National Endowment for the Arts
Encyclopedia of American Studies
Founded by an act of Congress in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), provides federal grants to support the arts. "The arts," as defined by the NEA, cover a wide array of public presentations, from murals to musical exhibitions. For most of its tenure, the NEA has been known primarily to the artists who benefit from its patronage. In the 1990s, however, it became embroiled in public controversy, during which the subjects of public art, community-supported art, taxpayers rights, and the purpose of art itself were debated.
The NEA was created at a time when art was relatively uncontroversial in American society. Having weathered the storms of modernism (nudes, dada, cubism, abstract expressionism, etc.), American society in 1965 was no longer threatened by art. The NEA was born with the support of conservatives who wanted to demonstrate the freedoms of American society and culture, in contrast to the restricted and policed peoples of the Soviet Union.
From its inception the NEA has been a critical sources of money and legitimacy for thousands of artists. From small operas to sculptors, many artists and art organizations would be unable to survive without NEA grants. For three decades, the NEA was a steady source of funds for art and an emblem of American freedoms in the Cold War.
But in 1994, a Republican Party majority told hold of Congress. Led by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), conservative politicians selectively targeted "frivolous expenditures of taxpayer dollars." Despite its puny share of the national budget (approximately .02 %, or 36 cents per citizen), the NEA became one of the most discussed individual budgetary items on the floor of Congress and in political ads.
The primary charge made against the NEA by conservatives was that it used public monies to support "immoral," "debased," and even "Satanic" art. "Piss Christ" by Andre Serrano and Robert Maplethorpe's photographs of nude men came under the harshest attacks, for their alleged attack on Christianity and promotion of homosexuality. Thus, the NEA became a pawn in the conservative vs. liberal "culture wars" of the 1990s.
In 1996, conservative legislators, while foiled from killing the NEA altogether, were successful in slashing its budget 40%. And in 1998, when Karen Finley and other artists took their case for artistic freedom to the Supreme Court, the Court upheld restrictions on government-sponsored art. The NEA has since become more staid in its grant allocation, sponsoring artists and art-troupes who are unlikely to ruffle Congressional feathers.
The NEA controversy of the 1990s played a role in three historical currents of American life. First, the NEA debate was the centerpiece of trend in recent American political rhetoric, wherein the "taxpayer" has come to replace the "citizen" and where the taxpayer is regarded as an individual consumer rather than as a member of a community. Second, the NEA debate continued an older dialogue about the nature of free speech, artistic license, and censorship in a democracy. Third, the NEA debate renewed the debate about the meaning of art itself, with some arguing that taxpayers should not be offended by the art they fund, and others arguing that the role of art is not only to please and to beautify society, but to alarm and disturb the very people who sponsor it.
Amy E. Ansell (ed.). 1998. Unraveling the Right: the New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hetherman, Luke. 1999. "The National Endowment for the Arts."
http://www.burbank.com/arts
Feit, David. c1998. "The NEA Army: Practitioners of Stealth Art."
http://staff.washington.edu/~hodinj/NEAArmy/
Kalaidjian, Walter B. 1993. American Culture Between the Wars: Revisionary Modernism & Postmodern Critique. NY: Columbia University Press