I think making bogus arguments hurts the cause of the
endowments. To say that small organizations that can't
attract private money get money from the NEA is patently
false. Nowadays, the vast majority of NEA money goes to
institutions that are relatively well-established. Also, to
say that thousands of young artists get their livelihood
from the endowment is an exaggeration on two fronts: first,
I challenge the number of artists mentioned, second, it is
becoming truer and truer that an artist needs a long track
record, with lots of connections, to get endowment funding.
My point through all of these discussions is: if we want to
protect government arts funding, then we need to see the
problem through the eyes of those who want to eliminate this
funding. Just to say to them: "what you think is wrong"
won't work. I believe we need to say: "I understand your
perception of the issue, and here are ways that we can work
to address the concerns about government funding for the
arts."
That is why I raised the possibility of arts block grants,
and continue to think that they *might* pose an acceptable
alternative to the *elimination* of federal arts funding. I,
too, would prefer the status quo, and I firmly believe that
increased government funding for the arts is the right thing
to do. The problem is that the majority of people in
congress (according to recent counts) disagree with that
opinion, and they hold the purse strings. They even have the
right to believe that the majority of people in this country
would prefer to eliminate government funding for the arts.
After all, the majority of voters put these people in
office.
So, while it may seem plausible to fight with letter writing
campaigns for the maintenance of the status quo, we'd best
come up with some new arguments, or some new friends...
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
