Obituary for the NEA

[MNicolai]

We are now the only country in the world without a federal arts presence. Other survivors include millions of artists and thousands of arts organizations. The NEA died because artists tried too hard to be “the other,” apart from the society they chronicled. It failed to make the case that the arts should mean more to ordinary Americans than whatever they did as children (overwhelmingly, Americans participate in the arts only when young). Late attempts at awkward medical procedures such as translating art into economic development did not improve the agency’s health.

The NEA will be remembered for its controversies, such as supporting artists who performed in the nude, or who explicitly sought to shock their audiences into facing hard truths of racism, sexism, the patriarchy, genocide, war and homophobia; for being unable to simultaneously fund the best American art while reaching every state; and for its political blunders, numerous and often naive.

Full article: An Obituary: The National Endowment for the Arts, 52, of Unnatural Causes

Not to bring politics into ControlBooth, but the proposed elimination of the NEA is of relevant interest to our industry.

 

[Van]

I find that piece to be rather "Antonian" in its criticism; "I come not to Praise the NEA but rather to bury it..."
Art is Art, whether you get it or not. implying that the NEA is dying because it failed to adapt to 'mainstream' Americas mores is asinine.

I think the author is attempting to be sarcastic but he seriously needs to work on his form. saying that no artists will go broke because of this action is again, Asinine.
He briefly addresses the fact that for every $1 spent on Arts funding an average of $7-$8 dollars is generated, but threw that away by saying that somehow that only applied to other grants flowing into arts organizations because of seed grants obtained through the NEA.

Yeah, the NEA did not commit Suicide, it was Murdered, poetically on the Ides of March.... "Et tu Trumpe'?"


edit> I SHOULD, however, say Thank you for posting this @MNicolai. I agree that this is a VERY important subject to this community. As the article states, backhandedly, The NEA provides the "seed" grants that a lot of companies use to help leverage other grants. Rarely are NEA funds used for Capital or Operating expenses, like fixtures, wood, electricity... Many other organizations use the amounts granted by the NEA to judge your organizations 'worthiness' for more and other grants.

 

[TNasty]

The removal of the NEA doesn't really seem to be a good idea in my opinion.

Hardly anybody outside of any given medium of art seems to know the expense of certain things. I never would have thought that a simple Source 4 ran for about $500-700 before I got into lighting work, matter of fact, I was blown away by the cost. Same goes for painting; I never knew a basic tube of *real* paint ran at least $40 until one evening I was watching some Bob Ross and my mom told me how generous he is with paint on his works, and how expensive his works are in just material value.

 

[porkchop]

It's a preliminary budget proposal. Neither chamber of congress has debated it and the time period it covers starts in October. In recent history US administrations have had a difficult time passing any kind of budget yet alone one that is this controversial. I would not be so hasty to see the NEA or any other cultural program off.

 

[Footer]

Here's the thing about the NEA... its very much a "rich get richer" type of organization. In order to utilize it you need to be a larger company with grant writers and a long view outlook. Its not sending grants down to small companies. There are so many requirements that you have to hit to get a grant that it is out of reach of many organizations. The one I work for is included in that. But... the organizations that do use it have some real power and some real lobby forces. They are usually the more major companies in a given area. We do get artist in regularly that created a work using NEA grants, so we do get some stuff off it, but we ourselves have never successfully received a grant. I don't want to see them gone, but acting like if they do disapear every small theatre in the country will close is a bit crazy. Besides, as others have stated this budget was nothing more than a political tool. It was not real. It is being ignored. Its not worth the paper it was printed on.

https://www.arts.gov/grants/recent-grants/grant-announcements

 

[Van]

Here's the thing about the NEA... its very much a "rich get richer" type of organization. In order to utilize it you need to be a larger company with grant writers and a long view outlook. Its not sending grants down to small companies. There are so many requirements that you have to hit to get a grant that it is out of reach of many organizations. The one I work for is included in that. But... the organizations that do use it have some real power and some real lobby forces. They are usually the more major companies in a given area. We do get artist in regularly that created a work using NEA grants, so we do get some stuff off it, but we ourselves have never successfully received a grant. I don't want to see them gone, but acting like if they do disapear every small theatre in the country will close is a bit crazy. Besides, as others have stated this budget was nothing more than a political tool. It was not real. It is being ignored. Its not worth the paper it was printed on.

https://www.arts.gov/grants/recent-grants/grant-announcements

OMG It's finally happened I disagree with @Footer on something. I IS the Apocalypse! I can state unequivocally that the idea that the NEA is a "rich get Richer" scheme is a misconception. I have work for SEVERAL small to minuscule sized companies that have profited immensely from NEA Grants.

That being said, I also believe the proposed cuts to the NEA NEH, NASA, NOAA and the States Block grants will not stand they are simply a lightning rod to draw attention away from the MASSIVE cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and SS that wil have a MUCH greater impact on a MUCH wider range of individuals.

 

[StradivariusBone]

It's a preliminary budget proposal. Neither chamber of congress has debated it and the time period it covers starts in October. In recent history US administrations have had a difficult time passing any kind of budget yet alone one that is this controversial. I would not be so hasty to see the NEA or any other cultural program off.

This. I generally avoid arguing online like the plague but some special individual was picking on my mother-in-law a bit at something she posted regarding budgets and I felt I owed her to intervene. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of presidential authority to the congress and its power of the purse. This argument of mine was with an individual that firmly believed that Obama created the deficit by simply overspending past what congress authorized for him to spend. He had no concept of how finances work at the federal level.

The president's budget is really just the branch spending the money telling the branch in charge of the money what needs the money. In a perfect world, the spenders would be in the best position to state "I need X dollars to do my job effectively." In reality politics gets in the way. I think Obama had two of his budgets passed by congress? Maybe one? Granted we've got a politically aligned executive and legislative at the moment so it's a possibility, but I would be surprised greatly if this sails through unscathed.

 

[Jay Ashworth]

@TNasty: Think of the price of an S4 like the price of a mattress or a refrigerator: you're likely to get 10 or 20 years to amortize it, if you treat it well (if not 30), so that price really isn't as bad as it looks.

Part of it goes directly to making something you *can* use for that long (based on the construction, if they're properly maintained every year or so, I could easily believe you'd get 40 years out of an S4. You might replace some glass occasionally, and a cordset, and maybe a socket, but that metal case is built to *last*).