On Thu, 12 Jan 1995 09:42:14 -0500 (EST),
Eric Siegel <[log in to unmask]> 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.
Some states--well known for their artistic endeavors--will "suffer" via this
solution: Minnesota, for example ranks 3rd in the nation (after NY and CA) for
NEA support, but 22nd and 27th in population and per capita state support
for the arts. It merits *national* public support for its arts activities
because of their scope, quality, and impact. This is lost via "block" grants.
> There are several advantages that I can see to this
> approach: 1) it would placate (pace Ken Yellis) the
> Republicans;
I don't know this is a desireable role (it sounds counterproductive in
the long run . . .) for artists and arts organizations to perform. And,
besides, there remain good arts supporters among the GOP--we need to keep them.
> 2) it would save the federal dollars that go
> towards administering the IMS and the NEA;
Compared to most federal programs, IMS and (to a somewhat lesser degree) NEA
are absolute "bargins" in their admin to program ratios. Better, too, I
might add, than many of their grantees!
> 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);
States already do this; what we are stressing are *national* treasures and
priorities--these can be found in every state but need recognition nationally.
> 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.
No arguement here; though it does help, in Minnesota anyway, to know what
you in NYC (or Houston, ST. Pete, or Portland, for that matter) think of
what we do . . .
> 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.
What *is* missing in this discussion (and on Capitol Hill) are the thoughtful
persuasive, and genuine arguments for the ARTS. I spent last weekend rereading
Michael Strait's _Twigs for an Eagle's Nest_ on the origins of the
Endowments. . . no one has said it better, then or since.
> I would like to hear what the possible drawbacks of this
> approach might be from my colleagues here. All you AAM
> lurkers, JOIN IN!
Thanks, Eric, for the encouragement; one "lurker" with his 2 cents!
Best, Jim Czarniecki <[log in to unmask]>
|