Latest NEA Controversy Isn’t the First
by Larry O'ConnorThe National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is always one of the hottest topics in the theatre community. A huge amount of theatre in the US is created or presented at non-profit theatres that operate under the protection of or were first started with grants from the National Endowment for the Arts.
The latest NEA controversy broken here at Big Hollywood by Patrick Courrielche has become a fascinating Rorschach test within the theatre community. The response has been disappointing yet predictable from the left-leaning proponents of the NEA and this administration.
Robert Mapplethorpe
To fully expose the inconsistencies and intellectually dishonest positions they have taken in their knee-jerk defense of everything Obama, we first need a little background for the Big Hollywood readers who might not remember all of the details in the recent history of controversies with regard to NEA funding in the theatre community.
NEA Primer: Now I don’t pretend to suggest that the following breakdown of the NEA struggles dating back to 1990 is a definitive or even thorough explanation of the recent history of left vs. right combat over the NEA. I encourage all of my readers to research and read about this issue. And, I especially want them to read the perspective of liberals/progressives/leftists who were in the middle of the struggle on the other side. It is informative and enlightening to read how they really feel about the subject.
That being said, the following synopsis of the NEA fights from twenty years ago is meant to be a short-hand account of the debate from the perspective of the right… from “Stage Right,” if you will:
The NEA was created in 1965 as an independent agency of the Federal Government for the purpose of funding artistic endeavors to enrich the cultural fabric of our society.
Not coincidentally, many of the most influential non-profit theatres in America date their creation back to years between 1966 and 1979. The new influx of federal grants as well as many state and local granting agencies that followed the Fed’s lead helped in the creation of these new theatre groups
In the early 1990’s, after 25 years of relatively unfettered growth and autonomous operation it was discovered that recent grants were given to individual artists whose artistic output included projects that are objectively seen as offensive, if not profane. These projects include the infamous “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographic self-portrait showing a bullwhip shoved in his anus. The famous “NEA Four,” a group of performance artists including Karen Finley, were denied an NEA grant despite the fact that they had been approved by a peer panel. Finley’s performance art involved her smearing feces-symbolic chocolate on her nude body while singing.
Conservatives (not just Republicans) led by Senator Jesse Helms objected to a government agency funding artists who were creating these objectionable pieces of art and they attempted to call into question the NEA’s granting criteria. Liberals cried foul and suggested that any governmental interference or oversight with regard to the content of the art created by NEA grantees is tantamount to an infringement on the first amendment.
Most conservatives heard this argument and wholeheartedly agreed. Their solution: Get the government out of the business of financing artistic endeavors all together. The rationale was that if the government can’t have any input into the art that they are financing then they should not be financing it. Otherwise, the American taxpayer can’t be guaranteed that they are actual getting what they pay for. You see, if an agency is created to fund an artist to create work that will enrich the cultural fabric of our nation, and then the actual art does not enrich but actually degrades the fabric of our culture and offends a vast majority of our citizens, then the money is not being used in the way it was intended. When congress dispenses federal funds, it is their responsibility to ensure that the funds are used for the purposes they were intended. Otherwise, if the congress can’t question the proper use of the funds, then we have created an agency that is immune from any kind of governmental oversight and therefore should not continue to exist.
That reasonable and logical argument was met with howls from the left screaming about the right wanting to cut off funding to all of those theatres… those employers of writers, actors, directors and techies all living off of their non-profit theatre jobs. It was at this point that a huge shift occurred in the theatre community, painting very stark lines between conservatives and liberals. Up to this point, as a conservative, I was tolerated and sometimes even engaged in friendly debate at my workplace or at cocktail parties. Not anymore. Conservatives became the enemy. They wanted to take food off of the table of my co-workers by cutting off funding for the arts. And if I argued on their behalf, I was the enemy too.
Eventually, a compromise was reached. The NEA would no longer fund individual artists but would continue funding institutions. The institutions, in turn, would use the grants for administrative purposes, so they were not necessarily tied to a specific product that could be seen as objectionable. Even after the GOP had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, no realistic attempt was made to shut down the NEA. (In 1996, with President Clinton in the White House and a GOP congress, the NEA budget was slashed to just under $100 million from its high of $160 million. It grew back to $140 million under President George W. Bush (that Nazi) and it is now up to $155 million for FY 2009).
But, the lines had been drawn by the left as a result of this episode. If you were a conservative you had to fall into one of two camps:
- You were a censor infringing on the rights of artists and trying to control their speech. You were worse than the Popes who dared to dictate what Michelangelo could paint at the Vatican with church funds. The Hubris! You freaking fascist!
- You were a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who saw no use for the arts in our society. Only wanted the Federal government to fund bombs and the military industrial complex but only wanted art to exist in the context of a free market and therefore you were actively trying to shut down all of the non-profit theatres that were only surviving due to the NEA grants they were receiving.
