The National Endowment for the Arts - Assignment Example

The National Endowment for the Arts The National Endowment for the Arts Visual art holds a hazardousposition in the spectrum of artistic endeavours. Recent years have shown that the arts have experienced less censorship than books, plays, and recordings. However, visual art has been publicly ridiculed and debated. In this conflict, the main issues are the appropriate art, which should make decisions and even, what art is. The tension is between artistic freedom and the borders of the First Amendment. In the entire history of art, artists have defied traditional customs and conventions. They have pushed the borders of accepted norms as they pursued personal expression. The NEA is an independent body that that supports and funds projects that show artistic talent. The agency is led by a chairman who is an appointee of the president. He serves for four years and is confirmed by congress. The National Council of the Arts advices the chairman on policies and programs. The National Council of the Arts also reviews the grant prizes, applications, fundraising guidelines and leadership initiatives. The council is composed of fourteen members appointed by the American president. These are appointed based on their knowledge and experience in the arts. It is also composed of six ex-officio fellows of Congress who work in an independent position. As at February this year, Joan Singekawa was the acting chairperson after Rocco Landesman left. The grants made by the National Endowment of the Arts are in categories such as Grants for Arts Projects, National Initiatives and Partnership Agreements. There is support for exemplary projects in categories such as artist groups, arts tutoring, theatre, and visual arts. The agency also gives grants in the areas of literature to creative authors and translators with ultimate talent in prose and poetry. The NEA has had many difficult times and controversies. For example, in 1981, Ronald Reagan tried to push for its abolishment. He tried to achieve this in a three-year period after entering office in1981. This plan was abolished after a few of Reagan’s aides found that continued support of the NEA was important for the American culture. In 1988, for example, two artists created works that provoked a profound response from the public. These were Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe. They created photographs that deliberately symbolise and comment on shock and disgust elements which the common viewer will assign to them. Since they viewed themselves as artists of the future, their philosophy was to broaden the boundaries of previously accepted expression1 (Mapplethorpe 2006). In 1989, most Americans thought that artists of the likes of Serrano and Mapplethorpe pushed the limits of arts far enough. They thought that such works of art had entered indecency. Congress responded by passing laws on arts funding. These laws restricted the National Endowments for the Arts’ (NEA) the grant making procedures. Therefore, Congressional actions highlight the trend regarding the guiding response of the NEA. When it was formed, NEA was committed to unregulated funding of artistic expressions. Over the years, NEA has moved from its neutral position to a more ideological position. The recent restrictions on the contents show doctrinal controls. In 1989, the Helms amendment stopped the NEA from funding art that was judged as obscene based on the standard expressed in Miller v. California. In 1990, an amendment was passed in which NEA was supposed to be guided by general decency standards. However, from an artist’s point of view, such laws have serious consequences. Most artists consider the content restrictions as serious impediments to their creativity. To defend this view, they rely on a rich art tradition that has challenged the conventions of society throughout the years. It implies that any restrictions on the work of artists, mostly obscenity restrictions, will force artists to alter the course of their work. Throughout the history of the arts, the American government has provided for its funding. However, the United States has never had a cohesive site about its national social policy. In some way, this contrast exists because the debate on public funding has caused controversy. Traditionally, the idea of publicly funded art was seen as the unfavourable Republican principles upon which the United States was established. However, most people believe that art defines the American spirit. It is a mix of practicality and spirituality that must be nurtured, encouraged and defended2 (Mahony 2006). From the beginning of the 20th century, critics have condemned the modern movement and the art creates by Picasso, Cezanne, Matisse, and others. When the Nazis tried to remodel the German culture, Adolf Hitler tried to destroy the intellectual and artistic movement which he saw being similar to the Jews and communists. The art that Hitler sought to challenge was of a questioning, experimental and challenging nature. He wanted to replace it with art that showed a Germany founded on racism, soil and war. This struggle was not isolated to Germany alone. In the United States, critics condemned modern art from 1910 until after the end of the Second World War. The battle was conducted in churches, print media and on the streets. For example, in 1949, Michigan Representative George A. Dondero criticised major 20th century art labelling them as “depraved” and “destructive." The criticism was not only confined to the visual arts. In the 1920s, a movement arose to curtail jazz music. Critics of the music genre labelled it decadent and as the devil’s music composed of jungle rhythms. In fact, a professor tried to prove that pregnant women who listened to jazz delivered deformed babies. These examples show that the current negative reaction towards the work of Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe are part of this traditional cyclical phenomenon. In the past, government funding took the form of harmless activities such as the provision of cash for ceremonial bands and adornment of public buildings. The first formal funding for artists was during the Depression. The seriousness of the degraded economic conditions made governmental involvement necessary. Roosevelt’s administration established programs under the Treasury department and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The main concern of the WPA was the economy. Therefore, it provided emergency support for artists. