Save the N.E.A.

        "Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?" If some people in this country have their way, and funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is cut, then the answer to that question will be no. Many people in this country want the federal government to remove the NEA from the national budget or at least cut back on its funding. Some of these people do not think that the Endowment is necessary, other people argue that the agency funds too many artists who create works that are off ensive to a majority of people. Though it may be true that some of the work recently produced has been offensive to a large number of people, it is not a reason to remove a very useful government program. The NEA provides jobs, funds programs for museum s and libraries, helps to educate the public, and helps generate economic activity. Instead of entirely cutting off the funding for such a useful program perhaps the federal government could look into reevaluating the budget and changing the spending pol icies of the agency. That way they could try to eliminate the artwork that is offensive to the public, and promote the good programs that the Endowment supports. There is a couple of ways in which the government could do this. They could do it by chang ing the grant giving policy, or by privatizing the NEA.
        Before discussing how we can go about saving the National Endowment for the Arts we have to understand why it is so important to our country. First of all, the NEA employs about one million, three hundred thous and people ("Alliance" 1). We often hear i n the news about the rise in unemployment due to company layoffs and cutbacks. Imagine what would happen if a work force of over one million people were laid off because the government decided that they no longer could keep the NEA alive.
        Not only does the NEA provide jobs for so many people, it also indirectly creates jobs in other areas. Performances supported by the Endowment generate jobs in advertising and publishing agencies. There are a lso many jobs created by the operation of t he theaters and museums in which the performances and shows are given. Someone is needed in the box office to sell tickets, in the concessions stand, and after the performance janitors are needed to clean up the theater.
        Then there is also the commerce that is generated for other nearby businesses. Many people go out to dinner before or after a show, and the restaurants near the theaters welcome the extra business. The parkin g garages near the theaters also gain extra business thanks to performances funded by the Endowment (Kilmet 9). The NEA helps to generate thirty-seven billion dollars a year in economic activity ("Alliance" 1).
        Secondly, the NEA helps to fund several useful programs for communities. For example, the Endowment funds an anti-drug program run by the YMCA. (Cheseborough 1) This program helps to keep children off the stre ets, off drugs, gives them something const ructive to do, rather then destructive, and helps to educate them about the arts. These programs are very good, and are worthy of government funding.
        The NEA also supports many more programs for the benefit of public education. The organization provides funds for school and library programs, not to mention that the NEA also provides funds for museums (Ballin ger 2). The Endowment also helps to fund a rt shows and festivals that attract tourism, generating economic activity in cities and smaller communities.
        Let us examine something that we are all familiar with that this agency supports, public television. What would life be like without shows like Nova, The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, Mister Roger's Neighborhood, and Barney and Friends (Meyers E1)? Public television, like KAET Channel 8 in Phoenix, is partially funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Eleven percent of the station's budget is provided by the Endowment (E1). That amount comes to a little over nine hundred and sixty thousand dollars (E1). Channel 8 would have great difficulty in maintaining their quality programming if the funding they received from the NEA was cut back. Many parents depend on public television's programming for shows that they would not have problems with their y oung children watching. If the NEA funding is cut back then those parents may not have a Channel 8 to turn to.
        The total budget of the Endowment is $167,000,000. That may seem like a lot of zeros to be spending on the arts, but compared to the amount of money the government spends on other things it really is not all th at much. The entire budget of the NEA is o nly one thirteenth of the cost of just one B-2 bomber (Ivins B5)! It is half the amount of the Kansas wheat subsidy (B5). In actuality, we citizens have very little of our tax money given to the arts. Every American contributes only sixty-four cents a year from their taxes to the arts ("Alliance"1). Sixty-four cents! That is less than your average cup of coffee. We also have to remember that every dollar given out in the form of grants by the NEA returns twenty-fold in the form of jobs, services, etc. to the community (Squires B5). When all is said and done, we can see that our government has not put all that much money into the arts over the years, however, what it has contributed has helped to keep the arts alive.
        Thanks to government funding for the arts, people who might not otherwise have the chance have been able to enjoy the theater, symphonies, operas, ballets and many other different art forms. The majority of the NEA's money goes to such organizations as formerly mentioned. For years the Phoenix Symphony has brought classical music to more than fifty thousand students (Squires B5), thanks to the aid given to them by the National Endowment for the Arts. Without the aid of the government the arts would no t be able to survive as they now exist. Why would they die out? Well many people would not go to a performance if the prices were raised enough to cover the amount that the NEA usually gave. Perhaps the show would never be performed because no one want s to run the risk of losing their money on a show that might flop. The Endowment makes the arts more accessible and more available to the public.
        We can see that the NEA is a very useful and productive program. It provides jobs, it helps to educate the public, and provides entertainment and recreation for children. The agency even helps to generate econ omic activity. So why, if it is such a goo d program, are so many people insisting that our government abolish it?
