Raising many crucial issues and worthy ideas, but failing to articulate agency priorities and plans for implementation, the five-year plan recently delivered to Congress by the National Endowment for the Arts provides a springboard for a new national debate on the arts.
The massive document was prepared in response to a request from the U.S. Home Appropriations Committee for a “five-year plan setting forth the direction and scope of NEA programs, to be prepared “in consultation with arts groups and institutions.”
Although requested last June 21, the plan was not completed until the final days preceding the Feb. 15, 1984 deadline, amidst a flurry of activity within the Endowment and a dizzying round of staff meetings, telephone consultations and memos.
An 88-page summary document was presented to the National Council on the Arts at its meeting in early February. While the Council recommended some revisions, it did not give formal approval to the plan, because many members felt they had been given insufficient time to consider its contents.
The plan, NEA chairman Frank Hodsoll told the Council, is primarily for “internal use by the Endowment.” Hodsoll terms it an “interim document” rather than a plan—a work-in-progress that provides the “beginning point of a more formalized annual planning process.”
Whether or not Congressman Sidney R. Yates (ID-IL) and his Appropriations Subcommittee will accept this definition of an evolutionary plan remains to be seen, but a close reading of the document reveals that Hodsoll’s caveat is entirely appropriate. Rather than stating specific priorities, articulating new agency goals, unveiling new programs or projecting a financial plan for the coming years, the document constitutes a status report on the arts from the NEA’s point of view, along with a non-prioritized list of issues, ideas and possible funding initiatives to be considered in the future. And the report raises more questions than it answers.
It will take both Congress and the arts world some time to digest all the ramifications of the planning document. By considering the report the beginning of an ongoing process, Hodsoll has, perhaps wisely, chosen not to allow the agency to lock itself into a plan that has had insufficient time to percolate, and that was largely authored by the NEA staff itself. He has also emphasized the importance of the kind of ongoing development that any good plan must have, auguring flexibility in both its aims and consequences.
Familiar rhetoric in the report warns that projected federal deficits arc at an all-time high and that bringing them down “will require restraint on all sides.” But the report earns high marks for stressing the importance of the close relationship between the federal arts agency and the fields its serves. It underscores the central role of the peer panels which recommend Endowment policy and grants, and credits them with providing the “stamp of approval” to which other funders look. These statements may go a long way toward assuaging growing fears in the arts world that the role of the panels has been slowly eroding.
Perhaps the most important section of the report deals with “artistic deficits,” an important new phrase. In an arts world often too full of meaningless jargon, the Endowment has identified what may be the most serious problem plaguing the arts in this decade. “Artistic deficit” is a non-fiscal term used by the NEA to describe the condition that occurs when arts institutions are forced to allow economic concerns to take precedence over artistic excellence. To quote from the report:
“There is concern that financial stability is being achieved at the expense of the art form. This includes popularizing to increase earned income, insufficient numbers of performers to perform the full range of repertoire, less rehearsal time in relation to performances…greater emphasis on guest stars and too great emphasis on product as opposed to process in artistic creation. There is never enough money. The perfection of art requires experimentation, failure as well as success, attention to quality in every detail.”
However, the report correctly points out the difficulty of measuring artistic deficits: “How far is it legitimate to raise standards and/or experiment and thereby create a deficit? To what degree is it legitimate to lower standards and reduce diversity of fare to reduce a deficit?” The resolution of this conundrum, the report says, is a matter for negotiation among artists, administrators and funders. “No sum of money will elicit genius,” it continues, “but realization of genius, and access to it in presentation and exhibition, are dependent on sufficient resources to allow the ‘work’ to be ‘done right.’ ” Unfortunately, the report stops short of committing the NEA to playing a major role in providing the resources to combat artistic deficits. But creating a forum for discussion of the issue is an important beginning.
