On Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:03:22 -0500 (EST),
Eric Siegel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think making bogus arguments hurts the cause of the
> endowments.
Agreed, however, the NYT letter-writer's contentions may not be
entirely wrong.
> 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.
I did not read that small organizations could not attract private funds.
The point being made was that the nature and proportion of support
from NEA for a typical small arts organization *is* critical. Walker Art
Center or Minnesota Orchestra's 1, 2, or 3% from the NEA does not spell the
difference of continuing or folding. Not so with Intermedia Arts, the Loft,
the Center for Arts Criticism, and dozens of other small Minnesota-based
organizations with superb national reputations.
> 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.
Eric, In these parts, artists' livelihoods exist in a rather complex and
delicate ecology. Many have "day jobs" in NEA, NEH, IMS, or CPB-funded
organizations. The couple hundred NEA Fellowships you refer to are only a
slice of the picture of NEA financial support for artists. Projects,
residencies, community programs, scholarships, and fellowships conducted or
funded (via NEA) by state and local arts councils, colleges and
universities, and hundreds of other institutional grantees have provided
many thousands of jobs for artists. Taken in this context, the letter
writer is correct.
We must deliver an accurate and passionate response . . . folding
organizations and lost livelihoods will be a reality if the Endowment is
abolished. Best, Jim
|
