Friends, 60 years ago President Lyndon Baines Johnson decided it would be a good idea if the federal government paid for "art". The government was paying for pretty much everything at the time, so why not? Well, it will come as no surprise to the readers of this blog that, when government decides to "fix" a problem (was "art" ever a problem, in itself?), it generally creates an even bigger mess. Today we are treated to MAGA Jack's perspective on the issue, based on rigorous research and sound conservative principles. He believes it is time for the American people to disinvest themselves from the arts, particularly as federal funding has been used, all too often, not to edify the American people, but to digust and denigrate them. If you agree, he encourages you to contact your Congressman, as he has his, or to take other forms of direct action to make sure your voice is heard.
***
Dear Congressman Langworthy: I urge you to advance, from
your position on the DOGE Subcommittee, ending all Federal funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts. I am confident you agree that
taxpayer funds should be expended only on necessities and nearly
universally supported items (eg. battlefields and National Parks and
monuments). Too, politically biased organizations and individuals should
not be afforded tax payer support. The NEA violates both of these
popular principles.
The
NEA's budget for 2024 was $207,000,000. In its "Strategic Plan for
FY2022-2026" NEA expressed the following as one of its objectives:
"Building on initiatives which seek to advance systems change through
the arts . . . ." This strongly suggests a prime purpose of political
advocacy rather than art for its own sake.
Because
of the many regional differences in this extensive country it is wrong
to require the Federal taxpayer to fund local arts efforts. Let
localities support them if they choose. They are best at serving the
preferences of their regions. Why should Texas taxpayers pay for a dance
program in the Bronx or "street painting"(?!) in Massachusetts?
400+
artists and their advocates have together vehemently excoriated
President Trump's EO ending of DEI and expansive gender claims as they
apply to the NEA. A recent quote from one of them:"Trump and his
enablers may use doublespeak to claim that support for artists of color
amounts to "discrimination" and that funding works of trans and women
artists promotes "gender ideology" . . . but we know better: the arts
are for and represent everybody"
But
NEA grants do not represent everybody; often they still generate works
expressing hostility to many Americans (eg Christians, with blasphemous
works already well known, such as "Piss Christ" and Madonnas
splattered with elephant dung). By definition, NEA grants support
certain localities and often certain "protected groups".
Boston
Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby once opined, quite accurately: "The NEA
consistently rewards novelty over quality. Its grant recipients are
often distinguished by . . . intolerance toward traditional standards
and art forms . . . in favor of radical politics, victim chic and
anger".
A state by state, grant by grant list of the NEA grants
given in 2024 is readily accessible online; here are some frivolous,
wasteful and/or politically biased examples:
To
Arizona: $75,000 to support Dia de los Muertos. In a heavily Hispanic
state this very popular holiday receives more than enough local and
private celebration.
To
"Living Streets Alliance ": $90, 000 to support "community activities
and traffic calming interventions in Tucson AZ". This includes "murals
and traffic calming street painting projects" What? Floral lane markers
to assuade the anguish of those traumatized by conventional lane
markings?
To "Arts Center
of the Capital region": $60,000 to support a grant program to individual
artists" in Troy, N.Y . To whom and for what?
To
Essex Co. Mass. $125,000 "to support a series of community design
charettes, transit guides and artist designed improvement for the
transit system of Essex Co."
To
MIssourii: $20, 000 to support a production of La Cage aux Folles. This
was an enormously financially successful show in many localities. Why
did this require a Federal grant?
To New
Jersey Theatre Alliance: a grant "to support equity based professional
development for artists and arts administrators." We know by now what vindictive bias is meant by the word
"equity"; it was enough to justify a Presidential EO proscribing it.
To
Bronx, N.Y: $40,000 to support "a program for street dancers to develop
choreography, train in freestyle techique and build performance
skills".
None of these and the many, many more like them on the NEA list are at all necessary or widely supported by Federal taxpayers.
