On Fri, 13 Jan 1995, Eric Siegel 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. 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.
 
First, New York State Council is _not_ a representative indicator.  In
all too many states I have witnessed the political appointments by
governors to place mid-level campaign contributors on the state arts
councils.  These people then are not especially concerned about the arts,
especially about cutting-edge or adventurous art, or art programs that
aren't coming to _their_ home town.  They will trade votes with other
Council members to fund pet projects, but they don't have much concern
for longterm trajectories or multistate impacts.
 
 
>           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.
 
Not so.  The Republicans' private agenda appears to avoid giving the
money to the states.
 
>   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.
 
Perhaps, but not all states have effective "sunshine" laws, and
politicization is even more extreme wherever the processes are hidden
from public view.
>
>           Eric Siegel
 
Richard Perry
UC San Diego
[log in to unmask]