(OK, I might be exaggerating, but the caricatures are not far from the truth.)
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
86 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Julie Bryan. Julie Bryan said: RT @bighollywood Latest NEA Controversy Isn’t the First http://bit.ly/3ntAnw [...]
"The NEA was created in 1965 as an independent agency of the Federal Government for the purpose of funding artistic endeavors to enrich the cultural fabric of our society."
This is the base of problems in our society today, you can not let the Federal Government into the arts, religion or education. Central planning is a failed political structure.
I commented on the garbage the NEA has been using our tax $$$ for the other day.
It's an outrage.
U.S. OUT OF THE ARTS – NOW!
SR good read! That’s to damn bad for the “non-profit” theaters. If they can’t produce a product that can be marketed, get a job.
Here, here! Once you let the government in to "help" you from the financial side, it gives them license to have their say as to what you can and/or will produce. What will happen if the artwork these Obamatons create is not deemed good enough because it doesn't "persuade" us to "go green",to commit to government financed heath plans, etc.? Will the artists complain when He and the NEA pull their funding saying, "Sorry, your work did not produce the effect we were expecting. People are still rejecting our agenda. We're going with someone else." Imagine the howls of outrage and gnashing of teeth because the vat of NEA dollars is snatched away from the poor starving artists. As I've said before, I want to be free to use my God given talents on my own. I f others like what I produce (with or without an underlying message) and they choose to view it, buy it, or even ask me if they can be a part of it and fund it PRIVATELY (i.e. NO FEDERAL/STATE MONEY) then I will have succeeded.
I find it fascinating that these so called free thinking individuals are so comfortable being "owned" by an over reaching entity that is so much "bigger than themselves". Farewell creativity. So long those who at one time were unique. You've sold your very souls.
I guess I'm a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal since I believe that government has absolutely no business funding the arts.
The NEA was created in 1965 as an independent agency of the Federal Government for the purpose of funding artistic endeavors to enrich the cultural fabric of our society.
There is no way to meet that mandate because no two people will necessarily agree as to what art enriches the cultural fabric of our society. I am pretty certain "Piss Christ" didn't. Likewise The Perfect Moment.
"Central planning is a failed political structure." You hit the nail on the head. This is why socialized medicine is doomed to fail.
Having lived through those controversies and well aware of them, I had no love for Piss Christ or Elephant Dung Mary. Still don't. IMHO It is meant to offend, nothing less. But if you set aside Robert Mapplethorpe's more homoerotic photography, a lot of his straight-up studio work is really phenomenal. All that said, I would much rather see all the above funded by NEA a hundred times over than a single Obama policy work.
Art may be in the eye of the beholder. Subsidizing political agendas is not open to such interpretation OR funding. To see what I mean about Mapplethorpe, here is a link to his Foundation website, which upon entry provides a slide show of some startlingly mild but great B&W photography. Credit where credit is due. Don't throw the Mapplethorpe baby out with the bath water.
http://www.mapplethorpe.org/
John – I'm sorry buddy, but I have to disagree with you here. If we are in a recession, and have this mounting federal deficit, this becomes the first unecessary expense I cut.
This post should be a reminder to its readers, especially those who long for a culture that promotes liberty and personal responsibility in America, where the Right went wrong in the so-called culture war. The NEA has long been an institution where the Left and the Right have, in a manner of speaking, exchanged blows in the battle of ideas. But it was a lopsided battle: The Left produced the art, and the Right produced speeches. That would be tantamount to Democrats passing legislation in response to which the Republicans wrote policy papers, but refused to produce alternative legislation.
Rather than, or at the very least in addition to, attacking Serrano's, Maplethorpe's, et al work conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else who honors this nation's foundational values should have been hard at work funding and creating alternatives. Instead the Right dug into an ideological position from which it attacked the NEA and the work it was funding. This not only allowed people on the Right to be characterized as people who don't care about or are ignorant of the arts, when the truth is far different.
Furthermore, young people who may have a passion for the arts and who also love the classical liberal ideas upon which America was founded were not supported in pursuing their passion. If, on the other hand, these young people wanted to pursue careers in public policy they found plenty of support and encouragement. All these years, folks who could have been making a difference in what The Culture Alliance refers to as the Cultural Influence Professions, i.e, arts, entertainment, education and journalism, were instead focusing their energies on attacking these professions.
The result has been a culture that moved further and further left until it reached the point were it literally stood up and applauded when a radical leftist, with little experience, ran for and became America's 44th president.
The solution to this is not to continue to remain on the attack. The solution is to support organizations that encourage and assist those who want to produce art and entertainment, who want to teach, who want to provide real journalism, and who also find value in a culture of liberty and personal responsibility. The Right must produce real alternatives in the arts and entertainment, not alternatives that simply promote a rival ideology to the leftist ideology the culture currently swims in. It must be an alternative the exposes the reality beneath the ideology. When the Right starts doing that, then the culture may once again be a place where America's foundational ideas are supported not held up for ridicule and disdain.
