Cultural commitments: rethinking arts funding policy

Afterimage, Jan-Feb, 1996 by Ann Lee Morgan

Two additional NEA shortcomings are also shared by arts advocates. The NEA itself has apparently not maintained the kind of documentation it could now use to justify its existence, nor has any private agency helped out in this regard. It would be helpful to know, on a more than anecdotal basis, what individuals and organizations have received grants and how they have spent the money. Without NEA funding, what works of art would not have been created, what performances would never have reached a theater, what exhibitions would never have been staged at museums? The NEA should have this information at its fingertips. It should also make a point of asking some recipients who benefited from grants 10 or 20 years ago to comment on what those grants meant to their lives as creative artists or to the survival and development of their organizations. This sort of information should be widely distributed to law makers and the public, who would hopefully understand that these monies make a difference. For purposes of analysis, the NEA should also keep information on what happens when grants are denied to organizations. (It would probably be very difficult to assess the impact of grant denial over the lifetime of an individual.) The agency would then have some basis for evaluating its own programs with respect to whether other funding is obtained or projects are abandoned.

Additionally, both the NEA and arts advocates have failed to insulate the arts against an array of claims from special interests. Marquis speaks of "the rush to harness the arts to tourism, to downtown redevelopment, to the alleviation of social problems, and to the delivery of political messages."(16) If the arts are given too large a load - or an inappropriate load - to bear, the continuation of these problems may resonate as a failure of art. The arts do interconnect with many other enterprises, and it would be foolish to ignore such practical effects as stimulating local economies or enriching the environment. But the agency must avoid the temptation to debase the art it exists to serve by trying to spread its benefits indiscriminately. Ultimately, the NEA and its supporters must safeguard the essential fact that the strength of the arts lies in their ability to speak to people as individuals about their inner lives.

Like the agency itself, arts advocacy groups have been remiss in developing a hard-headed policy to justify spending. They have also tended to be slow to react to recent crises, thereby allowing the opposition to define the issues. Moreover, it is also shameful that some potentially powerful voices are seldom heard. Where have the major figures in allied commercial fields been? Those in theater, film and music, for example, who benefit directly from NEA support of neophyte artists and noncommercial training venues (such as non-profit theater) should speak out for the arts. Likewise, the well-connected and well-to-do board members of major institutions have rarely spoken up publicly on such concerns, even when the arts have been viciously attacked. Arts advocates need to mobilize such influential voices.