Art, Courage--And Idiocy Subsidies For Silliness Aren't a Right

Late last year, the “arts community” was outraged when our government-funded National Portrait Gallery removed a video from a gay-art exhibition after complaints from conservative members of Congress. Jack-booted storm-troopers didn’t close down the sprawling, silly show. Curators merely withdrew a short film that featured ants crawling over a crucifix—one of the greatest art works of all time, if the howls from the left are a measure of its quality.

Artists and their entourages wailed and rent their designer outfits, castigating the “cowardice” of those who pulled the clip. By way of contrast, the artist, who died of AIDS two decades ago, was portrayed as a courageous visionary. According to angry activists, the museum’s curators, who are paid with tax dollars, had no right to remove the offending video from a museum maintained by tax dollars. Anyone who couldn’t see the genius of filming ants on the Savior’s underpants, as well as the imminent danger of all-encompassing censorship, was clearly a creature fit only to work and pay taxes for others to spend.

I spent 3 years on the State of Wisconsin Peer Review Panel for the Arts. (I forget what it is actually called). This was administered under the State Arts Board. This was in the 1980s.

There was one member from each county/region of the state. I was the only working craftsperson. All the others were relatives of prominent people, wealthy arts patrons, arts bureaucrats from large public and private institutions and political appointees. Area arts organizations made the nominations.

We received 3 large ring binders each session that contained all the paperwork for the grant applications. At the 2 day meeting, work samples, usually audio and video tape productions were played. When someone had heard/seen all they cared to, they raised their hand. When three hands had been raised, which usually took 5 minutes or less, the presentation was stopped, brief discussion ensued, we marked off *grades* on a checklist and then voted by raising our hands. So, it involved a week or more of pre-meeting review and 4 hours of actual participation for 2 days.

The budget those years was around $300k for the entire state for one year. It was divided between performance art, writers and visual artists. I never saw an individual grant over $5k. The majority of the grants went to the large arts institutions: symphonies, museums and dance companies. There were perhaps 2-3 small grants in each category and all the rest went to special promotional events for the institutions. When I complained that these institutions all has large endowments, held million-dollar fund raising events, charged admission, had profitable retail shops and art fairs and received tax monies under other programs, the tape recorder was switched off, I was reprimanded and the facilitator informed me, in a condescending and angry tone, that the awards to the large institutions “are legal.”

I haven't followed these proceedings for the past 25 years, but, at the time I served in Wisconsin, the notorious awards were either under the Percent for Art program ( mandated 1% for outdoor installations for any public construction) or were part of some large, publicity-oriented exhibition or performance from one of the large institutions that are really the heart of the charitable social life of trustfunders and political spouses. Some small, private museums and historical preservation venues also received a pittance and they were also able to apply and receive funds under other grant programs. The large institutions were adept at creating spin-off programs with separate boards/venues that then would also apply for funding for specific events. Thus, the large art institutions double and triple dipped into the public funds. These were Federal grants, by the way.

The process was fixed in advance, IMO. Grants to the privileged, who, in turn, spoke up for the Arts Board at funding time. I recall informing other artists that it was actually easier and quicker to go out and get a part-time job for the same amount of time involved and raise the money for their project by themselves. Unfortunately, people saw the *free* money as more desirable and they were also swayed by the publicity generated by the grant award. The public seems to find this a validating process that somehow increases the artists’ prestige. The grant applications were usually for something designed to generate personal publicity and were always for projects that had no audience or no product and thus, could never compete in any marketplace. If the grant application was successful, the projects would be performed, published or otherwise produced mostly on the artists’ own dime and presented at some tacky little opening or performance at some forgettable regional arts center that, BTW, charged admission and took a percentage of any souvenirs, like t-shirts, prints or audio tapes.

OTOH, those of us who actually make our livings in the arts as businesses are labeled *commercial* and thought of as less talented, even though we actually have a product and a market. The artists themselves fully understand the nature of this process and they cynically exploit it. I suppose the patrons understand it, as well and since it serves their purposes, they are fine with it. The arts institutions simply see it as a perennial portion of their fundraising.

It has reached the point where anyone who can support themselves by doing any sort of art is rarely held in any real esteem by the art establishment.

"I never understood why art needed subsidies. If it's good, it will sell, if not let the "artist" starve or get a different line of work."

For the most part I agree with you; however, a succesful nation (and by extension, its government) has a vested in interest in promoting its greatness, its historical roots and heros and its larger mythos. This may be as solidly rooted in factual events as the Iwo Jima Memorial, or as ridiculously hyperbolic as the murals and statues of the north Korean Kims, Sadaam or Castro.

I think the NEA should be completely abolished. IMHO, some public monuments, statues etc. are appropriate, but they should be individually subsidized with a proper vote by congress (like virtually any other federal structure), and include a competition for the "best" design, as was done with the Viet Nam Memorial. Typically the artists who enter and win such competitions have already earned their bona fides in the private sector to one degree or another.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.