Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The NEA: Count Me Out
I am a bit conflicted about the Trump initiative to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. On the one hand, art has enriched my life immeasurably; on the other hand I can’t pretend that the NEA operates in the same universe as I do.
As a member of the Board of Directors of a small private museum and a long-time collector, I should be as upset as most in the art community seem to be, but I’m not. The art world got along just fine before the NEA was created in 1965 – I argue that the state of art in America was actually better before the NEA. It’s not about the money, the NEA budget is “only” $148 million, the problem is politics, decency, politics and a lack of definition of what “art” is.
I am a retired person, but if someone asks what I do for a living I can jokingly reply that “I’m a fund manager, a writer, and a political analyst and economist” all of which is true to some degree. I manage my own assets, write comments on Ricochet and submit an occasional column in the local newspaper; I also generously share my political analysis and economic opinions. Many so-called artists do much the same thing. A person can call themselves an artist and create something called art; in fact, anything can be called art. According to the NEA any expression by any person is art, be it graffiti or flower arranging. Call it what you may, but count me out. In my mind the creation of art implies a certain degree of talent, skill and craftsmanship. The product should be at least admirable and at best awe inspiring.
I get my fill of political correctness, social justice, feminism, environmental concerns and other leftisms every day of my life. Art should be a refuge from such bombardment, not another arrow in the quiver of the Left.
It is argued that some countries, notably Germany, France and The Netherlands outspend the US in art funding by a wide per capita margin. That’s true, but they do so under the umbrella of protection provided by the United States which spends a prodigious amount covering the backsides of virtually every free country on earth. Also, consider the fact that Americans devote more personal resources to charitable pursuits — per capita — than any country or combinations of countries of similar size.
According to a recent article by George Will, Americans’ contributions to arts organizations reaped $17 billion in 2015, which dwarfs the government’s NEA contributions, which could easily be replaced by those who actually use those organizations. The arts will be just fine without the bureaucracy of the NEA.
I don’t subscribe to the opinion that art is meant to challenge, shock or disturb one’s senses; there is plenty of that in life. If one is entertained by a crucifix in a vial of urine or elephant feces adorning an image of the Virgin Mary or pornographic photos or plays designed to insult and outrage the audience, then funding for such garbage can be raised through some form of crowd funding. The NEA and other such organizations should stand on their own two feet and obtain funding from those who are moved or entertained by such things.
I realize that some good comes from NEA funding, but that’s the price you pay for failing to require a minimum of decency.
Published in General
Facts and Figures from the NEA indicate that:
87% of NEA Grant funding goes to Metropolitan areas
29% to cities with populations less than 1 Million
71 % to cities with populations between 1 million and 4.6-or-more million
NEA dollars are matched by up to seven dollars in “private or other public” (e.g. state, local) funds. This means there is a “ripple effect” of grant money. That’s a good thing…or is it?
Presumably, the ripple effect doesn’t just leverage arts funding, it leverages art influence: when a museum knows that 20 grand in NEA funding will be matched with 20 grand or more in “other” funding, it is more likely to tailor its product to NEA explicit or implicit guidelines.
From George Will’s piece in the National Review: David Marcus, artistic director of a Brooklyn-based theater project and senior contributor to The Federalist, says the NEA produces “perverse market incentives” that explain why many arts institutions “are failing badly at reaching new audiences, and losing ground”:
Many theater companies, even the country’s most “successful,” get barely 50 percent of their revenue from ticket sales. Much of the rest comes from tax-deductible donations and direct government grants. This means that the real way to succeed as an arts organization is not to create a product that attracts new audiences, but to create a product that pleases those who dole out the free cash. The industry received more free money than it did a decade ago, and has fewer attendees.
Furthermore, Will writes: …the NEA’s effects are regressive, funding programs that are, as Paul Ryan’s House Budget Committee said, “generally enjoyed by people of higher income levels, making them a wealth transfer from poorer to wealthier.” A frequently cited study purporting to prove otherwise was meretricious: It stressed income levels of ZIP codes where NEA-funded institutions are, inferring that institutions located in low-income areas are serving low-income people.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445797/national-endowment-arts-funding-cuts-eliminate-program
I actually agree with you. But this alternate view seems to prevail in our post-modern society; the individual is the only judge that matters. (So where does that leave government funding? Completely out of the equation…as it should be.) Just thought I’d let Tolstoy have his say in the discussion!
