>I think the real question on the NEA, NEH, IMS type agencies is, should it
>be the task of the Government to collect money from people in, say,
>Hastings, Neb and send it to a dance company in New York city-a company
>most folks in Hastings will never see?

This is a good point.  My prediction is that eventually most of the NEA's
money will go to the states (probably based on a formula related to
population) and then the states will worry about where it goes from there.

Such a situation has several advantages:  1) sometimes the peer reviewers in
the states are better judges of how well the organization is serving the
community than the national-level peer reviewers are; 2) the taxpayers can
more directly benefit from their money; 3) if the state arts
councils/commissions are allowed to retain some of the federal money maybe
they themselves can function better for their states; 4) the fed. gov. can
indicate support for the arts in general without indicating support for
specific forms of it that could cause controversy.

Then again, depending on how the state's peer reviewers are chosen there
could be vast opportunities for favoritism and old-boy-networking.  But the
money still would have a better chance of going where it's needed most.


Julia Muney Moore
Indianapolis Art Center