Cultural commitments: rethinking arts funding policy

Afterimage, Jan-Feb, 1996 by Ann Lee Morgan

As we ruminate over the issues discussed in these books, what can we take away that will be useful in the future? First, we must be aware of mistakes made in the past in order not to repeat them. Second, we should be open to new ideas for reorganizing the Endowment in order to increase its effectiveness or, possibly, to do away with the organization as it is now constituted in favor of other government interventions to serve the same ends.

The mistakes of the past cannot simply be dumped at the door of the NEA. Arts advocates and artists must also take responsibility. However, the NEA could have been more successful with respect to several issues. It has often failed to present itself as a government agency with the same accountability restraints as any other federal organization. inherent conflicts between equally worthy policy objectives of excellence and access must be more clearly acknowledged, along with the mechanisms for achieving them. The NEA administration must be able to explain to Congress exactly why the agency exists, and what it does with its money. This may not be easy for those who believe that the arts are inherently worthwhile and that meaning in the arts transcends not only bureaucratic imperatives but even rational exposition. However, the task is politically necessary. It is unrealistic to think that without this effort in an economy of dwindling resources the arts will continue to be funded. The NEA's chairperson, Jane Alexander, is hopeful that the agency's recent efforts at restructuring will reward the organization with survival - beyond the life span of two years that most freshman House Republicans have recommended.

The NEA has also been scandalously indifferent to issues of conflict of interest. There are infamous stories about insider dealing in review panels, and the problem extends even to the National Council. Although effort has been made in recent years to curb the worst abuses, the agency must take every measure to foster a culture of honesty and openness, in which self-interest plays no part in the grant-awarding process. This is a more difficult area to address than it might appear at first glance. The universe of top professionals in each of the arts is quite small. If the agency wants to make use of the best people, it will inevitably have to deal with the fact that they have inherent interests. However, strict rules, full disclosure and principled leadership could enhance the NEA's credibility.

The NEA has become too entrenched in bureaucratic thinking. This is not to say that it should devolve into formlessness ruled by whimsy. Accountability must be expressed in the structure of the organization, through lines of responsibility and authority. That said, the agency wastes too much of its own and other's time on elaborate procedures, multiple copies and incomprehensible directives that give the impression that the forces of pomposity are in charge. As Marquis writes in Art Lessons, after citing several passages from NEA application instructions, "The reader who does not yet weep for a nation whose arts are said to be nourished by the authors of such text may turn to the NEA's other publications for more reasons to grieve."(14) We probably cannot return to the days when Twyla Tharp, in the 1960s, could successfully apply for a grant from the New York State Arts Commission with a letter that read, "I write dances, not applications. Send money. Love, Twyla."(15) But the agency certainly should get away from its heavy-handed ways by making a commitment to clear language and flexible thought.