|
AOTL TOPICS
ARTSLYNX
DEPARTMENTS
|
Answering the Critics
(Who Say we Don't Need an
NEA)
[RETURN
TO THE ARTICLES INDEX]
Note: This article was written in the heat of the
budget battles in congress in the mid 1990s. Alas the arguments against
the NEA hold even less logic today!
Do we really
HAVE to have an NEA?
- Of Course not! The only thing we HAVE
to do is DIE! . . . But is this all we are REALLY here for as a
species....or, as AMERICANS?
The
Huntington Theatre in Boston just lost NEA funding and they are doing
just fine!
- BUT the Huntington Theatre with the Entire Regional Theatre
Movement itself was founded under the parentage of the NEA. To say
that this mature theatre company's self reliance in the arts rich
Boston Community is proof that we don't need an NEA is like saying
that those who are self sufficient as lawyers are proof that we
can abolish the institution of parenthood!
- Before the NEA, according to recent Congressional testimony,
there were but one million regular theatregoers in the country.
Today there are more than FIFTY MILLION.
"The Great American
Composer Aaron Copeland didn't need an NEA . . ."
- But if he wanted his music PLAYED it had to be done through
publicly financed ORCHESTRAS in publicly financed orchestra HALLS!
Without these orchestras would we have had an Aaron Copeland?
- And, Mr. Copeland would have had to leave for Europe had not a
rich pool of orchestra PLAYERS not been cultivated in America and
had there not been a knowledgeable audience for symphonic music.
These are areas where the NEA have been instrumental in
developing.
Hey! If those liberal
Hollywood stars in Hollywood want public arts funding,
let THEM fund it!
- And while we're at it, I guess one might ALSO say: "If rich
defense contractors want our country to have more bombers, let
THEM fund them!"
- And ponder this.... Public money is not used to build Hollywood
studios, while it IS routinely used to fund sports stadiums for
fat cat PRIVATE sports team owners.
- Hollywood as part of a FOR profit venture, is far removed from
the world of the NON-PROFIT arts world. Hollywood's business is
alas to make money for its investors. Ordering Hollywood to fund
the NEA is like saying that we wouldn't need soup kitchens if only
the Restaurants gave away their food.
- Does this mean that critics of The NEA are Hollywood FANS?????
If we are against the demoralizing, decivilizing, desensitizing
environment proliferating on both the big and little screen then
we should be certain to nurture the alternative. Our non-profit
arts community IS the alternative.
- It is interesting to note that those critics that derided the
University of Colorado's course in MADONNA are the same folk who
would recognize our POP arts as the ONLY arts worthy of support in
the US. Again.....without the ALTERNATIVE . . .
"Art is About
the Individual Artist Working in His Studio" -
Actual Congressional Quotation
- "HIS"
studio?
- I'd like to see the New York Philharmonic Orchestra conduct
their rehearsals in this Congressman's living room!!!! Yes to the
ignorant the sum total of the "arts" is . . .
"painting".
- I can think of not a single venue for classical ballet or
symphonic music in America that was NOT primarily funded through
the public sector. Yes, individual painters might be able to work
in their individual studios. And yes we will always have dancers
and musicians. The question though, is whether we shall have
SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAS and Ballet COMPANIES, and if so, if they are
to have homes in which to rehears and perform.
"Why should I subsidize
the arts?"
- First, try to think of a SINGLE industry in America that is LESS
subsidized than the arts. You'll have to think hard, the Army even
funds psychics! In 1996 we gave as much in subsidies to tobacco
farming as we do to the NEA, and the product of tobacco kills
400,000 a year. Is THIS what we want to subsidize, or do we wish
to subsidize those things that IMPROVE the quality of life for all
Americans?
- The same person also asks: "Why should
I fund public schools when
I don't have a school aged child. Is this what
civilization is REALLY about?
- Hey, there's an EASY answer here. When someone writes this in a
letter to an editor, simply take the bull by the horn and re-imburse
that individual for their $.38.
"If Even One Penny .
. ."
- We've heard THIS one before: "If even ONE PENNY goes to
'pornography' then we shouldn't fund it.". OK so cut the NEA
by the 100 or so PENNIES it MAY have spent in error over the
years.
- And while we are at it we can do the same for OTHER agencies and
solve the entire budget deficit in a matter of moments.
- And....note for the record that those who so object to the
depiction of FICTIONAL sexual dysfunction seem to have no problem
at all with the gross ACTUAL sexual conduct in the military with
incidents such as TAILHOOK even though prosecution in these cases
has cost the taxpayer many MILLIONS of dollars.
"The NEA funds
obscene art like Maplethorp. I support FAMILY values!"
- Surprise! Maplethorp was DEAD
at the time. He received not a single penny from the NEA. Neither
have most of the others sited as "obscene" NEA grantees.
