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]>