The photos in the slideshow are nice, especially the one of the man whose face is partially underwater and the one with the orchids, but I may have to side with Jed, considering the state of our economy.
First, whatever happened to "suffering for one's art" or "starving artist" or "patrons"? I'm willing to bet that local patrons that weren't taxed that additional $155M could better fund the community rather than having 25 -30% of that money lost in overhead (for you artistic folks, that is a business term that means you would have actually more money if it didn't have to pass through the bureaucrats and pay for their services).
By the way, I must have been asleep when I was going through my Constitution classes that covered the section or amendment that covered the creation of a National Endowment for the Arts. Could someone show me where I can find that? Maybe in the Federalist Papers?
But then again: "I'm just a caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me!"
SR, good post, way way better than the inept reporting in our media. The criteria agenda problem dates back though. In Philadelphia in the early "80s the Serrano show caused an uprising of the offended against the Institute of Contemporary Art. I was involved with setting up insurance and other aspects for my employer, a broker, and knew that the ICA people had included the crap only at NEA Hollywood/Broadway deal type pushing. The ICA wanted to "put ourselves on the map" and it wasn't going to happen otherwise. The NEA agenda criteria kills real art, and its effect is to cause non-NEA money to fall for sponsored crap while effectivly shutting off other sources by refusing support for non-agenda art. Many on this blog would be liviing as large as the leftees if the NEA did art instead of propaganda.
begin rant/
The NEA is and always has been an abomination that enables nothing more than leftist dilettantism. There is not, nor has there ever been, a single artist associated with the NEA (Sorry SR, but I don't care who you really are, I'm certain that I'd consider you no exception, since I don't judge theater to be high art by any stretch).
This current morass of anti-cultural leftist bias that the art world is mired in is the result of LBJ's "Great Society" initiative, which he rushed passed bewildered conservatives in the wake of the JFK assassination. Not just the art world, but the entire country has been rotting from within from taxpayer-subsidized leftist societal engineering ever since. Art has been distorted and polluted by it, education has been distorted and polluted by it, and politics has, therefore, been distorted and polluted by it. That's not a complete list, BTW, because our entire American culture has been disfigured by this evil garbage the leftists have foisted on us.
None of these pseudo-intellectual faux-artists the NEA enables qualify by any logical reasoning as contributors to our culture: They are know-nothing wastrel poseurs who have been coddled by a grant system, and who have never faced a hostile audience or had to make a business decision concerning how to "make it" as an artist. None of them have invested any time or sweat-equity into mastering the history and techniques of their chosen field of endeavor, and all the while they have sucked at the teat of the public fisc with the brazenly mistaken idea that they actually have done something to deserve it, and so are entitled to a life of profligacy and leisure.
Well, I have news for them, if I don't deserve it, then they certainly don't (And, I don't think the world owes me a living, despite the hard work I've invested in my life and the pursuit of my goals). You know the only thing the world owes you, a death. That's the one thing we all get, and the only thing we all deserve out of this life, because not a single one of us did anything to deserve this life in the first place.
If you think I have no business making these pronouncements, I'd invite you to judge for yourself, if you think you're qualified to make a determination.
I'm sick to death of the NEA and the leftist toadies who infest it. It's only one of dozens of government agencies that should be abolished, though.
/end rant
The NEA has proven they were everything…and worse, that their detractors believed they were all along.
I was wrong. I really thought the NEA was harmless. I should have known better, I think deep down I did.
When it's time, it's time. It's time to defund the NEA. Sad but true. They are not to be trusted.
Thorien, TJ, I am in total agreement with you both. Yet I am unreservedly devoted to the arts and NEA's original mission 1000%. It is a drop in the bucket compared to other government expenditures and can reap tremendous benefits. If one NEA produces the next Spielberg, John Williams, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali or Annie Liebowitz, it makes the whole program worthwhile, IMHO.
A government program that can reward us with stunning art, theater, music or film. What in gov't even comes close? That said, if NEA continues to politicize itself as it has, I say shut the doors. But think about this: what money we may now save from ACORN would more than cover NEA's operating costs. That's all I'm saying. Spend wisely, but don't blind the eye to spite the face.
[...] the article here: Latest NEA Controversy Isn’t the First This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Alright, I can support you on this, to a point.
There is a certain large percentage of artistic production that is crap, it is the nature of the beast. You make stuff you have to make, for practice, to clear the concept from your brain, whatever. The more stuff is funded, the more good works you get (in theory).