So.... is telling lies just to get your way a family value? Of
course a bigger question might be, if we have to keep harking back
to grants purportedly made during the REAGAN Administration
doesn't this weaken the argument?
- A technical question but quite important nevertheless: OBSCENITY
is by definition already quite illegal. So, if the NEA has been
funding obscene art where have the trials been, the convictions?
Art is NOT obscene just because someone wants it to be called so!
- In 2/1997, Representative Tom Coburn (R-OK) BLASTED NBC for
showing films on TV with "nudity, violence, and
blasphemy". The film that caught his attention: Schindler's
List. The fact that there were NO public
funds did not deter him. It's not the NEA that these folks are
against but the expression of ideas not filtered through their
office in Congress! Is THIS the type of arbiter of taste that we
want?
"The NEA funds silly
useless projects."
- Representative Doolittle (R-CA) used this very argument during
reauthorization hearings on 5/13/1997. He berated the NEA for
funding the type of project he was waving about in his hand.....a
one word poem! Trash! Absurdity! and . . . . . funded in 1968! He
forgot to mention this last part in his testimony! If the critics
need to resort to deceit and subterfuge to make a case, then IS
there a case to be made? Is it THEIR case?
"Why can't the arts
just earn their way in the free market like everyone else?"
- And is this why SIXTY THREE Representatives that voted against
the NEA saying things like "let free enterprise rule"
co-SPONSOR a bill that would have denied royalty payments to
composers and songwriters (HR789). The same folk that claim to
support free enterprise don't seem to support this either . . .
when it comes to those working in the arts.
- Again if this is how we REALLY feel then we should have no
complaint over what the FOR-PROFIT Arts community turns out. If
violence, nudity, and blasphemy are what sells then THAT is what
the free market demands! MOST of America, however, one would think
would like an ALTERNATIVE voice as well.
"There's no mention
of the arts in the constitution."
- This is why Congressman Bob Schaeffer of Colorado can't support
NEA funding. But Congressman, neither is there mention of COLORADO
in the Constitution! And...there is no mention either of tobacco
farmers, airports, airports with FREE Congressional parking,
e-mail... well you get the picture. The "It's not in the
Constitution" argument never seems to apply when these folks
WANT to fund something. BOGUS!
"The NEA is not a
LEGAL institution in the first place. It has never been
reauthorized."
- BOGUS! They had no problem proposing the UNAUTHORIZED
alternative Blockgrant proposal.
- BOGUS. Last year there were more than 120 OTHER unauthorized
agencies and programs Congress had no PROBLEM funding.
- Hey, so why don't they then AUTHORIZE it? Because they'd lose
yet another bogus excuse!
- All the more reason to support Republican Senator's plan for NEA
REAUTHORIZATION!
"Government shouldn't
be in the business telling artists what they can't do! I support the
arts, that's why I don't want the government involved."
- But we DO want to tell broadcasters what they
can broadcast???? Get Real!
- And... is this why the same group of Congressional critics also
tried in 1996 to end most free-market royalty payments to
composers and legislators. Do these Congressmen REALLY sound like
they want out of the business of telling artists what to do or is
their rhetoric full of duplicity and hypocrisy? You decide!
"It's not
government's job to declare winners and losers."
- And whose government are THEY talking about? I suppose that
DEFENSE contracts are never won and lost . . . and there BILLIONS
of dollars are at risk! For SOME reason they only float THIS
argument for the artists.
- So they'd rather declare the American PEOPLE ALL the losers? I
don't GET it!
"Art for the Good of
Society!"
- That's what those like Randy Cunningham (R-NY), Rush Limbaugh
(R-Radio) and Newt Gingrich (R-GA) always shout . . . but as
PROFESSOR Gingrich surely must know,
"Art for the Good of Society" was a
central credo of . . . . Vladimir
Lenin!!!
"The arts are doing
just fine without the NEA. They are even expanding!"
- Yes indeed the number of Action
and sexploitation films and knockoff sitcoms and Beavis &
Butthead redux productions ARE at an all-time high. Are these the
arts we should be aspiring too though?
- Watch the trap! If attendance
were DECREASING, you KNOW they'd just say: "Without even the
support of the public through attendance why should we have an NEA."
And we know that when attendance INCREASES, they say: "See
you don't NEED an NEA!" What IS clear is that these critics
do not support the NEA under ANY circumstances!
HEY! We KNOW that people still smoke, or fly in planes, or drive,
or go to school when THESE funds are cut, but is this "proof
that we needn't support these things?"
- It took more than twenty years to
build our regional and national arts infrastructures. Isn't it
foolish to expect a collapse after but one year of major Federal
cuts? These are the same folk who say there is no evidence of
global warming because the temperature THIS summer is about the
same as it was LAST summer! The climate for culture too doesn't
measure itself by mere single years.