A second and related problem stressed in the report is what the NEA terms “undercapitalization.” Arts institutions, it says, lack “substantial net worth.” Differentiating between operating support for activities in a given year and building a base of support for operations over a period of years, the report stresses that the latter allows organizations to “take artistic risks and absorb unforeseen losses.” The NEA has begun to address this problem under the new emphasis of its Challenge Program.
Another significant section of the report endorses, for the first time, the notion of the NEA granting “general support.” Recognizing that most arts institutions prefer operating rather than restricted project support, the report reveals that, while the Endowment’s institutional funding is designated by “project in theory,” it is usually “seasonal in fact.” Seasonal support, the report maintains, permits panels to judge the recommended level of support based on both the past record of excellence and plans for the upcoming season. Such support, it says, “should be continued.” The articulation of this welcome point of view should ease speculation that the NEA leadership is interested only in funding “special initiatives.”
The summary report states that the Endowment will, in the course of the next year, look into whether certain arts organizations which have a demonstrated record of artistic excellence “might be accorded special recognition and/or multiple-year funding subject to appropriations.” While multiple-year funding might well prove a good idea (it is currently being tested by several state arts agencies), the NEA reference to “special recognition” calls for clarification.
A highly charged issue that conceivably could polarize the arts world in the future is decentralized funding. Walking a tightrope on the subject, the report succinctly describes the complex issues involved:
“State, regional and local arts agencies increasingly believe that they can be a more efficient mechanism [than the federal government] in many areas for dispensing public funds for the arts. They assert they have greater sensitivity and capacity at the state and local level, and that decentralization of some of the Endowment’s grant-making functions would free it to focus more of its energies on activities of national importance. On the other hand, some artists, arts institutions and arts service organizations oppose increased decentralization. They raise issues of quality of process and reduced national recognition, and assert state, regional and local arts agencies should raise their own appropriations, not increasingly rely on federal support.
Under a legislatively mandated formula, state arts agencies already receive an automatic 20 percent of the NEA’s annual program budget, totalling some $21 million in 1984, in addition to grants from other NEA programs (some $6.2 million more last year). While the NEA’s position is not yet clear, the report’s discussions of audiences and state programs echo common themes of decentralization, tending to stress “access” to the arts over standards at excellence. Ironically, the issue has the political ring of the hollow old debate over populism and elitism that emerged during the Carter Administration.
Among the other concerns the Endowment intends to address in the coming year are: organizing a com-prehensive data collection effort on the nonprofit arts institution economy; assisting smaller institutions to increase their support base; and encouraging connections between nonprofit arts institutions and commercial organizations. Over the next five years, the NEA says it would like to acquire a better sense of arts trends in relation to the general economy and changing demographics; encourage greater standardization of nonprofit accounting terms in various disciplines; and assist the development of endowments and working capital reserves in most major arts institutions. As part of these efforts, the agency will undergo a reorganization of its data processing capabilities and plans to redesign its application form.
Unfortunately, the document is peppered with statistical errors and misinterpretations of data that should be corrected. For example, theatre data are compared from year to year without maintaining a consistent control group. Opera and musical theatre admissions are translated into percentages of the U.S. population apparently without factoring in repeat visits by frequent intenders. Average figures are employed when medians would be more appropriate. And, most serious of all, the report uses figures from the 1970s, even though up-to-date studies reflecting the rapid changes in the field in the early ’80s are available.
The NEA raises a spurious argument when it says that, if federal tax forbearance is taken into account, U.S. government arts subsidy compares favorably to that of other countries such as Sweden and the United Kingdom. The U.S. has far more arts organizations to support, and the needs are greater—theatre production costs in the U.S. can total as much as five times more than those in Great Britain. In the absence of major funding sources, there is a “tax” paid by every American nonprofit company today—the rapidly escalating administrative costs required to raise thousands of small contributions from individuals and corporate donors. The costs of seeking one major subsidy from a central agency like the Arts Council of Great Britain is comparatively negligible. The Endowment’s rhetoric of tax forbearance should cease until adequate case studies can be conducted to determine just what Americans gain and lose by not getting most of our arts subsidies directly from the federal government.
