NEA is the stuff inspiration is made of

NEA is the stuff inspiration is made of

Tony Spano

"I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to
study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history … in
order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry,
music, architecture …"

­ President John Quincy Adams

(1767-1848)

The theme music for "Woody Woodpecker" isn’t exactly the stuff
of great artistic inspiration. Yet it was that silly tune
demonstrated by a clarinet teacher that caught my attention and
launched my musical life.

Throughout school I did well in all my classes. So why didn’t I
choose a career in a field that virtually guaranteed a healthier
income? I could have been an engineer, a lawyer, an accountant. But
I chose music because it gives me something more. I’m not whole
without it.

In response to a question about his longevity, one of George
Burns’ witty answers was that he fell in love with what he did for
a living. We should all be so lucky. So far I’m having a wonderful
love affair with my life as an artist.

Being a musician and a great lover of the arts, I must admit a
wee bit of bias in my unwavering support for the National Endowment
for the Arts. But don’t let this bias frighten you. Just allow my
good-natured persuasion to take its course.

A few years ago it came into vogue to attack the NEA because of
the controversial work of some grant recipients. Robert
Mapple-thorpe’s erotic photography and Andres Serrano’s "Piss
Christ" caused the most memorable stir. They were convenient
targets for a conservative extremism yearning for something to grab
a hold of and shake in front of the mainstream’s face.

The latest indictment comes from a less controversial angle.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) has used the battle cry,
"There is no constitutional authority for this agency to exist." He
doesn’t want to mention that there’s no "authority" for the
National Science Foundation either. Newt Gingrich takes the fiscal
high-road, arguing that federal funding for the arts should be a
burden left to fall on the private sector. And if he would be
willing to meet with Jane Alexander, NEA president, he might
realize the NEA has always been a partner with private foundations
and contributors.

This shift in focus from attacking so-called "immoral" art
projects to fiscal restraint is a thinly veiled attempt to fool
most of the people most of the time. On one hand they show a
determination to be fiscally responsible by cutting the budget; on
the other, they bring out the Mapplethorpe pictures to scare the
constituents.

Most of the more vocal opponents to "objectionable" art are
self-crowned art critics who rarely view the works to which they
object. I don’t deny that some works of art offend some people. In
light of that opinion, it should be expressed that I am equally
offended by any barrage from uninformed protesters.

For example, how many of you have seen the recent Miramax
release Priest? (It was not an NEA grant recipient.) And how many
of you have formed an opinion of the movie without seeing it? Many
Catholics have condemned the film. Most have resisted actually
viewing the film. I saw it. I liked it. Of course, it doesn’t hurt
that I’m gay and an ex-Catholic. But on its own merits it portrayed
a point of view that exists in today’s Catholic community; a point
of view that should be discussed, not swept under the great
Catholic carpet.

Point of view is something the NEA encourages. Its various
branches ­ like the National Council for Traditional Arts
­ help preserve our cultural heritage. Other grants provide a
catalyst for original creations. Even more grants are awarded to
help educate and make art available to all American citizens,
regardless of economic (or any other) status.

Many familiar projects have benefited from NEA support. Garrison
Keillor’s "Prairie Home Companion," Broadway’s "A Chorus Line" and
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., were each made
possible by NEA grants. Even more importantly, thousands of small
programs across the country have brought dance, music and art into
rural areas, the inner cities and classrooms.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National
Endowment for the Humanities are also under the fiscal microscope.
It is obvious that this organization (which received $285 million
this year) creates programming that delivers less "gratuitous" sex
and violence than commercial broadcasting programs. It also fosters
an educational perspective lacking in most commercial television.
The paradox comes when it is argued on Capitol Hill that there’s
too much violence on television while it would be advantageous to
make public television more commercial. (A logical argument when
you’re dealing with politicians).

Congressional Republicans have voiced a desire to not only
reduce the NEA’s budget, but to eliminate it completely. The buzz
word "eliminate" should be replaced by "reform." Reform doesn’t
mean dismantle. It means reorganization and re-evaluation.
Elimination is simply an extremist form of punishment for the NEA’s
contribution to a very small number of unorthodox projects.

The more conservative attack on these foundations would rather
fry Big Bird, see more paintings of Elvis on velvet, compose a few
more congenial ballets and pretty elevator muzak to fill (or
perhaps create?) our cultural void. The NEA has always affirmed the
rich cultural traditions of our country, but it also vigorously
encourages the creation of new works that broaden the advantages of
our diverse, yet collective, experience.

The vast spectrum that encompasses the NEA is deliberate. Since
its creation in 1965, the endowment’s small budget provides
matching grants as an advocate for arts projects. Newt Gingrich,
Dick Armey and their colleagues want the role of the NEA played by
private contributors. The NEA already espouses that philosophy by
matching private funding with the extra fuel many projects need to
reach their goals. It has helped create a partnership between
communities, corporations, schools and artists.

I imagine that I’m preaching to the choir with this column. So
what part can you play in this debate? Don’t just write your
Congressional representatives. Go out and appreciate our culture,
experience our community and revel in the diversity found in the
arts. Go to concerts, the theater, recitals and galleries. Take a
chance. Take a curious and adventurous step into the
not-so-hallowed halls of art and see what’s going on.

I didn’t become a musician to solely entertain my audiences by
playing pretty music. Indeed, my expression through music is more
concerned with educating, provoking, enlightening and engaging
people. Of course, there has to be an element of entertainment. My
greater interest is in helping create the future rather than
recreating the past. I guess that’s why I never learned how to play
the "Woody Woodpecker" theme on my clarinet.

Spano is a second-year graduate student in the music department.
E-mail him at [email protected]. His columns appear on alternate
Thursdays.