Michelle,
Conservatives are against the NEA like they are the public school system.
The fact is, the NEA doesn't endow individuals, but the right has viciously marketed the issue as if they do. The NEA gives money to worthy organizations which then decide which smaller organizations or individuals are deserving. The NEA stopped endowing individuals long ago precisely because they knew something like Mapplethorpe could happen. The attack on the NEA is like conservatives destroying Texaco as a child abuser because the local gas station attendant sold cigarettes to a minor.
The NEA is the only reason there are classical orchestras in most cities. Even then the NEA must put stipulations, such as requiring a certain amount of modern repertoire be programmed, in order to bring many of the great musical achievements of mankind to the public. You see, the public won't pay for what they don't understand, but the NEA understands that, and like the education many don't have, it is worth exposing people so some things. The conservative view is that if it doesn't make enough money to stand on its own, it can't be worth anything. They will point out that John Lennon or Elton John didn't need the NEA and then call you an elitist (which BTW implies a position of power, something musicians certainly can't be accused of) when you suggest that art is something other than running to the local music store, buying a guitar, and wailing away on the local street corner asking for a paycheck. Artists must study a culture, a history, an individual's life, his craft, and then stand on the shoulders of his mentors and look to the future....etc. Quite a different thing than Lennon or the commercial music business.
In short, whether it is museums, orchestras, or libraries, the NEA is, like the public schools, about public education, and we know that conservatives are against that too. It always comes back to the same place: if you can afford it, you can have it.
B. |
