Why the Wall Street Journal needs to get its nose out of the Arts

So, while browsing the internet, I found this truly offensive article.  It uses language that honestly makes me furious.  I post a few quotes:

Messrs. Leach and Landesman are probably not the choices initially expected from a president who was being lobbied just a couple of months ago to do something as bold as create a cabinet-level department of arts and culture. These are the choices, rather, of a president who doesn't want this to be a political fight. With these nominations it's also clear that Mr. Obama is not making a statement that great change is needed at either agency. This is not to disparage these choices -- both of which, in addition to being rather surprising, are quite good, at least in the eyes of those who think both endowments are already following a wise course. In fact, given the constituencies that rallied most vociferously behind Mr. Obama in the campaign, his choice of these two men ought to elicit a sigh of relief from conservatives.

Privately funded art need not steer clear of controversy, but publicly funded art should. In addition to hurting the endowments' standing in Congress, controversy undermines in the public eye the idea that the arts and humanities are important to civic life and are worthy of public funds.

Both endowments have power to do good things within the broader American culture. If there's no change in direction for the agencies, it still bodes well for the arts and humanities in the country. Particularly if their budgets can increase, the endowments can continue to evangelize for the arts and humanities in a culture that sadly seems to value them less than business, science and professional education.

There are so many problems with this article's thought processes that I don't even know where to start.  The idea that funding individual artists' works is somehow not advocating for the public interest is heinous.  Of all the projects the NEA has funded over the years, individual artistic efforts are some of the most outstanding. I list:

Prairie Home Companion, created in 1974 through an NEA grant.

The American Ballet Theater, saved in the first year of the Endowment by a grant from the Federal government.

Driving Miss Daisy - that play, then movie? Created through an NEA grant in 1986-7.

And other programs have equally stimulated further funding for the arts: The Challenge Grant program, where federal dollars are matched by donation, was tremendously successful: Twenty years after it was founded, statistics came back where one dollar donated by the Federal Government for the arts stimulated roughly eight dollars.

And the idea that federal dollars should help education not the creation of the arts is absolutely inconsistent with the overall vision for the endowment: Reagan, convenient conservative poster boy, said in 1983 that “We support the work of the National Endowment for the Arts to stimulate excellence and make art more available to more of our people.” Reagan himself acknowledged that part of the work of the endowment is to stimulate excellence.  That means grants to individual artists.  

I have this belief - that the arts, especially creative arts, are somewhat like entrepreneurs in business. When starting a business, it takes a lot of courage, a lot of daring, and a LOT of initial capital.  So, young entrepreneurs in the business world come up with an idea, a good business plan, then take it to the venture capital investors.  They choose the most promising, and fund it.  But there's no official organization like that for the arts.  Because the arts don't (and to large part shouldn't) find their primary motivation in money, investment capital like that is hard to come by.  In my mind, that's where the federal government should step in.  Take a look at the business plans.  Decide which ones to fund.  Then step back and see if your risk (and it is a big one) takes off.

Oh - and my little argument for when conservatives balk at funding art they don't agree with - 

"I'm a pacifist - Quaker, if you must know.  I don't believe in war, I don't agree with the wars that we're involved in.  But my tax dollars go to the war effort anyways - I don't have a choice.  You claim that your tax dollars shouldn't go to experimental art in the same way that I think my tax dollars shouldn't go to funding war.  What makes the arts different than the military in terms of justified funding?"

Hopefully that argument makes as much sense to you as it does to me :D.

Jim Leach and the National Endowment for the Humanities

So, I've been meaning to post on the recent appointment of Jim Leach, former moderate Republican congressman from Iowa, to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities.  Please know that, before starting to write this blog, I knew that there was an NEH and and NEA, but I had no clue how they were different or what the heck the NEH did that was different from the NEA.  (By the way - whoever writes the Wiki entry for the NEA really needs to get their act together and put together something more informative - it's really awful.)

So, to organize my thoughts and hopefully educate the rest of y'all as well, here goes.  The NEA and NEH were both created in 1965 by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act.  This act covers three branches, essentially: the NEA, the NEH, and the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities (essentially a federal committee).  There's no real overarching bureaucracy or identity greater than each of its components.  The NEA started off with 2.5 million dollars and 12 employees, its goal to fund creative endeavors in the arts - literature, dance, theater, and the visual arts.  I'm actually going to write another post on how many amazing things the NEA has facilitated over the years - I could easily get sidetracked, it's so cool.  The NEH has a different goal - the facilitation of cultural access.  So the NEH funds museums, educational programs, scholarly work, research.  These are mostly history-related.  The NEH's site betrays a very authoritarian hand in what it deems worthy of funding - "Because democracy demands wisdom, the National Endowment for the Humanities serves and strengthens our Republic by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of history to all Americans."  (Note that - what it deems strengthens the Republic.  yay.)  The NEH gave you, among other things, that cool documentary about Tutankhamun, the endless Civil War documentary you watched in eighth grade history class, and fifteen Pulitzer Prize-winning books.

So, what does Obama's appointment of Jim Leach mean for the NEH?  I really don't want to talk about Obama's snagging of "yet another" moderate Republican.  But I do want to share some cool stuff I learned about just how much Leach practices what he preaches, arts-wise.  Leach is an unstinting advocate for the arts.  

In 2006, Leach received the Congressional Arts Leadership Award conferred annually by the Americans for the Arts advocacy group and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. They cited him as an advocate for increased arts and humanities funding and as a co-sponsor of legislation — still not passed — that would allow artists to take larger tax deductions for works they donate to museums and charities. Current law allows artists to deduct the cost of the materials they use to create a work; Leach proposed allowing them to deduct a donated piece’s fair market value.

Also, when he was appointed, Leach commented:  

Asked whether he would push to increase funding for what by federal standards is a minuscule agency, Leach said he “will be supporting the administration” in its budgeting decisions. But he said “the arts and humanities are fundamental to our society, particularly in difficult times. In the Great Depression ... we spent far more on the arts and humanities, relative to [national economic output] than we do today. Nothing is more important to understanding what’s happening in society, particularly in a fast-changing world.”

This talk is really good to hear - when Leach was still in office, there was no possible political benefit to attempting to pass the law about donated art.  Artists are few, and often don't have the monetary muscle to donate to a campaign.  But he did it anyways.  In my searching, I've heard nothing but good about him.

My only wish is that Obama would fund the two organizations at the same level - right now he's trying to fund the NEH at 10 million higher than the NEA *pout*.