On Thu, 12 Jan 1995 09:42:14 -0500 (EST),
Eric Siegel  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>          What if the NEA and IMS were dissolved, and the Fed's made
>          block grants to state arts agencies? These arts agencies
>          already exist in (every?) state, so there would be no
>          requirement to build new "infrastructure". The money could
>          be distributed on one of two bases, either proportionately
>          to population, or proportionately to state tax levy funding
>          for the arts.
Some states--well known for their artistic endeavors--will "suffer" via this
solution: Minnesota, for example ranks 3rd in the nation (after NY and CA) for
NEA support, but 22nd and 27th in population and per capita state support
for the arts. It merits *national* public support for its arts activities
because of their scope, quality, and impact. This is lost via "block" grants.
>          There are several advantages that I can see to this
>          approach: 1) it would placate (pace Ken Yellis) the
>          Republicans;
I don't know this is a desireable role (it sounds counterproductive in
the long run . . .) for artists and arts organizations to perform. And,
besides, there remain good arts supporters among the GOP--we need to keep them.
>          2) it would save the federal dollars that go
>          towards administering the IMS and the NEA;
Compared to most federal programs, IMS and (to a somewhat lesser degree) NEA
are absolute "bargins" in their admin to program ratios. Better, too, I
might add, than many of their grantees!
>          3) it would allow
>          states to direct their funding towards the highest local
>          priorities (eg in New York it may focus upon
>          ballet/opera/large scale institutional support, whereas in
>          West Virginia it might emphasize folk arts);
States already do this; what we are stressing are *national* treasures and
priorities--these can be found in every state but need recognition nationally.
>          4) if NYS
>          Council on the Arts is any indicator, the quality of local
>          staff and peer review panels is very high, and the level of
>          local awareness is admirable.
No arguement here; though it does help, in Minnesota anyway, to know what
you in NYC (or Houston, ST. Pete, or Portland, for that matter) think of
what we do . . .
>          In case I didn't mention it, it might placate the
>          Republicans, make Newt happy, keep Bob Dole off our backs,
>          tranquilize Jesse Helms, etc, etc. satisfy those who want to
>          make revolutionary changes. We could even ask for funding
>          for Internet connections among the arts agencies, and make
>          it "fourth wave, information-based." All we'd need is to
>          throw in a few alien landings, and Newt the futurist would
>          be in hog heaven.
What *is* missing in this discussion (and on Capitol Hill) are the thoughtful
persuasive, and genuine arguments for the ARTS. I spent last weekend rereading
Michael Strait's _Twigs for an Eagle's Nest_  on the origins of the
Endowments. . . no one has said it better, then or since.
 
>          I would like to hear what the possible drawbacks of this
>          approach might be from my colleagues here. All you AAM
>          lurkers, JOIN IN!
 
Thanks, Eric, for the encouragement; one "lurker" with his 2 cents!
Best,  Jim Czarniecki <[log in to unmask]>