By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Of course we should kill the National Endowment for the
Arts — not because we don’t care about art, but because we do. The ladies and
gentlemen of the NEA are the Medicis of mediocrity, and the sooner we are done
with them the better.
The case against the NEA is not that abolishing it will
save the federal government a tremendous amount of money. It won’t. The NEA’s
budget is, relatively speaking, chickenfeed — $148 million this year. (Which is
literally less than Tyson spends on chickenfeed, if you were wondering.) We are
not going to balance the budget on cuts — even cuts of 100 percent — to the
NEA, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and foreign aid. About 80
percent of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other
health-care programs, national security, and interest on the debt. That isn’t
to say we shouldn’t pay attention to the little things, but our fiscal problem
is far larger than the NEA and similar programs.
And there is nothing wrong with spending money on
cultural programs in principle. When the friends of the National Review
Institute visited Mount Vernon last week, some of them were surprised to hear
that the institution receives no federal funding. One of the most conservative
men I know turned to me and said: “Federal funding would be appropriate.” It
would not be inappropriate, to be sure, even if in fact it is not needed. Well
done to the excellent people at Mount Vernon and their extraordinarily generous
benefactors for that.
And the case for eliminating the NEA is not that it
sometimes funds controversial projects. There is much in this world that is
truly excellent that is born in controversy: Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring inspired a riot at its premiere, according to
legend. Charles Murray is controversial. The
Road to Serfdom and God and Man at
Yale were controversial — Cornell went so far as to forbid one of its
professors from using F. A. Hayek’s most popular book in his class. And we
should not be persuaded by the narrower argument that some NEA-funded works
have been offensive or sacrilegious. Charlie
Hebdo is offensive and sacrilegious, and more power to it.
The case against the NEA is that it is bad for art and
bad for artists.
It helps to understand what the NEA actually is and what
it does. The National Endowment for the Arts has relatively little interest in
art — or, if you must, “the arts” — per se. It spends a great deal of money not
on art but on the artsy and the art-ish: community-development programs with an
arts component; educational initiatives that touch art, music, or theater,
however tangentially; partnerships between municipal agencies and politically
connected nonprofits that function as a way to shunt federal funds into the
coffers friendly mayors’ offices and those of their allies.
Consider the Mayors’ Institute on City Design, an
NEA-supported project with the most nebulously defined goals you have ever
heard of: “The Mayors’ Institute on City Design gives our nation’s mayors the
opportunity, time, and the expertise of the design community to forge solutions
and advance ideas about what their cities can become,” says NEA chairman Jane
Chu. If that is not vague enough, NEA literature adds this: “MICD has helped
prepare over 1,000 mayors to be the chief urban designers of their cities and
connected over 700 design and development professionals to local governance.”
Grants made under that program are $450,000 a pop. The NEA says this program
helps to “transform” cities. Beneficiaries include Cleveland and Cincinnati —
how transformed do those cities seem to you?
This is part of what the NEA calls “creative
placemaking.” The problem with “creative placemaking” is that it is basically
baloney, a way to move some money into friendly hands and create some
opportunities for marginally employable vaguely creative types. Everybody knows
this, including the NEA itself, which is why it has gone to such extraordinary
lengths to avoid actually evaluating the outcomes of such programs. Consider
this 2012 report from that organ of right-wingery, the Huffington Post:
The NEA has chosen to forgo a
traditional evaluation of the Our Town grant program in favor of developing the
aforementioned indicator system. The project will no doubt result in a lot of
great data, but essentially no mechanism for connecting the Endowment’s
investments in Our Town projects to the indicators one sees. A project could be
entirely successful on its own terms but fail to move the needle in a
meaningful way in its city or neighborhood. Or it could be caught up in a wave of
transformation sweeping the entire community, and wrongly attribute that wave
to its own efforts. There’s simply no way for us to tell. I hate to be the
bearer of bad news, but we can’t accomplish the goal of “advancing
understanding of how creative placemaking strategies can strengthen
communities” without digging more deeply into the causal relationships that the
NEA would prefer to avoid.
The author of that piece, Ian David Moss of Fractured
Atlas (I very much doubt he shares my views on NEA funding, but his analysis is
interesting), describes the “creative placemaking” effort as part of an
“underpants gnome” business model. The projects are to be judged on “vibrancy,”
as indicated by metrics such as . . . cell-phone use and home values. It is no
wonder that, as Moss writes, “ArtPlace isn’t requiring its grantees to collect
any data on how that impact is achieved. Furthermore, ArtPlace’s guidelines
state clearly that the consortium has no plans to invest in research on
creative placemaking beyond the vibrancy indicators themselves, despite its
advocacy goals and a desire to ‘share the lessons [grantees] are learning to
other communities across the U.S.’”
The NEA emphasizes that it funds projects, not
organizations and their operating costs. But money is fungible, and apologists
for the NEA, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the like occasionally
stumble into the truth that this is in part about “the jobs supported” by such
programs, as Time put it. We have not
seen any great renaissance in American creativity since the inception of the
NEA, but we have seen tremendous growth in cultural agencies, in their budgets,
in their payrolls, and in their administrative staffs. The NEA is only one
factor in that, of course, but it is a considerable one, and one that sets an
example for state and local governments — an example fortified by matching
grants. This is why there are nearly three times as many people employed by
cultural institutions as there are police officers — when you exclude the 54
percent of them who work in private, for-profit organizations. And the police
payrolls aren’t exactly lean.
As anyone familiar with the Italian Renaissance knows,
artists are not immune to financial pressure or financial temptations, nor are
they averse to sinecures and offices. Of course the NEA has been involved in
projects that have turned out to be worthy, or at least popular: But does
anybody really believe that Hamilton
would fail to be financially viable without government support? Does anybody
think the Museum of Modern Art would wither without the NEA? Of course not. But
the Hispanic Association of Contractors and Enterprises in Philadelphia would
be out $25,000, and this facsimile
of Mr. Snuffleupagus made from chain-link fence might not exist.
Public funding of art means that support and honors come
not from creating great works but from flattering politicians or at least
giving them the opportunity to cut a ribbon in public and proclaim their love
of “the arts.” There is really no other explanation for the scandal that is
public art in these United States. Our cultural bureaucracies, from the NEA
down to the local organizations and institutions it supports, are the great
enemy of American art, distorting tastes, careers, and patronage. They are a
major factor in the malinvestment that has employment in cultural institutions
growing significantly more quickly than that of the overall labor force. I am
sure the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis is terrific — but 400 employees?
Eliminating the NEA is not a program for punishing
artists but for liberating them — from bureaucracy, from mediocrity, and, above
all, from subservience to politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment