Ahh, but as observed repeatedly in this thread, NEA funds DO go to the
states, who divvy them up among standing arts organizations, often
requiring local govt. matches.  Who cares about the hayseeds but the
hayseeds themselves?

----------
> From: J./B. Moore <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Waste & Inefficiency in Museums
> Date: Saturday, April 19, 1997 2:55 PM
>
> >An example is a rural arts center, having no collection of its own,
moving
> >into a cultural heritage concept that includes exhibits of prehistoric
> >materials.  "Arts" can attract more funding and the arts world has
greater
> >snob appeal to donors.  It is a black-tie oasis in a farming region.
>
>
> Wow, it would never occur to me (assuming I worked at the arts center)
NOT
> to contact the rural heritage center if I were interested in developing a
> project using prehistoric materials.  It would be like re-inventing the
> wheel.  My instinctive approach would be to ask the heritage center to
> co-sponsor the project by lending us the materials, and then we would
work
> out a joint fundraising plan and cross-promotional campaign that would
> benefit us both.
>
> (however, I disagree with your premise that "arts" can attract more
funding
> than heritage institutions.  It would depend on the locale and the
specific
> institutions involved, but my experience has been that history is more
> attractive to donors than is art simply because history is NOT perceived
as
> elitist and has a broader appeal--everyone has history, but not everyone
is
> an artist.  Is this a case of "the grass is greener on the other side of
the
> fence?")
>
>
> Julia Moore
> Indianapolis Art Center