But there are good reasons why the "Great Masters" trashed so much of their own work, as any respectable artist in any field will do. Some work can be so terrible it should never be seen by others, the artist should recognize how bad it is, and certainly it should not even be shown among friends to elicit opinions, let alone a public showing. Then there is so much done to merely shock and offend, to generate publicity. Well, if we do not like it when Hollywood celebrities act so for the tabloids, why should we give "artists" a pass?
The glowing reviews the art critics give for the equivalent of a live tattooing of a swastika on a three month old baby, certainly does not help the perception.
You "don't judge theater to be high art by any stretch??" That's a bit much, and an odd comment from a musician. It seems to me those who make music should have a special appreciation for the power of live performance.
I think it's not only in the interest of a great nation to support the arts, but its' responsibility as well. But while I agree that in these financial times the money might be better spent elsewhere, if the NEA goes, then I think the Office of Faith Based Initiatives should go as well. Why should American foot the bill for religious organizations that go against their personal beliefs any more than they should pay for art that may offend those same beliefs?
In the old days – the good old days – neither actors nor lawyers were allowed to be buried within Church gates on consecrated ground. Call me old fashioned.
I've done a bit of all of the major "art" forms in my time it seems. From music (mostly Marching Band, Jazz, and Classical), to a bit of theater and film. I'm currently into 3D modeling since my stint in painting and drawing where horrible. (Now give me a strait edge and some math and I'm good at drafting and mechanical drawing. :p ) Through all of those I've always known that I didn't have the drive or passion to try and LIVE off of my work. Because If or one know damn well how hard that would be. I also know it IS possible to live off of one's ideas and creative output without a single government dime.
I point to my friends in the Webcomic community. While not all of them are Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com) or PvP Online (http://www.pvponline.com) many do quite well for themselves either augmenting their regular incomes or allowing them eek out a living off of pure internet income. Some come from more "legit" art areas of Book Art and comics (Like Girl Genious creators at Studio Foglio [
I support the Arts….Just do it on your own dime! In other words, If your artistic talents can't support you, get a Job.
Even after the GOP had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, no realistic attempt was made to shut down the NEA.
The Republicans are now finding out what happens when you don't kill something dangerous in your own house. I don't for a minute think that the NEA is going to stop supporting the Obama agenda, just because they can no longer talk about it. The organizations that the NEA was funding while the Republicans were in control are now acting as campaign workers for their opponents.
kadaka, again, preaching to the choir. I feel your pain, LOL! But it all goes back to Mel Brooks' Jews, fags and Gypsies axiom, IMHO. That the arts will attract a liberal left-leaning crowd goes without saying. It's the nature of the beast. Having grown up in Cambridge helped me greatly in understanding that simple fact. I have absolutely NO problem with Jews, fags or Gypsies that have no problem with me
Been there done that. But I also believe in Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Goes for both the arts AND Hollywood. But if even two endowment grants out of a hundred result in the next GUERNICA or EINE KLINE NACHTMUSIK, who can put a price on that? That said, politics at NEA is crapping where you eat. Don't like it. AT ALL! Politics at NEA has to go, or they do. It's that simple to me. nuff said?
Only a leftist creates art to "enrich the culture"–i.e. for the sake of the collective. A true artist creates for himself–simply for art's sake and beauty's sake–and would do no differently were he completely alone on the planet. The true artist feels compelled to express something he perceives within himself that is inexpressible in words alone. The leftist, on the other hand, trades in the mundane and the ordinary, getting it all backwards, or perhaps sideways. He begins with what is easily expessible in words (e.g. "capitalism is evil") and then attempts to render that profound by dressing it up in colors and sounds. In this way he hopes to impress the more stupid and shallow among his fellow citizens and thereby bring about political change. In contrast to the true artist, were the leftist alone on the planet, such activities as he calls "art" would never even cross his mind.
This just points up the inherently leftist roots of the NEA. No true conservative could have ever conceived of such an agency, because the very notion flies directly in the face of nature; that is, of the nature of true art and the reasons (the necessary conditions) for its existence.
OK, fair enough. "Limited size and scope of the Federal government" is a two-edged sword.
You and me both. I do kind of enjoy the cave art I have scrawled on my walls with the blackened end of a tree branch dipped in mastodon blood. If I call it "primitivism" could I get some government money so I don't have to go out and do that whole "hunter/gatherer" thing? It interrupts my creativity…
With respect, I think this is a red herring argument. I don't care if the NEA is funding paintings of Sarah Palin on black velvet. It violates the conservative principle of "limited size and scope".
Why do some of my posts randomly disappear for no reason at all? I'm not talking about the "site admin" stuff. One was here a minute ago and now it's gone without a trace. There was no offensive content or anything that would have flagged a censor. I was very careful not to use the term "an@lysis" in any form.
"Intensedebate" is really not a very good service. Breitbart, are you out there?
here here
The right does not have to do anything. Why don't artist do something without sucking at the gov. teat? If the government pays for it it is not art!
