From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Nea... a need!
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:55:34 GMT

Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:

>     Dear Mr. Vessell,
>
>     You stated that even though the National Endowment for Arts (NEA) 
>accounts for less than 1 percent of our taxes that it is still a waste of 
>money.
>     You are terribly wrong, the NEA is an incredible investment.  Conisdering 
>the cost, it is even more impressive.
>     You want to neatly spend each penny on a bare minimum concrete basic 
>need, but (pardon the idealism) are failing to remember the need to build 
>& sustain the human spirit.

When we're talking about tax money, we should primarily concern ourselves
with concrete basic needs.  Art will exist and flourish no matter what
government does.  Why does it need to be subsidised?  It isn't the
government's responsibility to sustain the human spirit.


>     This is what a good culture does for its people.  Private funds should 
>NOT be the only source.  Not because we merely need government to add to the 
>volume of money but rather we need our governemnt to encourage the arts, 
>free thinking, free expression, etc.

A good culture will fund art on its own without the need for government
intervention.  If the government wants to encourage the arts and free
thinking, it should spend its efforts defending First Amendment rights for
everyone.  We're all capable of free thinking and expression, and the
reality is that we don't have enough cash to throw around to basically
create a welfare system for artists, because that's what it would have to
be in order to be fair.  But somewhere along the line a person or a panel
decides what has merit and what doesn't, and if the government is making
that decision it will inevitably be influenced by policy.  Of course,
private endowments do more or less the same type of judging, but in those
cases we don't have to give more money to those private endowments if we
disagree with their editorial decisions.  We can't do that with the NEA,
because we all pay taxes, and yet have no say over the operation of the
NEA.  The mere fact that the head of the NEA is a presidential appointment
is disturbing.  Bush is going to put a conservative in there that will
hesitate when an artist has a reputation for being shocking, offensive,
whatever, such as Karen Finley, for example.  On the other hand, whomever
Clinton puts in there is certainly going to balk at artists who use
positive Christian imagery (citing separation of church and state no doubt)
or who otherwise might be accused of taking advantage of their position for
moralizing.  


>     The NEA does this so well for so little.  Why do you think the 
>fundamentalist right-wingers want to control or kill the NEA???
>     They know it is a great danger to them taking control of
> our lifes!!!

The fundies aside, the NEA benefits such a small portion of the artistic
community that one would have to have pretty good connections to get funded
anyway, and anyone who has good connections probably isn't starving.

The vast majority of artists already have control of their lives.  They
fund themselves.  They do what they want without worrying whether or not
their NEA funds will be cut off.  The only way to increase control over our
lives is to continue to defend the First Amendment and let people do what
they want without government interference or paternalism.


>     The NEA must live, so that Americans can live!
>     Boot out Anne-Imelda Radice (newly appointed Chair of the NEA, ordained 
>by Bush), vote Clinton & save the NEA, & by doing so save your FREEDOMS!

Save your freedoms first.  Vote Libertarian.

Art will take care of itself.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: alt.censorship