I floated an idea as part of a posting recently, and I want
          to try again, because I've come to think it might be a good
          idea (unlike many of my postings.)
 
          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. I would prefer the latter case, because it
          would be an additional incentive to increase state arts
          funding (or at least not diminish it).
 
          There are several advantages that I can see to this
          approach: 1) it would placate (pace Ken Yellis) the
          Republicans; 2) it would save the federal dollars that go
          towards administering the IMS and the NEA; 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); 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.
 
          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.
 
          I would like to hear what the possible drawbacks of this
          approach might be from my colleagues here. All you AAM
          lurkers, JOIN IN! I can think of a couple or problems: by
          reducing our presence in Washington, this approach might be
          the thin edge of the wedge in diminishing arts funding
          altogether. Of course, I think that the NEA and IMS are
          admirably run, and I don't wish that any of these
          professionals should lose their jobs.  Local funding might
          lead to the "politicization" of arts funding. As to this
          last argument, I think it is a pallid joke at this point,
          since government arts funding is, was, and always shall be
          politicized in one way or another.
 
          By the way, I didn't mention NEH as part of this approach
          only because I don't think that the state infrastructures
          are nearly as well developed in the Humanities as they are
          in the Arts. This is doubly true for the Sciences, so NSF
          stays federal.
 
          The opinions expressed here are individual, not
          institutional.
 
          Eric Siegel
          [log in to unmask]