Once he reads this interview in the NYTimes with Rocco Landesman:
And while he praised the way recent endowment chairmen have carefully rebuilt the agency’s political standing, Mr. Landesman — who is known more as an independent entrepreneur than as a diplomatic company man — said he was not planning to follow too closely in their footsteps. While Dana Gioia, his immediate predecessor, made a point of spreading endowment funds to every Congressional district, for example, Mr. Landesman said he expected to focus on financing the best art, regardless of location.
“I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman,” he said, referring to two of Chicago’s most prominent theater companies. “There is going to be some push-back from me about democratizing arts grants to the point where you really have to answer some questions about artistic merit.”
“And frankly,” he added, “there are some institutions on the precipice that should go over it. We might be overbuilt in some cases.”
Mr. Landesman does believe that the agency should be “perceived as being everywhere,” he said. “But I don’t know that we have to be everywhere if the only reason for supporting an institution is its geography.”
It seems to me that there's some chance that what Landesman is talking about here is primarily concerned with large arts institutions, which are not the only thing the NEA funds and- if individual artist grants become a reality again- may be funding less of over the next couple of years. But either way... while I'm sympathetic to the point about making "merit" a primary guiding value of who gets money, and while I'm certainly happy to hear Rocco say that there are some larger institutions that should be allowed to fail (that sounds harsh, but I think the system needs some shaking up), it seems to me that it's a myopic strategy to not spread arts money around geographically, or to use geography as part of the calculus. Maybe not as much as merit, but up there.
First off, if we truly believe that the arts are a good economic engine, then certainly Peoria deserves that engine as much as Chicago. Second, if you're trying to build widespread support for the arts, spreading the federal pork around a bit is not a bad strategy. During the fight over the $50 million in the stimulus (this is if memory serves, so i could be wrong here) one Republican who tried to demogogue the bill by saying that the arts created no jobs in his district was met very quickly with a list of how many arts jobs there actually were in the area he represents.
Third, the NEA should probably be addressing some of the calcified structural advantages that certain geographic areas have. Our system of farming actors out from New York creates a structural advantage in New York-- it's filled with very cheap, abundantly talented labor, because people work for less money in New York and make up the difference in TV, Film and Regional gigs, which tend to pay better (this is particularly and shockingly true for directors once you are working at large LORTs). There is, however, some evidence that this isn't good for the system of theatre as a whole in America, and if someone is going to have their eyes on the broader interests of theatre in America, there's a far better chance that that person is going to be Chair of the NEA as opposed to, say, chair of the board of MTC. Or, to put it another way, there is no (immediately obvious) reason why Lynne Meadow should give a shit about the health of theatre in another part of the country. And many artistic directors act accordingly. The ultimate goal of an institution is its own perpetuation. The NEA has a better vantage point to try enact positive change in the industry.
Some might say in response that the idea of the government monkeying about with the arts is probably a bad idea, and while we want their money, we don't want too much of their influence. But the government already plays a significant role in shaping our industry. To take one example... government money helps keep ossified, ireelevant institutions in business, not only with the money itself, but with the "good housekeeping seal of approval" that an NEA grant provides.
...Adding, this is a fantastic, totally awesome idea and provides further evidence (to me, anyway) that the above quote was more about larger institutions than arts funding in general:
He was less clear about the details of this ambitious agenda, though he talked about starting a program that he called “Our Town,” which would provide home equity loansand rent subsidies for living and working spaces to encourage artists to move to downtown areas.
“When you bring artists into a town, it changes the character, attracts economic development, makes it more attractive to live in and renews the economics of that town,” he said. “There are ways to draw artists into the center of things that will attract other people.”
The program would also help finance public art projects and performances and promote architectural preservation in downtown areas, Mr. Landesman added. “Every town has a public square or landmark buildings or places that have a special emotional significance,” he said. “The extent that art can address that pride will be great.”
Gosh, I seem to remember being tut-tutted about my concerns. I will be generating a letter campaign. This is BS.
Posted by: Scott Walters | August 09, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Hey Scott,
I don't really think that advocating taking a wait-and-see attitude and not preemptively attacking someone who has a lot of positive things going for him counts as tut-tutting. I agree that you were prescient on this one, I just didn't think (And looking back, still believe I was justified in not-thinking) we had enough information one way or the other.
And it is worth saying that Rocco Landesman has a lot of other things going for him as NEA chair. A lot more going for him than his predecessor, even though his predecessor may be better on this issue specifically. It's difficult (for me anyway) to figure out what i think the priorities of the NEA should be given its tiny tiny budget. Clearly, you don't have that problem!
Posted by: isaac | August 10, 2009 at 09:40 AM
No, I don't, Isaac, and I'll tell you why: because the priorities illustrated in Landesman's words have dominated the NEA since its inception. And the result is a total mess that privileges a small part of the country (five states have nearly half of the TCG theatres) while ignoring huge portions of the US. As a mind game, shift that model to health care and see if you still find it difficult to take a position. Landesman apparently has a rich-get-richer philosophy, which makes him an artistic Republican. Democrats are supposed to care about the under-represented. Well, when it comes to NEA support of the arts, I can't think of many more under-represented groups than the millions of artists and spectators who live and try to create in non-metropolitan areas.
Posted by: Scott Walters | August 10, 2009 at 01:59 PM