        "Many of those calling for an end to the NEA claim they don't oppose the arts, they just don't want the arts supported by public money," writes Robert Brustein, who favors the idea of privatization, or not publi cly funding, the National Endowment for the Arts (Brustein B5). He is right, most people who are campaigning against the NEA are not campaigning against the arts. They are perfectly willing to spend their money on performances and shows that they want to see. Those same people, however, are not willing to have their tax money spent on something they would not pay to see themselves.
        Most of the people who want the NEA's funding cut, desire it because of some of the recent artwork being produced by artists funded by the Endowment. Samuel Francis, from the Tribune Media Services, an advocate for the extinction of the NEA, put it this way:
        "For two decades it worked, but by the end of the 1980s, when the controversies over the NEA first popped up, the arts endowment was churning taxpayers' dollars into the nouveau weirdo of Robert Maplethorpe an d his now immortal backdoor bullwhip. Tod ay, after half a decade more of federal funding, the NEA has progressed to financing art projects that make Maplethorpe's photographs look like Norman Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers. (Francis B7)" Francis makes very clear the opinion of some of those people who desire the removal of the Endowment from the national budget. There are several examples of this type of art work deemed offensive by many people.
        One example would be the work of Dread Scott and his piece entitled "What is the Proper way to Display the U.S. Flag?" This piece contains a picture of Koreans burning an American flag during a political protes t. This picture is hung on the wall in the gallery it is being displayed in with the title painted over it, beneath it is a book for viewers of the piece to write comments in. However, to respond to the piece the viewer must walk and stand upon the flag (Ballinger 3). Many people were offended by this.
        Ron Athey’s performances, also funded by the NEA, cause panics, as well as disgusts many people. His show consists of him slicing the flesh of his partner, and throwing the blood soaked towels over the audience s’ heads. This caused panic in the theater s in which he performed because he, and possibly his partner, is infected with AIDS (Francis B7).
        Work of this kind is what offends many people, and because of it many people want to suspend public funding of the arts. How can we save the National Endowment for the Arts without offending many people in soci ety? There have been several suggestions o f how we can do this. We could completely privatize the organization, or we could reorganize how the money of the NEA is spent.
        If we privatize the National Endowment for the Arts it will not be a government agency, but it would still be government approved. What it means to "privatize" is to have private citizens and corporations fund the arts rather than the government (Burnst ein 1). But of course this does cause some problems. The arts will become more profit driven than they are now. No one will fund a performance or artwork if they do not think that it will sell. Not to mention that colleges and universities will lose some of their funding for art classes and galleries, theaters and bands, and many other programs also partially funded by the Endowment.
        While privatization is an option, we can see that we would lose several of the advantages that the Endowment provides for our country, such as educational programming. However, there are still other options th at remain open. What are these other optio ns?
        We will discuss one more route we can take to save the National Endowment for the Arts, the idea of reevaluating they way money from the Endowment is spent. We can look at where it goes now and where it might be better spent. If we look at how the money is spent then we may be able to see why so many people are out to put an end to the NEA and how we will be able to change their minds and keep the Endowment and the arts alive.
        The majority of the money the NEA receives go to museums, educational programs, theater, dance, music, and state and regional programs, as well as the visual arts ("Federal" 1). The Arts in Education department receives seven million, six hundred thousa nd dollars a year (1). State and Regional programs receive over thirty-three million dollars a year (1). The money given out by the NEA goes for publishing, special projects, arts development, and several other arts related fields (2). The money goes t o projects and programs that benefit communities. Many people appreciate these programs and would gladly pay to keep them going. Actually fifty-six percent of Americans, as learned from a recent poll, are willing to pay at least fifteen dollars more a y ear for government support of the arts ("Alliance" 1)
        The problem people have with the arts comes when the money is given to individual artists. It is the individuals that create the "offensive" art that people blame the NEA for encouraging. Although very little of the art funded by the NEA is found offen sive, less than one percent (Pell 10), it receives much more media attention than the other programs. Because of the media attention the endowment looks as if they only fund the offensive art.
        So the obvious course of action would be to stop funding individual artists for art that they have not created yet. Instead, money could be given for commissioned art work to a single artist. These commissione d projects could be murals on a big ugly wa ll in a community, or statue or sculpture in a town square or park. If the art work funded by the NEA was commissioned it would reduce the amount o offensive art and also eliminate the problem that most people have against the Endowment.
        We can see that the NEA is a useful program our government sponsors. So instead of killing the National Endowment for the Arts, we should look at what it does for the country. We should then look at why some p eople want the Endowment removed and then d ecide if there is a better way to change the NEA instead of destroying it.

Bibliography
About the Author
Back to The Full Cup
Send comments to:
Annika@imap3.asu.edu