Interestingly,
in all the state lists the following statement is to be found among the
projects listed, not as one might expect, cited as an overall
objective: "to support arts programs, services and activities associated
with carrying out the agencies' NEA approved strategic plan". This
suggests any manner of unspecified projects, some of which might garner
intense public criticism. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to access
these "NEA approved strategic plans".
Some time ago, in support of an 8-1 Supreme Court ruling,
then Justice O'Connor wrote: "the First Amendment protects artists'
rights to express themselves as indecently and disrespectfully as they
like but it does not compel the government to fund such speech". I
believe it had ruled on a suit by NEA advocates protesting admonitions
directed at the NEA for sponsoring unspeakably obscene, contemptuous and
having as their only purpose profound offense, works such as "Piss
Christ" (a crucifrix dipped in urine), a Madonna pelted with elephant
dung, a depiction of Santa's elves having sex and a performance by a
nude woman smeared with chocolate and spewing hatred of men.
I
think the NEA learned little from the outrage these projects generated.
It has only exercised just enough euphemistic restraint as it thinks
necessary to avoid scathing and, to NEA staff, antiintellectual carping
from the ignorant public which they nonetheless expect to pay for what
they deem "art".
Its
time for such elitists and their beneficiaries to find local or private
support for their airy and presumptuous works. Let's relieve the
Federal taxpayer of this onerous burden.
Thank
you for considering my opinion on this. This has been an issue to me
since Alfred University's state-supported Ceramics School hosted Andres
Serrano, the "artist" who did the disgusting "Piss Christ" on an NEA
grant. (This was perhaps 30 years ago.) The then Dean of the school
treated me to a haughty lecture on academic freedom and refused to
answer when I asked if a hypothetical artist executing a "Piss Nelson
Mandela" would be similarly welcomed. The injustice to the taxpayer (and
the Christian) displayed in this attitude is analogous to the disdain
for the critic, the taxpayer and especially any who dare to criticize
it, fostered by the NEA to this day. Thanks again; I very much
appreciate your already demonstrated faithfulness to the views of the
vast majority of your constituents. I am confident they would support my
concerns on the NEA.
Please note this minor correction:
Dear readers, re: my article above on the NEA, when I
talked on the phone back then on my concerns about Serrano's visit to
the state taxpayer supported Alfred U. School of Ceramics I asked to
speak to the Dean and I remember that I understood then I was talking to
that official. But I learned today that in that time period, apparently
all the Deans of that school were men and I know I was talking to a
woman. So I think it probable that I was not talking to the Dean, but
maybe another administrator.
If
you have forwarded my original article to a person other than
Congressman Langworthy, thank you! Could you please forward this
revision also?
Thanx again.
Jack
***
If you've enjoyed Jack's analysis, or if, perchance, you're currently soaking yourself in urine for artistic purposes and thus disagree, we welcome your contributions to this digital forum!
In other news, today Trump's new tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China took effect, and the markets are none too pleased. Tariffs have complex effects, and by no means are they all negative, but I must admit that I have my concerns about this strategy. Free enterprise and free trade go hand in hand, in many ways. Raising prices on imports will strain our relations with a wide range of countries, and it will increase the price of a wide range of goods. What's more, the stated reasons for the tariffs are highly varied and generally ambiguous. It is unclear to me how a nation can avoid attracting Trump's commercial ire, and thus I assume it is unclear to them. Initially, he was upset mainly about illegal immigration. Well, Canada was never an offender on Mexico's level, so why tariff them equally? What's more, the flow of illegal migrants has almost entirely ceased -- granted, due to Trump, not to Mexico or Canada, but nonetheless a major irritant has been removed. My hope is that a negotiated settlement will eventually be agreed upon that will scale back these tariffs, but will result in freer U.S. access to these foreign markets. Genuine free trade, which we have never truly enjoyed, esepcially with China, would be a nice thing to try.
