The smartest thing the National Endowment for the Arts did was to eliminate the individual artist grant. It is unfortunate that the NEA's reputation had to be ruined by the practice of this selective elitist cultural engineering. It is very unfortunate that perhaps the NEA will cease to exist entirely if current Republican trends continue, along with Public Broadcasting and other tax-supported agencies that strive to enrich the lives of all. That is the key word: all.

At the onset, an agency that is formed to disseminate funds to cultural institutions and organizations is very worthwhile if not essential to the country and its citizens. In the example of visual arts, there seem to be all too few art centers in small cities that are able to maintain a curatorial staff or even heat their buildings. I have been involved in exhibiting at several of these venues and have wished them nothing but continued success. One such place was the now defunct PowerPlant Visual Art Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. The PowerPlant was as its name implied, an old power plant. Leased from the city for $1 a year, it did its best to showcase nationally known, well-known regional and local artists. By coinciding the exhibits, the local residents who came to see a show that would feature their next door neighbor, were also exposed to contemporary art from across the country. But due to lack of funds, the PowerPlant was unable to continue. There is great tragedy in the fact that an art center which involved so many in the community and enabled so many artists to get exposure was sacrificed so just a few artists could quit their day job for a year and sleep late, Or worse yet, so an art professor could tack on another line to his or her resume and bring more prestige to their university.

Individual artist grants still exist through state and local agencies and typically give grants of anywhere from several hundred dollars through tens of thousand of dollars offered to anywhere from one to dozens of individuals. Supporters of individual grants claim that it encourages the artist who receives the grant to continue in their art creation. The grant proponents must feel as if artists are so fragile and childlike that they must be encouraged through bribery to continue producing art. "Finish your homework, and mom and dad will buy you a video game." If individual artist grants are created to encourage artists who receive them, then weren't they likewise devised with the opposite effect in mind as well, to discourage artists who don't receive them? Why is any of this necessary at all? Since when do adult artists need monetary encouragement or discouragement? If they have made it into adulthood and are creating art, why should not receiving a sum of money change their mind? If it does discourage them, then they weren't made out to be an artist in the first place, and would eventually lose interest, grant or no. Artists get enough encouragement as well as discouragement just from living life. I don't feel we need Big Brother to help.

Proponents of grants would say that it is so hard to be an artist nowadays, it is so hard to support oneself through art sales, that grants are a necessity or else one would have to take a job and then not be able to do art. Oh please, cry me a river. I have never received one art grant, yet I would challenge the productivity of one who has against my own. In 1995 and 1996 I put together at least six solo shows a year at alternative art spaces which involved installing them myself. Since I began exhibiting thirteen years ago, I have exhibited in over 150 shows. Yet I cannot support myself on my art sales alone. During that time I worked anywhere from 20-40 hours a week. My husband is also an artist and works nearly full-time. Averaged out, our income individually is just on the sunny-side of poverty. Sure, we have to sacrifice things others take for granted: having a family, traveling, saving for retirement (what's that?). But spare me the bourgeois lifestyle. If that was more important I would have become an accountant.

However, tax-supported art grants aren't given to individuals on the basis of need. If that were the case university professors would never receive them. If a grant is to encourage an artist, wouldn't the needy artist need more encouragement? I have a theory that needy artists are more resourceful, not to mention more humble and less arrogant. They will take a day job. The artist from wealthier means is a bit more of a prima donna and would not sink so low as to force themselves into the labor market. They can afford to sit back and wait for the grant while someone else is their meal ticket. But I digress.

If individual art grants were suddenly to become fair and democratic so that all practicing artists were to receive a piece of the pie, we would all probably get a few dollars a year. Since this wouldn't make an impact in anyone's career, wouldn't the money be better off as seed money put into an organization, to hire one staff person to keep a small art museum open? To pay for heating to keep visitors coming back? To maintain the lease, repairs, equipment, lighting? To pay for promotion and community outreach? To sponsor programs? To involve the community rather than to isolate itself as a prestigious yupscale snob affair? To allow the opportunity for local artists to exhibit as well as the internationally known?

Give the artist enough rope so they can either hang themselves or create a work of beauty. Put the artist's success in his or her own hands. Allow them the opportunity to exhibit and be active rather than sit back and wait for the grant check in the mail. Don't bribe them with money, but offer them space. The individual artist grant, created to give a few a voice that would not normally be heard actually censors the voices of thousands of others. Those whose art doesn't speak of the trendy politically correct issue of the day are overlooked in favor of art that is "culturally redeeming." Conversely, some art that is either aesthetically or socially shocking will never be considered either. What we are left with is safe, issue-oriented art. Art that has said it all before. Sexual abuse is bad. Cultural diversity is good. Homelessness is bad. Racial integration is good. Pollution is bad. Shiny, happy, homogenized mindless zombie pod-people are good. Artists who usurp the authority and the commonly held beliefs of professors and granting agencies that you must get grants to be considered a true artist are bad, bad, bad!

There are many other points I could make about the corruption of individual artist grants. I have not been able to think of one positive point in favor of them that I have not been able to refute. It is hard to be an artist today, but tossing money at a few individuals will not help the other artists, nor will it help the image of the Artist. Artists have to be integrated into society, not given money to insulate themselves from it. Employers need to be sensitive to needs of the artists in their employ (We're not slackers! We actually have more of a life than the other workers who go to bars after work!). Consumers need to realize the amount of dedication and hard work it takes to make art and to stop buying posters from low-end discount stores for their walls. By giving funds formerly meant for individuals to organizations and community art centers instead, more people, artist and non-artist alike, will be able to take part in the visual art experience.

 

Choose another topic

~ Virtual ~ Free ~ Personal ~ Interlinks ~ Contact ~ Home ~

Entire site designed by Ann Stretton © 1996-98.
Graphics by The S.S.Studio.

 I Am A Proud Member Of:

Phenomenal Women Of The Web