And if anyone wants another Leibowitz (sp)boo on you. The woman is a fool and a leftard. She could be great but she is only LEFT. Her mean spirit is her only street cred with idiots.
"The right does not have to do anything." Brilliant… why didn't I think of that. Because for people who care about America's foundational values "not doing anything" – ignore the culture – attitude has been such a boon to the Culture over the past 50+ years.
Where, exactly, has "not doing anything" been a successful strategy for anything? Should we do nothing about the war against Islamo-Nazism? If you read what I write as a call for conservatives to use gov't money to fund the arts, then I implore you to get your mind out of the political gutter. There is much more to life than politics. Imagine what the arts world might be if a fraction of the millions conservatives have funneled into AEI, Heritage, or CATO were used instead to fund arts institutions or to support filmmakers, writers, and others.
Instead, to many conservatives take this head-in-the-sand attitude that the Cultural Influence Professions can be ignored. If that is the tack you want to take, then don't complain about what you get vis a vis politics. Politics follows culture.
author Andrew Klavan's take on NEA:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0921ak.html
Typical of rabid American anti-intellectualism. Art isn't seen as "real work" at all. Truly moronic.
I know several members of the "N.E.A. Four" personally. Nice guys, interesting artists, and all of them gay.
Attacks on the N.E.A. have always been a homophobic jihaad ordered by Republicans who as we all know have no interest in persons of their own sex whatsoever.
Hey look — Patrick McHenry's getting married.
David please,
If you want to be Gay, Be Gay. If you want to be a Republican, Be Republican. If you want to be an artist….Be a great one and pay your own bills. I am personally not attacking the NEA, the NEA has been abused by a handful of individuals and if the people in charge of the NEA can't do a better job regulating it, than get rid of it! Using the NEA for Political Agenda is wrong.
Great comment Gozer…………
LBJ made the arts community another welfare client and just as welfare destroyed the family, especially the black family, taxpayer-funded largesse destroyed American arts. Did DeKooning need NEA funding? Did Georgia O'Keefe? Did Rodgers and Hammerstein? Not even those ol' Commies Lillian Hellman and Arthur Miller were NEA-funded.
Taxpayer largesse allowed artists to sit comfortably within their own bubble and not bother having to reach or engage an audience. That's why you have crummy poopy artwork designed for cheap shock value, stupid plays by and about gay playwrights that always feature full-frontal male nudity, photographers who bully children into crying, and performance artists who drizzle chocolate syrup on themselves. You tell me if American art is better now than it was a century ago, or even 60 years ago.
Since the NEA now tries to function as an arm of the DNC, just like ACORN, it should be defunded, just like ACORN .
But attacking the NEA for a Political Agenda is right. Right?
Being gay and being a Republican aren't the same thing — despite Larry Craig, Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, Patrick McHenry, etc., etc.
But…but…they're ARTISTS. They shouldn't have to work to support themselves. It stifles their muse.
By the way, I support the arts, too. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is ART…and apparently it doesn't require a government subsidy to keep it in print.
"Limited size and scope of the Federal government" is an absolute. For genuine political conservatives, anyway. If you love the arts, then knock yourself out. Fund them all you want. And by the way, there's PLENTY of private money in America to fully fund any legitimate "art" program you could name. People have just come to expect the government to do it for them.
Here's a couple of serious questions for you: how much of your personal money do you give toward supporting the arts? If everyone who believes like you do gave like you do, would there be more or less funds available? But when you show up at the government's door with your tip jar you've crossed a line. For me, anyway.
Sorry, but that's not negotiable. I do appreciate the reasonable and respectful tone of your posts, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Great piece, SR. Art appreciation is completely subjective. The left will always fail to grasp the pure unasailable reason of letting 'art' rise or fall within the confines of the free market.
Meanwing that Norman Rockwell is infinitely great than Picasso — right Gary?
Meaning that if you appreciate Rockwell over Picasso, you're pretty dumb — right David?
Right.
Using Taxpayer $$$ to promote Political Agenda is wrong…Point Blank…Bottom Line……Not only is it wrong it's illegal according to law. From a moral stand point, I believe that changes to Health Care are needed but I am not in favor of all the proposals that are being discussed now. Because I work and pay taxes, I do not want someone using the tax dollars I contribute for promoting those proposals I do not support nor would I want my proposal being supported with your tax dollars. If they want to support them fine, take up a collection and advertise on their own. Not with my Money!
Wanna be a artist and be supported by organization like the NEA, fine however, the minute it begins to break laws, than it's coruption will be exposed. The sad part is that all of this is deeper than we can expect. Will the NEA be rid of its coruption, may be not but at least it will be exposed and hopefully it will keep those in charge in check.
