BLM land set aside to create art parks and sculpture parks that artists could make work on commission from the small amount of taxes you put on the sales of those artists making more than a half a millions dollars a year.
It would also bring contemporary art to some of our small towns and country communities that don't have access to much art. It could help create jobs in those communities by stimulating some tourism and jobs linked to installing and protecting the art.
All art is political, it doesn't have to beat you over the head with politics or a political theme to be political itself.
Towards the ends that you would like to see achieved, there should be a whole category of funds given to the DOT with the charge of integrating art into our transportation infrastructure, particularly in the small rural communities that are otherwise under served. Like a series of art billboards, running from coast to coast, each created by a different Mid -career artist.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
