Inthe 1930s, artists produced murals andcanvases depicting a nation struggling to wrench itself from the grip of the Great Depression. The Public Works Administration provided these artists with the money to both survive the Depression and produce art. The program provided for one of the most prolific periods of American art, but Congress and the public denounced the artists during the McCarthy era, viewing the vast majority of their art as "Communist." Artists were no longer employed to paint murals in public buildings or sculpt statues for the public to enjoy. Their murals were whitewashed, canvases burned and statues broken apart. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities might meet the same fate as the PWA, with Senator Jesse Helms replacing Senator Joseph McCarthy as the overseer of their destruction.
Congress will soon face the decision of whether or not we should continue funding the NEA and NEH. The desire to eliminate the NEA and NEH is ideological, not economic. It is true that all programs much accept a certain amount of budgetary reduction, but conservatives want to eliminate the program, not reform it. This battle should be seen for what it really is -- the desire to meet the ideological goal of the more conservative faction of the Republican majority, hidden behind the veil of budget rhetoric.
I stress "conservative faction" because the Republican majority are all not "conservative." Many are fiscally conservative, but many are also quite moderate when it comes to social issues. But the newly elected freshman in Congress have been quietly following the agenda that has been presented to them by the leadership, the vast majority of whom hold more conservative values. This did not create a problem when the agenda was mainly the reform of social programs. But now, the leadership is asking the freshmen to cut a program that is not only a small measure of the overall budget, but, more importantly, is being eliminated because it funds projects that are not controlled by the Congress and may not be in keeping with conservative ideology.
Now is the time for the freshman to find a voice and speak against the leadership. The great number of defections on last week's appropriations bill amendment (to end funding for political student organizations) demonstrates this is possible. If funding for the NEA and NEH is eliminated, the conservatives will prove their control on the direction of the party. The only chance the Republicans have of becoming a party representative of America's interests is to learn to compromise, not eliminate.
If the public finds the funding of projects such as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" unacceptable, that is certainly understandable. Robert Hughes, in his recent Time article, offers a solution -- more quality and less quantity. He suggests we increase the budget of the NEA and NEH, but reserve the money for a limited number of projects deemed to be of significant cultural value. This brings up the dilemma of who decides what is good art and what is bad art. This old dilemma is unlikely to solved in this debate. The point is there is room for compromise on the issue of funding. Elimination is unacceptable.
The more controversial works make up a very small portion of the art and literature funded by the NEA and NEH, but these works have been used to create negative public opinion about the organizations. People seem to forget these programs fund the study of essential archives such as the papers of George Washington and Mark Twain, documentaries on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, local history programs and educational centers. The NEA andNEH produce and preserve America's own authentic cultural history. But all this good is lost in the face of a crucifix immersed in urine.
Combine this negative attitude with the economic rhetoric and you have a prescription for disaster. If the freshmen and other moderate Republicans and the public do not speak out against the conservative's ideological agenda, the NEA and NEH will not be the last to go. Furthermore, the elimination of the NEA and NEH will not only affect the so-called "cultural elite." The Founding Fathers saw democracy as providing the grounds by which the arts could be brought to the masses. To bring art to every citizen, they made it a priority to advance the arts. As John Adams said to his wife Abigail, "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study math and philosophy. My sons ought to study ...navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture ... "If the funding is eliminated, the promise of democracy will go unfulfilled and art will become something only to be enjoyed by an elite few.