Want to support art? Do like I do. Buy original paintings by artists you are moved by. When you buy your opera or symphony tickets, throw in an extra check. But give it to the government? Riiight! No– let your money vote for the art you love. That will de-fund some of the frauds and mountebanks producing adolescent crap (literally, in some cases) and reward artists who speak to your spirit. Don't worry about the politics of the artists– only a fool expects sound politics from artists or sound art from politicians.
Oh why bother with art at all? Who needs it?
So there was no art before 1965 and the NEA? And no art without government funding? In what way is having an NEA committee pre-determine who will produce true art superior to throwing it all to the market to decide?
Elitist nonsense. Picasso sought to see all sides of his subject at once. He failed to translate that accurately to a wide audience. Why is preferring art that is comprehensible to a greater number of people any negative sign of intelligence level?
AMEN!
People make brilliant comments on BigGovernment columns every day. Rarely, however, do the comments, including my own, rise to the level of "profound."
Your comments are indeed profound, danebramage. Thank you so much for the thoughtful (and totally accurate) words.
Fair enough, indeed. I have no problem with getting rid of Faith-Based Initiatives, which seem an obvious affront to the Constitution.
I'm with you, David, these Republicans and other conservatives are RACISTS AND HOMOPHOBES!!!
Not really, sir, you're just an idiot, for saying idiotic things. If you're gay, you're a gay idiot. If you're black AND gay, you're a gay, black idiot. If you're straight and white, you're a straight, white idiot? Get it? The only constant is the word "idiot."
Art can rise or fall without a nanny. So can you. Central planning is not the answer. It's a sad fact of life that many wonderful artists are never appreciated in their own lifetimes. Yes, it's sad, but it doesn't behoove me to surrender tax dollars at gunpoint in the hope that, for someone, somewhere, their art can be promoted into a financially feasible entity.
And besides, you know a lot of artists are gay. And you know how we conservatives think and feel about gays, don't you? (Obviously, you don't.)
Y'know, if there were no gay individuals in the arts, I could probably forget all about the NEA being pretty much an unconstitutional entity of government. Hmm, lemme see what I can do about this.
NEA is every artist's wet dream: a patron that the artist controls, not the other way around. NEA grantees are not immune to negative criticism, but they are largely immune to the practical effects of negative criticism. I'm wondering if the reason we had great art in the past but not now is that in the past artists had to respond to feedback. The audience decided what was "great" and what was "crap." The crap disappeared, the great endured. Today, thanks to the NEA, great and crap have equal status. There's no way to get rid of crap because to do so would be infringing on the artist's freedom of speech or expression or whatever. Crap endures, even dominates at least quantitatively, because crap HAS to be supported. If art were dependent entirely on "the market," you might have only philistine art, but it would have some actual connection to the larger culture and to non-artistic peoples' minds and feelings. That kind of art, rather than some artist's private ranting-on-canvas, would endure.
Agreed. Could we get a show of hands? How many posters here have purchased artwork from local artists, patronized local theaters that perform engaging plays and musicals, or bought a CD from a struggling musician.
Raises hand.
Art (including theater and music) is by its very nature evocative. It should speak to others. If it does, others will pay to have it, see it, hear it… I appreciate what Picasso was doing with his art, but on a daily basis, I'd rather look at something by Norman Rockwell or Andrew Wyeth. I understand the point of view of Stoppard and Ionesco, but if I'm going to shell out my hard-earned bucks for a theater ticket, give me Rodgers and Hammerstein or Thornton Wilder. That's my choice with my money. And that's how the free market works.
The problem is that I have no idea if my tax dollars that is sent to the NEA "enriches cultural fabric" whatsoever, which is its directed purpose. I do know, however, that my tax dollars directed to faith based initiatives do put food in an empty stomach, and clothes on a naked back….even those of an otherwise starving artist.
Obviously President Obama. Every time the great orator speaks about health care, the poll numbers on his plan drop. So, given the choice of privately funded Rockwell, and the "arteests" who are subsidized to promote "hopey-changey" crapola, I'll take Rockwell every time.
[...] Latest NEA Controversy Isn’t the First [...]
You have no idea what you are talking about. NEA grants are a tiny tiny part of the overall art world.
This issue was used by conservatives in the 90s to whip up anger about gays and (supposed)anti-christians. I guess you guys are going to try it again. Homophobia is not as intense as it was back then, I think you will have better luck pushing racial buttons , although it will continue to shrink your party in the long run.
It says a lot about the intellectual honesty of the writer of this piece that he doesn't even mention the gay issue that was a big part of this debate back then, I'm sure especially in the theatre community.
Good! In that case, no one will feel any pain when all arts funding is cut off.
Well I am not a massive fan of Mapplethorpe and I think it is because I have trouble looking at one of his photos without thinking of others, but I deliberately said The Perfect Moment so that I wouldn't discard all of his work in that fell swoop.