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson brought a new era of public funding when he signed the NFAH Act. The National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) was one of the agencies created under this platform. Partly, Congress ratified this legislation because of the fear that American social development was left behind by its industrial development. It recognised that America’s global leadership position could not depend entirely on the power, wealth and technology. Rather, world leadership was to be found upon international respect and admiration for America’s high leadership qualities in the areas of ideas and the spirit. Moreover, Congress noted that through the encouragement of the arts was mostly a matter of private and local initiative, private funds were not enough3 (Shockley 2011). Since its inception, the Act attracted a huge body of comments. Its supporters argued that the legislation would advance civilisation by enhancing the progress of culture. People with a different point of view argued that “an official” art would result through censorship and content-based discrimination. As early as this time, artists expressed concerns that government regulation would infringe on artistic freedom. To ensure that these fears did not materialise, Congress structured the NEA so as to protect the funding process from turning into a political debate. The first step congress took was to assure that the endowment posts were not political bribes. The chairperson had to be widely recognised for his expertise in the arts and was to serve for a fixed term rather than perpetually. Second, administrators of the Endowment developed a panel system to make initial decisions about the merit of applications and amount of funding to be provided. Third, each grant application includes the NEA’s mission statement, which assures that the endowment process is about the upkeep and protection of the surroundings in which art has flourished. Moreover, the Endowments must not, under any circumstance, impose a single aesthetic standard or try to direct the content of art work. Lastly, although artists may work independently and keep their work, the Act prohibits funding of more than half the cost of the project. Regardless of these safeguards, the Endowment has continually struggled against accusations of elitism, censorship and political dependence. The desire for greater financial support has carried a political price for the Endowment. Moreover, the NEA developed major commitments to established organisations. These have created political pressure for the NEA due to some significant issues. Such issues include populism versus elitism, imbalance in the geographic distribution of grants, confusing art styles and business accountability for topics which could offend some viewers, particularly those concerning blatant sexuality or adverse political themes. Thus, the NEA was susceptible to attacks by critics. Criticism pushed the NEA to take a more ideological position. The effort to regulate the NEA’s content of grants through the amendment of the Endowment structure and grant making procedure came to light in 1989. It was after recent controversies concerning artists Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe. Senator Jesse Helms recommended the formulation of legislation that would seriously control the NEA’s grant making process. This suggestion was not new since prohibitions were proposed in the past. However, the threat that his proposal created was to the vitality and independence of the NEA. These features were meant to be free from political interference from the beginning4 (Mey 2007). In June, 1989, an appropriations bill that covered the NEA’s financial year 1990 was introduced, debated and amended in Congress. It passed in July. The bill cut the proposed budget for Endowment by $45,000. The amount depended on the sum of money the NEA provided for the Mapplethorpe and Serrano exhibits. In addition, this legislation proposed the creation of a temporary Independent Commission. The purpose of this new enterprise was to review the NEA’s panel system, procedures, and criteria for making grants. The panel was not to forget the consideration of the Miller v. California standard of obscenity. Moreover, Congress included laws that prohibited the issue of funds from being used to create obscene art. Therefore, the Act gave the NEA the authority to determine when a piece of art was obscene. After the passing of the legislation above in 1989, the NEA included the restrictions imposed in its grant applications. It required all recipients to sign a form affirming that they will stand by all the terms and conditions of the NEA. The NEA further adopted the definition for obscenity in Miller v. California. The NEA suggested that it reviews all the applications based on this standard. It said that it would deny grants that violated the laid out principles. In September of 1990, the Independent Commission handed in a report that declared the standard for publicly funded art was to exceed the standard for privately funded art. The Commission’s report quelled anxieties about obscenity. It condemned specific content restrictions and argued that questions regarding obscenity were to be answered by courts applying the Miller standard. The report recommended structural and procedural changes and that grant panels were to remain purely advisory. These guidelines provided the Chairperson the authority of having the final decision on