"In
these tough times, we must put our spending in perspective!"
- WHAT "tough times"? On Wall Street? In
the Job Market? In 1997? With the lowest deficit since the 1960s?
In Corporate profits? If THIS claim is not BOGUS, then what is?
- And yes indeed let's put our spending in
perspective. To see how our Federal Arts spending compares to
OTHER pet projects check out: Putting
Arts Spending into Perspective You'll be shocked when things
are REALLY put in perspective AND context.
"Hey, we had Mozart
without an NEA, Shakespeare without an NEA, The Bolshoi Opera and Ballet
without an NEA. and even The New York City Ballet without an NEA."
- No Shakespeare had no NEA.
Neither did the Bolshoi or Mozart, BUT they had something
better.....Kings and a Tsar! And if THAT ain't "state
support" then what is?
- AND something to ponder. More
people see Shakespeare TODAY in AMERICA each year, than saw it in
Shakespeare's entire LIFETIME! And were have all our Shakespeare
Festivals come from, with our OWN unique invention, public/private
PARTNERSHIPS!
- And as well, companies like The
New York City Ballet, before the time of The NEA, were just
that....largely for New Yorkers. Now, largely from the NEA's
leadership in past decades we have a network of REGIONAL Dance
Companies, REGIONAL symphonies, and REGIONAL theatres serving up
to 50 times more audience members (in the case of theatre) than
they could BEFORE the NEA came upon the scene. AND as well,
companies like the New York City Ballet can now tour to more
cities and can be seen by more people than they ever could have
before. No we DON'T NEED an NEA, but then we run the risk of
returning to our living rooms to watch more TV.
"The NEA is just a
subsidy for the elite and the wealthy."
- The opposite is certainly the
case for indeed the wealthy CAN pay as they go. But study after
study shows that it is not the wealthy who are America's arts
consumers, but rather Americans at ALL social and economic levels.
As expensive as it is to produce a blockbuster film, being a
"mass popular, commercial" art form, the cost of a film
per viewer is minuscule as compared to the price of producing a
play, an oratorio, a ballet. By their nature, THESE arts are
custom made. The only way to do so on the cheap would be to turn
these too into mass assembly-line works much like what you would
find at a theme park. Is THIS truly what the critics want our
entire arts scene to be like?
- The fact is, live performing
arts, in particular, are quite expensive. Ticket prices would be
beyond the reach of all BUT the wealthy without the help of
support structures such as The NEA.
- In particular, a VAST number of
schoolchildren are afforded an opportunity each year to explore
the best of the arts through programs made possible by The NEA. If
we want to foster alternatives to the lowest common denominator of
the mass arts such as television and crass Hollywood films, then
surely fostering positive alternatives is a worthy INVESTMENT.
"I'm an artist and I
don't need the NEA."
- It always amazes me to see how
many "artists" there are in Congress. Just imagine if
had as many ARTISTS who were LEGISLATORS! Those in Congress could
also correctly say they "fly planes" but they'd be wrong
to imply that they fly planes....as pilots! Yes at some level we
are ALL artists.
- To be sure a number of
"real" artists make the same claim but note that these
are almost always painters or people working in the crafts. Indeed
one might be able to make the case that a painter has the means to
produce their art. But what of the OTHER arts? You can't have a
symphony rehearsal in your rec room! And even for the painter
there is a question of ACCESS. Yes a painter can work alone but
without a GALLERY that painter's work might never be seen, except
perhaps by "clients".
"The arts are just
touchy feely things making no REAL contribution to life in
America."
- In a presentation made to Colorado Legislators in 1995, A.
Thomas Young, Executive Vice President, Lockheed Martin placed the
arts as CENTRAL to our economic growth. He used the particular
example of the turnaround of the Chrysler Corporation, NOT because
of anything in particular done by Lee Iacoca but rather from the
work of the creative DESIGNERS who concocted the idea for....the
minivan.
- In fact, the arts are no so central to our economy that they
represent as a whole, the second largest EXPORT industry in
America. While some might view the strong growth of our arts and
the economy together as proof that we don't need an NEA, one need
only look back to the time BEFORE the NEA. Only since the founding
of the NEA have Americans been able to look to AMERICA for arts
full leadership. Gone are the days when the only "real"
art was expected to have come from Europe. Now Europe looks to US
for leadership.
- The LARGEST of our export industries is the aerospace sector. Do
we see any real moves to cut THEIR public development programs.
Yet the aerospace industry is in the For-Profit sector, serving
primarily their Investors, while the arts community served through
the NEA is in the NON-profit sector, working in partnership with
public support....to serve that very Public.
"Congressman Sonny
Bono (R-CA) thought the NEA should be abolished because in part
"they wouldn't fund MY art."
- So the NEA DOES
have taste! I rest my case!
|