This is where my skeptical eyebrow lifts. Such statements are always posed as if the other money will disappear if the NEA grant goes away. It’s just a sales pitch. Like employer match for charitable donations. Same kind of sales pitch. The employer is going to budget for their charitable giving, and tweak their matching program to hit their budget. Watch what happens the year after a company match is too popular, if you don’t believe me.
The private and other public money is available on their own budgets, and the supposed tie to the NEA grant is nothing but a certain kind of manure.
My darling husband, an artist, got upset when I suggested that defunding NEA wasn’t necessarily a bad idea.I count this as an example of the conflation of “the art world/community” with “NEA/Government.” If we don’t support the NEA, that means we don’t support artists.
The progressives really have gotten good at this—if you don’t support the teacher’s unions, it means you don’t support education for children…if you don’t support government welfare programs, it means you are willing to let the poor starve… and so on.
Sigh.
And doesn’t the “match” pitch encourage “matching” agencies to “match” not just their pledges but their ideology to that of the NEA? E.g. “this is art worth funding…that is art that isn’t worth funding…”?
And of course, artists (like my husband) have been encouraged to view hostility to the NEA as hostility to him personally, even though he doesn’t receive one thin dime from the NEA…progressives don’t just encourage college students to get paranoid, depressed and anxious, they encourage everyone to do so.
Yeah, we live in an age when people think that if something is good, it MUST be federally funded. Although I do not partake in them myself, most people think haircuts are a good thing, so I guess that means we need a National Haircut Agency.
As always, “Yes Prime Minister” has a clip for this:
Of course, the show also had a whole episode about government funding for the arts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y22iQKMZD6Y
Shush, you! We don’t know what leftists might be lurking here! Any of them read that, they’ll pitch it publicly and find a sympathetic ear in our orange-thatched leader.
Yes, indeed. Provides a “force-multiplier” for the bureaucrats at the NEA. Another reason to zero that out.
Just came back from Central Europe. Vienna may have been one of the richest cities in the world, Prague and Budapest not so much. But the beauty in the buildings, art and decorations makes me weep as an American.
The Schonbrunn Palace, St. Wenceslas Chapel in St Vitus Cathedral in Prague, the Prague astronomical clock, Mattias Church in Buda Castle. What work of art since 1960 will match those since 1300? Not much, I suspect. Went to a contemporary exhibit in the Albertina. If revulsion is what art demands, they almost got a bucketful.
Let the market decide, worked for Renaissance painters. Would like to see great art sponsored by our current Medici’s over NEA sponsored offal.
Just because I intend to create art doesn’t mean I succeed in doing so. If the artist is the sole arbiter of what is art, then we have no effective definition for the word at all.
I would offer that “what is art” is sometimes not clear for years after the art was created. So any practical definition of the word should be relatively stable and conservative, an perhaps even acknowledge that time will tell.
There are a lot of aspiring artists, who intend, even insist their creations to be art. (My six-year old granddaughter included.) But just because they think their work to be art does not make it so.
To paraphrase an old Monty Python line: “I’ve suffered for my art; now it’s your turn.”
I think the discussion here is purely a matter of differing semantics; you (and others) tend to be using the word “art” to imply merit, while others (myself included) view it as a simple operative term describing the actions of the creator. Whether the resultant work is good or beautiful is a secondary judgment rendered after the work is created (“aesthetics”). But an artist creates art. Every time. How can it be otherwise? (And yes, I believe that includes your granddaughter.) If not, one is compelled to ask – at what point in time does a drawing/painting/sculpture/photograph suddenly “turn” into “art?” And who bestows that redefinition? Media critics? Art history professors? The number of individuals who view it in a gallery? And least of all – a government grant? (None of this sounds very stable or conservative – worthy goals, I agree.)
But “What is good art?” has been debated since Aristotle…and will always be an open question.
Okay – so I believe this is what we’ve really been talking about – “Art” as something of lasting creative quality – as opposed to the grandkids’ finger paintings.
You know me pretty well, Ms. Fine – so you know I hate pretense. So I struggle with the over-use of the word “art” as it is commonly tossed about by East Coast elitists.
And don’t get me started on the over-use of “genius.”
And since the disagreements over what is “art” could conceivably go on forever, I think it would be the smart thing for everybody just to agree with me. :)
I would posit that there are some practical limits here. If anybody can simply declare anything they want to be art, then I can simply declare that blowing my nose and farting is music. How can you say I’m wrong?
I can’t wait for your album to come out, not to mention the accompanying video…
Yes, I’m thinking of going on tour with Yoko Ono!
Why market works better than government?
Art is high on the list of evidence.