the fate of grants. Therefore, the report proposed changes that would affect the day-to-day operations of the NEA. In November of 1990, Congress reauthorized the NEA by amending the original authorisation of 1965. After a lengthy discussion, the last concession was reached. Congress ruled that the NEA’s life was to be lengthened for three years without any explicit restrictions on the contents of grants. Moreover, if artwork funded by the NEA was found to be obscene by the courts, then the artist would have to repay the money and face exclusion from additional funding for three years if the money were not refunded promptly5 (Blair 2006). In addition, the reauthorization bill took the place of the statement of artistic suitability. It used the more specific anti-obscenity Helms provision. The discussion concerning the funding laws brought about major changes in the political and social aspects of the arts. Since the ratification of the first funding law in October 1989, more than four suits have been filed against the NEA contesting the constitutionality of its restrictive funding. Some museum directors and board members stepped down in protest to sponsorship of various exhibits. In addition, the NEA promised grants and then went back on them. In fact, some were granted. Grant recipients refused to accept funding because of the funding restrictions and the requirements placed on the applicants. In the entire history of humanity, artists have created works of art to protest against governments that oppress and are unresponsive. The former chair of the NEA, John Frohnmayer said, “Artists, often without varnish and sometimes without many civilities, tell us the truth as they see it. Moreover, sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are profound. So sometimes, the artists tell people unkind truths about ourselves: truths that are difficult to hear, which make us uncomfortable. However as a famous artist put it, artistic growth is a refining of the sense of truthfulness. A great artist knows how difficult it is"6 (Blair 2006). The association of Modernism started out as an effort to free the society by denouncing the established order. The Contemporary Arts Centre (CAC) held a photograph exhibition in the spring of 1990. It was in Cincinnati, Ohio. These photographs were by the late Robert Mapplethorpe. The exhibit had the title The Perfect Moment and it was controversial from the beginning. The public reacted negatively as they tried to close the negotiation on grounds of obscenity. Out of the 175 photographs, 7 led to Mapplethorpe’s trial. Two pictures featured naked minors, a male and female with a graphic that focussed on their genitalia. The remaining five pictures were of males in sadomasochistic poses. The public uproar against unfamiliar artistic expression is a cyclical phenomenon. In the 16th century, European governments jailed, exiled and punished artists who complained against the state. It continued into the 17th century. The principal public protest concerned the unabashed nakedness of the figure called Olympia created by Manet in 1863. Reality was not properly disguised. The goals of Post-Modern art are different from the NEA’s decency standard. Post-Modernism is a revolutionary artistic movement, a pluralistic, many faceted rebellions against the dictates of Modernism. Robert Mapplethorpe was a New York based artist. He was well known for showing explicit sexuality in his photographs. He was a member of the gay sub-culture in the 1970’s and 80’s in New York. He depended upon extremist sexual preferences to inspire him. His artwork is classified as post-modern because it attempts to deconstruct the lines between sexually explicit behaviour and art. However, Mapplethorpe maintained that his work was over-anesthetized. From an artist’s viewpoint, Mapplethorpe’s artworks show a serious artistic vision. Janet Kardon was once the director of the American Craft Museum. She said that regardless of the artwork Mapplethorpe chose, he brought a sense of perfection to it. The opus and brightness, and the framing of the image, was perfect in all the images7 (Mcdowall 2008). Similar to Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano challenges the orthodox notions and conventions. His artworks try to come to harmony with complex religious beliefs questions. In his early works, Serrano featured meat within the scenes in order to combine carnality and religiosity. Between 1987 and 1988, he started using urine and other body fluids to emphasize the Catholic Church‘s obsession with the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Serrano’s efforts to depict his personal views have been sincere. The deliberate exploration of religious themes may be viewed as a serious artistic endeavour. Piss Christ is a photograph by Andres Serrano. It has enticed dispute for an excess of twenty years. It is a picture of the crucifix that was dipped into a vat of Serrano’s urine. It affected many people in the U.S. and in France, it was attacked physically. Many people found the picture beyond offensive. The NEA amendments which prohibit the funding of pornographic or obscene works are the first Congress imposed restrictions in the history of the NEA. Many artists take these restrictions as an effort to align grant procedures with moral and religious sensibilities of Jesse Helms and Catherine MacKinnon. Some artists are changing their artwork because they are scared. The 1990 amendments required that the NEA seriously considers “the general standard of decency when deciding whether or not to offer grants. The practice has serious effects on the artist. These formal requirements could lead to self-censorship. In addition, the artists are confused over the NEA’s focus on content. There is no evidence that, in the legislative history of the NEA that proves that content is the only basis for funding. However, the Helms amendment proposes that that the NEA looks at the works content as separate and distinct from its artistic worth. However, from