This was returned to me... is it a dup? If so, sorry.
Eric
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]
|