Congress is poised to debate a five-year re-authorization of the National Endowment for the Arts, a procedure that in other years would be routine. But a series of recent artistic controversies has sparked a fierce debate over the future of the agency, a debate that could end with new restrictions on the manner in which the government funds the arts.
The endowment`s political troubles began last summer when Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) lashed out at the agency`s previous financial support for exhibitions of controversial works by artist Andres Serrano and the late photographer Robert Mapplethorpe.
The Mapplethorpe show, which is currently the object of obscenity charges in a Cincinnati court, includes a number of homoerotic images and pictures of nude children. Serrano was criticized for depicting a crucifix submerged in urine.
Last fall, under pressure from Helms, Congress voted to prohibit the endowment from financing works that ”may be considered obscene.”
Attacks on the National Endowment have continued despite repeated declarations by its new chairman, John Frohnmayer, that the agency does not and will not fund obscene art. In several recent congressional appearances, he has voiced opposition to the restrictive Helms` language.
Seeking compromise, Frohnmayer has changed the agency`s procedures for approving grants, broadening the makeup of the panels empowered to distribute money.
Grant recipients now are required to sign a nine-page ”letter of agreement” that includes the following language: ”None of the funds may be used to promote, disseminate or produce materials which in the judgment of the National Endowment for the Arts . . . may be considered obscene, including but not limited to depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children or indivduals engaged in sex acts, and which, when taken as whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
That language last week led a recipient, New York Shakespeare Festival producer Joseph Papp, to turn down $50,000 for a monthlong Latin theatrical festival. Papp also has asked for another $550,000 in endowment funds this year for his theater, but said he is prepared not to accept the money while the restrictive language remains in place.
For all that, there is pressure in Congress to ”zero out” federal funding for the arts. The agency`s budget now is $171 million. Short of terminating the program, critics such as Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) want to require an ill-defined ”accountability” for artists on the receiving end of government largess.
For Hyde, a bedrock Midwestern conservative, it is ”a cultural war.”
For Rep. Pat Williams (D-Mont.), a classic liberal and chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the agency`s re-authorization, it is ”a cold and chilling time in America.”
Since the debate was joined last year during the congressional appropriations process, rhetoric and emotions have boiled over. The arts lobby has raised the specter of censorship, of state-controlled art and Big Brother. On the other side, there is genuine outrage over the Mapplethorpe and Serrano grants. And there is the belief among some in Congress that the arts community, contemptuous of its benefactors, wants both independence and funding.
Asked about reaction to a speech he gave at a recent arts council in Georgia, Hyde said: ”I was the only non-aesthete there. They view us all as cultural fascists and boobs.”
And again, Hyde talking about the artistic merits of Serrano`s controversial work: ”If it were a picture of Martin Luther King in that urine, I suspect we`d be hearing a different argument from the other side.”
For Williams, the struggle is over delivering a message.
”If we can convince the members of the House and Senate that the issue is not the funding of pornographic art, but Big Brother censorship, then I win,” Williams said. ”If opponents of the endowment keep the focus on sexual images, then I lose.”
Recently, President Bush rose unexpectedly in the endowment`s defense, voicing his opposition to statutory restrictions on grants, citing concerns about censorship and 1st Amendment guarantees.
While expressing offense at ”blasphemous, sacrilegious depictions,”
Bush said, ”I don`t know of anybody in the government . . . who should be set up to censor what you write or what you paint or how you express yourself.”
Beleagured defenders of the endowment like Williams and Rep. Sidney Yates (D-Ill.) took comfort in Bush`s remarks. And they cite the agency`s history as a linchpin of their argument.
Since the endowment was established in 1965, it has awarded more than 80,000 grants to arts organizations in every state. Only a handful have generated any significant controversy.
Those statistics cut both ways in the artistic community. Many believe the numbers reflect the institutional caution of the endowment, the belief that it has become, in one critic`s phrase, the National Endowment for Nice Art.
Meanwhile, supporters contend the impact of the grants has been felt in every congressional district, in virtually every museum, music hall and professional theater in the country.
Since 1965, with hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, the number of professional orchestras in the country has grown from about 60 to more than 200. Non-profit professional theaters have grown from about 50 to nearly 400. During last year`s appropriation debate, Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio)
defended the National Endowment in a way that resonates with many of his colleagues. Regula talked about the presence of a string quartet in his central Ohio district, a quartet he maintained would not exist without endowment support.
For Regula and others, those sorts of benefits have, in the past, superseded concerns about possible abuses of the grant process.
Even Hyde, perhaps the most articulate of the endowment`s critics, acknowledges its value.
”It`s probably all right to fund the arts simply because it puts into motion a civilizing function,” Hyde said last Wednesday.
”There may really be no solution to this problem, except to send a message to the artistic community that you cannot continue to insult people`s religions and their deepest sensitivities without having your water cut off.” While Hyde may be content to, as he says, ”make a fuss,” congressional forces led by Helms and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a former
speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, are determined to end funding for the arts.
”Artists can do whatever they want, on their time, on their dime,” said Rohrabacher. ”This debate is not about censorship. It`s about sponsorship.” In recent weeks, critics of the endowment have been aided by the American Family Association, a Mississippi-based anti-pornography group headed by Rev. Donald Wildmon.
Along with fund-raising and placing newspaper ads, Wildmon`s group has been swamping congressional office with mail, much of it containing the more controversial pictures from the Mapplethorpe exhibit.
”It is having some impact,” said Rep. Paul Henry (R-Mich.), a longtime supporter of the endowment. ”We may have to reform the endowment in order to save it.”
That posture is unacceptable to the arts lobby, and to Williams. The congressman has vowed to maintain the endowment as established in its charter, and to fight the Helms language.
For his part, Rohrabacher agrees with Hyde that there is little chance the endowment`s re-authorization won`t be approved next month or that its budget will be eliminated.
But Rohrabacher believes his forces are on the march in this election year, gaining support in a Congress nervous about public funds and public perceptions. Said Williams: ”I knew once this box was open we were going to have trouble.”
