public forum
home forum magazine gallery links about faq courtesy
It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:35 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NEA increased funding
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2001 3:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 1999 11:01 pm
Posts: 19975
Location: London, England; Tallinn, Estonia
<B>A New Chief Steps in at a Changed National Endowment for the Arts</B><BR>By ROBIN POGREBIN in The NY Times<P><BR>The Senate confirmed a new chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts late Thursday and hardly anyone noticed. <P>The confirmation of Michael Hammond, a composer and dean at Rice University in Houston, took place without the Senate holding a public hearing. This was a strong indication of how the endowment — so recently red meat for Republican presidential administrations — has been transformed from a lightning rod and punching bag into a benign institution, averse to controversy and with a significantly different mission than it had a decade ago.<P>The transformation came with well-publicized budget cuts and heated confrontations in Congress in which the existence of the agency was called into question. <P><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/22/arts/22NEA.html" TARGET=_blank><B>click for more</B></A><P><B>Stuart adds</B>: The thrust of the article is that the NEA won't be funding cutting edge art. My guess is that neither will the socialite and corporate donation sectors, which leaves the question whether the US will become a museum for the arts rather than a leading innovator. I'm being deliberately provocative here, so do take me up on this issue. <p>[This message has been edited by Admin (edited December 23, 2001).]


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEA increased funding
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2001 2:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 1999 11:01 pm
Posts: 19975
Location: London, England; Tallinn, Estonia
<B>Artistic freedom</B> <BR>By Julia Duin in THE WASHINGTON TIMES<P><BR>The Bush administration has been in office for nearly a year, but Republican views on arts funding have yet to affect the National Endowment for the Arts. Top Stories <P>A survey of the NEA's newest package of 819 grants totaling $19.4 million reveals considerable variety and a wide range of political views, contrary to predictions that a Republication administration would squelch avant-garde art.<BR>Only one grant is known to have been rejected from the NEA's winter package, which is to be released today. It is the smaller of the NEA's two annual grant announcements and reflects decisions made in November by the agency's 20-member council.<P><A HREF="http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20011219-70541474.htm" TARGET=_blank><B>click for more</B></A><BR>


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEA increased funding
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2001 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 1999 11:01 pm
Posts: 17498
Location: SF Bay Area
More on the new chief:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Senate OKs Hammond to lead arts endowment<BR>Wisconsin native to advocate for youth<P>JAMES AUER, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel<P>Michael P. Hammond, a Wisconsin-born arts administrator with an academic background in philosophy, physiology and music, has been confirmed Thursday as chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><a href=http://www.jsonline.com/onwisconsin/arts/dec01/6992.asp target=_blank>More</a>


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEA increased funding
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2001 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 11:01 pm
Posts: 214
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Stuart,<BR>In response to your statement above, that it appears to be scaling back funding for cutting edge art--<BR>I wrote my undergraduate thesis on changes in the structure of the NEA as a result of the controversies in the early 90s. My research was done in 1998, but I've seen recent applications and the structure appears to be similar to when I had a chance to thoroughly review it.<P>Basically, what ended up happening at the NEA was not so much a shift in priorities (as I, too, had originally thought) so much as a scaling back of the amount of money being provided combined with a consolidation of the funding categories. Also, funding for individual artists was cut almost entirely as part of the scale-back.<P>In the 80s, the NEA had a larger pool of funding from which to draw their grants. Artists could apply for funding in different categories (15-20 in total) which were distributed based on the discipline. So there were categories for dance, multimedia, theater, orchestral music, and so on.<P>In the wake of the Jesse Helms/Robert Mapplethorpe/NEA four controversy, the NEA went through a very scary period in which it seemed for a time that operations might be suspended entirely. Luckily, that didn't happen. What did happen was that the amount of money available was severely curtailed and the disciplinary funding categories were lumped together into four broader categories: creation & presentation, education/access, heritage & preservation, and organizational capacity. Education/Access has now been split into two categories, one for each, making a total of five broad categories.<P>When I wrote my thesis, I expected to find that these changes had forced arts organizations to change their programming to fit the NEA's guidelines so that they would be eligible for funding. I also thought that I would find an institutional change on the part of the NEA towards funding safe & inoffensive art. However, when I set about interviewing development staff members at arts organizations, I was surprised to learn that for many organizations, the changes had no significant effect on their programming. I spoke to the development director of one NYC organization that shows visual art and was actually embroiled in the controversy, and she explained that her organization was simply now applying to the NEA for different funding purposes. Instead of applying for funding for a specific exhibit, she was applying for funding to strengthen her organization-- publication of catalogue documenting several past exhibitions, for example. This does not mean that her organization was in any way seeking to exhibit less controversial artists. Rather, they were being creative in how they framed their proposals, lest they cross paths with any ultra-conservatives.<P>In fact, the only organization where I found that the change in NEA funding had any major impact was a small organization in Vermont that develops apprenticeships between older folk artists and young artisans to ensure continuation of various art forms indigenous to that area. This is stuff that is inoffensive in the extreme (wood carving, clog dancing) but this organization felt the pinch of a drop from $20,000 to $10,000 because they had such a small budget to begin with.<P>I also went to the NEA library (by the way, itself one of the casualties of scaled-back funding-- they lost their only full-time librarian) and spent many hours looking through and coding their reports of funded projects to see if I could discern any perceptible change in the types of projects being funded. To my surprise, there wasn't a statistically significant change. <P>Was this perfectly scientific research? Absolutely not. But what I came away with was a sense that the NEA and its staff are really, really trying hard. They have demonstrated remarkable ingenuity under incredible duress, and the fact that they are still operating is a testament to some very skilled people who tried their very best to make sure that federal arts funding in the US did not become obsolete. Would I like to see the situation changed? Yes, yes, yes! Would I like to see more federal funding for artists, particularly those who provide challenging, exciting avant garde work? YES! But the endowment can only work with the funding it has been provided, and in their quest to provide funding to as many worthy organizations as possible, there are always going to be those who are not funded. It's sad, but right now, that's the way it is.<P>Also, there are many other funding alternatives for those seeking funding for controversial or cutting-edge art. The Rockefeller Foundation is one good example, but there are many others.<P>What do other people think? Have you perceived a change in the kind of art being made in the US today?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEA increased funding
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2001 3:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 1999 11:01 pm
Posts: 19975
Location: London, England; Tallinn, Estonia
Many thanks for your experiences Katydid. Anyone else got a view on this?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEA increased funding
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2001 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 12:01 am
Posts: 2708
Location: Seattle, WA USA
I think this is the same fellow I know..Michael Hammond. Wow, small world. When I applied for entrance into the State University of NY-Purchase, Michael Hammond was the Acting Dean of the College of Performing Arts. I guess his background is in music. Anyway, he is a very charming, soft-spoken guy, and the good news seems to be, he is an artist himself, albeit an administator as well. I think, from what I can see, he is a good choice. The fact that he comes from academia, means he's used to working with a consensus model of administration, rather than say a political or corporate background, to me is a good sign.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEA increased funding
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2001 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 12:01 am
Posts: 2708
Location: Seattle, WA USA
I encourage anyone interested in this topic-NEA funding- to read a very interesting book called "Leaving Town Alive: Confessions of an Arts Warrior". Written by former NEA chair John Frohnmayer, it is a true expose of the "not pretty" picture of what happens when art and politics meet. Enough said! Basically it's a history of his tenure at the helm of the NEA under Bush senior.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
The messages in this forum are posted by members of the general public and do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of CriticalDance or its staff.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group