the artist’s viewpoint, the form of work may be as important as its content, and in fact, may be its content. To Helms, and others who campaigned to funding restrictions, obscenity was a logical and important point of view. The First Amendment does not protect artwork of the obscene nature. Even though the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law. Abridging the freedom of speech,” such freedom is not unqualified. The government condemns and limits speech that is defamatory, fraudulent, or damaging to national security. Despite all these controls, there are definitional problems concerning obscenity. It is an obscure notion that cannot be equated to sex. Moreover, it is an obscenity is a subjective idea because it is based on the perceptions of a person. Under Miller v. California, there is a standard that governs the modern definition of obscenity from a three-part step. However, the court does not state whether modern-day local community standards or those of the broader community should determine the value of the work. In 1987, the court clarified this requirement by suggesting that obscenity be proven if a reasonable person would find value in the material were it considered wholly in Pope v. Illinois8 (Mey 2007). The court found that “serious value” provided a practical standard that could distinguish between sexual explicitness and obscenity. However, this explanation is not fooled proof because the personal taste is subjective in the determination of the value of an artwork. One sculptor called Rodin, captures the artist’s confusion. According to Rodin, in art there is no immorality. Art is constantly holy even when it a negative inclination. Art has a sincere view of life and never debases itself. Art is honourable, even when it appears to lose its direction. Naturally, art questions any definition that critics attach to it. All the time, artists cross boundaries, because that is what they are supposed to do. Therefore, society is left with one choice. It can either protect art as a whole or protect its citizens from obscenity. Nevertheless, these expressions are mutually exclusive meaning that the NEA may choose one term in the place of the other. The principle that led to the formation of the NEA suggests that the agency should not come under government interference. Restrictions based on the content of the art happened in 1989 and 1990 amendments. These show that the government is interfering in matters it should not be involved. To support content controls, the government should stop the funding for the NEA in theory. However, if this is done, the NEA would be dissolved. Therefore, artists would have to rely on private funding and indirect subsidies. The controversy brings up many issues for artists because private funding would only favour the art that the finance likes. John Frohnmayer, the former chairman of the NEA says that all societies needs artists to define its cultures. Therefore, a society that supports its artists has a rich heritage9 (Blair 2006). If the government wishes to support the NEA financially, and it does not break the organisation, then it would be difficult to impose any content restrictions successfully. The situation means that only restrictions that call for diverse artistic content could survive. The problem that stands out, therefore, is how the NEA will ensure that artists do not abuse the system. Based on the goals of Post-Modernism, and willingness to push artistic boundaries to the extremes, the NEA appears vulnerable to claims that lack artistic value. It would translate to members of society handing art objects that are very poor in artistic value to the NEA for funding10 (Shockley 2011). However, the responsibility is on the advisory board to determine the value of the suggestion as well as its benefit to the society. The board should be protected from political pressure. Members of such panels, although experts in the art, should not be aligned with any art organisation. The total oversight is given to the Chairperson who has the final say on the course and direction of the funding. When an artist invests in the wealth of knowledge of the panel, he/she is free to experiment. Therefore, the artist’s integrity is protected. History has proved time and again that current controversial artworks such as Mapplethorpe’s could be classic art pieces of the coming years. In conclusion, an artist’s perspective, which is different from the public’s, proves that he/she has done a great piece of art when controversy is attached to his work. To the artist, controversy is the by-product of a great piece of art. Artists have a tendency to force their viewers to re-examine accepted societal norms. History shows that, in western art, every successive movement rebels against the accepted doctrines of the previous period. Art challenges the viewer. The value of art is in the deep responses it provokes in the watcher. Artists challenge viewers to look at the world in a different manner. It helps society move forward because people stop blindly believing in orthodox beliefs. They question what they believe in and thus can explain why they believe in what they do. In other words, art moves humanity forward. Bibliography Blair, Karen J. "Donna M. Binkiewicz.:Federalizing the Muse: United States Art Policy and the National Endowment for the Arts, 1965–1980." The American Historical Review 111, no. 2 (2006): 520-520. Mahony, Mike. American art. London: Flame Tree, 2006. Mapplethorpe, Robert. Robert Mapplethorpe. Edinburgh: National Galleries of Scotland, 2006. Mcdowall, Joseph. "Erotic, Pornographic, or Obscene: Factors Influencing the Perception of Photographs of the Nude." Empirical Studies of the Arts 26, no. 1 (2008): 93-115. Mey, Kerstin. Art and obscenity. London: I.B. Taurus, 2007. Shockley, Gordon E. "Political Environment and Policy Change: The National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s." The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 41, no. 4 (2011): 267-284. Read More