Much art is just derivative self-indulgent laziness and it bores at best and frustrates at worse. I am always hopeful and I would willingly support the NEA as long as it is actually inclusive in its selection process. Like most terms (think "diversity") that have been co-opted by the American left, "inclusive" has become a double standard, and this recent business drives that point home.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't see much difference between throwing money away by giving it to ACORN and throwing it away by giving it to the guy who made the photo of the elephant's trunk sticking out of a guy's pants.
But maybe you're right, and to some degree we should be willing to take the bad with the good. And maybe I should stay out of the Guggenheim until that image clears from my head.
palmtree: The NEA issues in the 90's were a "Gay issue" in the same way as opposing the President's health care plan is a "Race issue". It was charged by many inthe theatre community and the arts community that if you rwere anti-NEA, then you were anti-artist… and if you were anti-artist, then you MUST be anti-gay. I find this argument to be intellectualy vapid and offensive and I refuse to entertain the position in my telling of the story. However, I did extend the caveat that this was the issue through my eyes and, in my opinion, through the eyes of most conservatives at teh time. We weren't anti-gay, but we were labeled as such. We're used to it by now and it doesn't even phase us. You and people like you have succeeded in dumbing-down the the label of anti-gay that it no longer has meaning… congratulations.
palmtree: The NEA issues in the 90's were a "Gay issue" in the same way as opposing the President's health care plan is a "Race issue". It was charged by many in the arts community that if you were anti-NEA, then you were anti-artist… and if you were anti-artist, then you MUST be anti-gay. I find this argument to be intellectualy vapid and offensive and I refuse to entertain the position in my telling of the story. However, I did extend the caveat that this was the issue through my eyes and, in my opinion, through the eyes of most conservatives at teh time. We weren't anti-gay, but we were labeled as such. We're used to it by now and it doesn't even phase us. You and people like you have succeeded in dumbing-down the label of anti-gay so much that it no longer has meaning… congratulations.
Hey gang… I (Stage Right) am on vacation in Mexico right now, but I knew this piece was going to run while I was away and I just checked it out to see the response. I have to say that the readership of Big Hollywood continues to impress and overwhelm me. To think that over 70 comments were made for a weekend post that was basically a thought piece on the origins of the NEA controversies… it really is something. Thank you all so much for your continued support of Big Hollywood and for engaging in a real discussion over vital issues to the creative community. I'm proud and honored to help initiate discussions like this one.
Most conservatives at the time weren't anti-gay? Are you kidding me? Jesse Helms wasn't anti-gay?Who do you think you're fooling? Whether you want to admit it or not , the christian right is the base of the republican party. They are most assuredly anti-gay, then and now.
The argument you describe as "intellectually vapid" is not the argument I am making.I am saying that they used sexual images , including the Mapplethorpe photos to whip up disgust and anger. If the issue was simply government funding of the arts, there could have been a debate without using those images. It was about politics and it was obvious. It was about linking democrats with homosexuality,weird sex, paganism, decadence, etc. There is a legitimate debate to be had about artistic independence vs government support. But this NEA/Mapplethorpe business was never that debate. Why don't you focus on some bland dance troupe in the midwest that gets NEA funding and ask if they should get money.
As far me and people like me "dumbing down the label of anti-gay" , I'll take the track record of the left in this country as regards gay rights over your sides record any day.
Stage Right – - a few observations, I believe the federal fiscal year funding for '09 began a year ago last week, thus, the full growth of support for the NEA from $99 million to $155 million occured under the Bush Administration proposed budgets and programs via appropriations put forward primarily under Congressional houses controlled by Republican majorities. The same for the other federal cultural agencies. All without any apparent problems or missteps over 8 years. They must have had a hell of a solid and adroit staff leadership team in place with these agencies. Good appointments. Currently, instead, within 2 months, at the NEA anyway, mismanagement of federal cultural support responsibilities is in place.
The current Chairman, based on both liberal and conservative articles and blogs, reads like a bull in a china shop. He should be closely watched and monitored by the new Administration and the media or he could damage the fragile federal support so well rebuilt over the last several years. He whines (based on a recent LA Times report) that an inappropriate conference call occured one day before he began his job. Anyone familiar with the ways of Washington knows that as incoming chairman, regardless of confirmation, was consulted on strategies, role and responibilities especially with respect to new appointees and their activity. Regardless, the new Administration selected its acting director which the new Chairman seemly throttled with his explainations on the situation. Whoa.
Related, the budget for the NEA peaked under George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan intervened with his own budget director to curb budget reductions and it had its greatest growth percentages under Richard Nixon. Ultimately we can credit these conservative administrations with understanding that federal support is a necessary component to the pluralistic support needs starting with private assistance by individuals, foundations and corporations along with state and local public funding for the non-profit cultural programs that help our communities with quality of life activities because these programs can not be financed by marketplace economics. They are services and centers of thought, learning and identity. Most reasonable civic minded people want for their towns libraries, museums, music organizations and the presentation of outstanding works as shared experiences which remind us of our humanity. Thanks.
Here are a couple quotes from that lovely man Jesse Helms whose image we see above:
( I don't think you can detach this attitude from his campaign against Mapplethorpe)
“He fought bitterly against federal financing for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.”
“1993: On the nomination of a gay rights activist to a federal post: “She’s not your garden-variety lesbian. She’s a militant-activist-mean lesbian, working her whole career to advance the homosexual agenda. Now you think I’m going to sit still and let her be confirmed by the Senate? … If you want to call me a bigot, go ahead.””
:
“The Bible is unmistakably instructive on the sin of sodomy,” he declared in 1994. “I confess I regard it as an abomination.” Aids, he suggested, was acquired through “deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct” and he became an ardent opponent of government funding for Aids research and education. In 1987 he described Aids prevention literature as “so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up.”
:
“The government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct.”
“Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality “degenerate,” and homosexuals “weak, morally sick wretches.” (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: “There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.” (States News Service, 5/17/88)”
I made no opinion about whether Helms or conservatives were anti-gay or pro-gay. I said that the NEA issue was not an "anti-gay" issue as you asserted. The only reason Mapplethorpe's photos were an issue was that NEA funding was used for an exhibit of his work in Ohio which used some photos that crossed the line of public decency (a self portrait of his rear end with a bull whip shoved into it?) The argument then about the content was not anti-gay, and it wasn't even against public funding of the arts, it was against public funding of the arts which the vast vast vast majority of those PAYING for that
art would find offensive.
But here you do exactly what is always done to a conservative trying to lay out that argument. "If you are against paying for Mapplethorpe's ass with a bull whip shoved up it then you must be a Homophobe. " Then it is up to the conservative to defend themselves against the ad hominem attack and try to prove a negative. Meanwhile the actual issue gets lost in your vapid and
juvenile name calling. I am sick of it and I refuse to play along. If you want to defend paying for Mapplethorpe's ass with a bull whip shoved into it, then fine. Defend it… but do it without calling me
names.
His "campaign" was not against Mapplethorpe. And, it was not his campaign. He was a US Senator charged with the responsibility, no, the DUTY to represent the people who elected him as their Senator. And he took the position to suggest that perhaps his constituents' tax dollars should not be spent on an exhibit which included a photo of a bull whip shoved up a man's ass. If he was a homophobe, or a racist, or a murder, he could still take that position and that position would be reasonable and you need to deal with that POSITION instead of making the issue about gay rights.
you said this "…in my opinion, through the eyes of most conservatives at teh time. We weren't anti-gay, but we were labeled as such." , and you put up a picture of Helms so I used him as an example.
I didn't call you any names, nor did I accuse you personally of being homophobic. What I said was that there is a section of the conservative movement that is anti-gay, and they use homosexuality( and really urban decadent lifestyles in general) as a political wedge issue to get people riled up. In my opinion this is what the NEA issue was largely about.
I'm happy to defend paying for the bullwhip photo. I think it's perfectly ok for grants to go to Arts Organizations or artists themselves, who are then free to do their work without government interference. If sometimes a work is shown or created that is offensive to some, well is that really such a big deal? Aren't we the land of the free? Isn't an occasional offense a small price to pay for supporting the arts and maintaining free expression? I thought conservatives were sick of too much "political correctness", and everyone being too sensitive. Ok , you find the bullwhip photo gross. Well, big deal, go on to the next photo of a flower or whatever.
If we really can't deal with being offended, than it's true, either you stop funding art , or you control closely what is funded. I think it's a good thing for the cultural life of this country to support the arts and I don't want government propaganda art any more than you on the right do. I say let artists do their thing, if sometimes it offends, well just let it go and move on.
And as a side note , both Andres Serrano and Mapplethorpe made a lot of really quality work besides the infamous stuff. Would I want the bullwhip photo in my living room? No. Does it make me want to cut all arts funding ? No.
The premise that this art has damaged the country in someone is incorrect. Its art. It doesnt bite. The point whether or not someone is offended is irrelevent, these people judge the work without thinking about it. Art has individual meaning to each spectator, but only if its though about, did you think about it? did you think about why you were offended? did you think about why someone might like it? did you think about the artist? why they made it? who for? the time period it was created in? Art doesnt have to be pretty. it can be ugly
[...] Orchid Care | Mastering the Art of Orchid GrowingPlants We Grow-Orchids Lesbian Batwoman!: Superhero or Superhype? – Chicago Stage ReviewAsian Art Museum Blog Big Hollywood [...]
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.