The chapter on the Theatre Program sets a context for the state of the American theatre today, noting the unprecedented expansion of theatrical activity in the past 10 years. While it is hard to support the report’s claim that theatre organizations “are at least minimally stable”— Theatre Communications Group’s nationwide research revealed collective theatre deficits in each of the past three seasons—the report rightly acknowledges that “artists have subsidized theatres through devotion to their profession despite inadequate compensation.”
Among the most controversial of the future directions listed in the Theatre Program chapter is the NEA’s intention to examine “the various proposals for a national theatre.” Here the Endowment may have stumbled into a hornet’s nest. There are currently almost as many “national theatre plans” as there are theatres, and the subject is fraught with conflict. The professional theatres on the roster of nationwide NEA grantees consider themselves a collective national theatre and are unlikely to be supportive of designating any single theatre or showcase as America’s National Theatre. In a recent New Republic article Robert Bmstein echoed the sentiments of many: “It is debatable whether national theatres are possible or even desirable in countries of great size and diversity.” Obviously unheeded by the NEA, Brustein called for a moratorium on all discussions of an American National Theatre, at the risk of leaving our “leaders speechless and our reporters without copy.”
Whether the NEA is interested in the concept or merely reacting to political pressure in raising the issue is not known. However, one high-level Endowment spokesman recently stated that the agency would oppose anything tending to stratify the arts, such as the designation of National Treasures or National Landmarks. Since the NEA currently gives no special funding to a “national company” in symphony, opera or dance, there is no precedent for such a move in theatre.
According to the report, other possible future directions for the Theatre Program include: funding national tours, promoting second homes for companies, commissioning new works, establishing fellowship programs for actors and designers, and supporting trustee seminars. The NEA also intends to explore whether musical theatre is best served within the Opera-Musical Theatre Program, where it now resides, or within the Theatre Program.
Areas not mentioned in the theatre chapter that were raised at the NEA’s 1982 Theatre Seminar or in subsequent forums include: documentation of important theatre work; media drama production; special problems involved in producing the classical repertoire; methods of broadening theatre audiences; increased “research and development” time for rehearsal and exploration of new material; upgraded national theatre criticism; and opportunities for international exchange of theatre companies.
The Challenge Grant Program, first established as leverage for new non-federal support, now concentrates on building endowments and working capital, permanently reducing deficits and encouraging long-term commitments to new artistic projects. The program has tended historically to favor the larger, wealthier institutions, with by far the greatest percentage of funds going to museums and symphonies (though theatres were better represented in the most recent round of grants). The Advancement Program, known as “Son of Challenge,” is designed to improve stability of emerging arts organizations; according to the report, a study of the program is planned in 1986.
The Expansion Arts Program sup-ports organizations “rooted in, and deeply reflective of, a minority, inner-city, rural or tribal community.” Although the five-year plan provides the ideal opportunity to study this program, the report is oddly silent about its future. Not addressed are several problems raised persistently since the program’s inception in the early ’70s. Among them is the fact that Expansion Arts overlaps the NEAs discipline programs, making it possible for grantees to receive substantial funding from two or more programs at once. Another frequent charge is that the program is “racist” because it segregates ethnic arts from the Endowment’s other programs; however, defenders believe that channeling funds through this program is justified because emerging organizations often receive far larger grants from Expansion Arts than they would from the more competitive discipline programs.
Beyond the Theatre Program, Expansion Arts, Challenge and Advancement, theatre professionals must concern themselves with the scope of the entire agency. A surprising number of other NEA programs impact directly and indirectly on both theatre companies and artists, including the Opera-Musical Theatre, Inter-Arts, Media Arts, Museum and Music Programs, all of which cited interest in exploring initiatives relating to theatre within the report.
When the dust settles and the arts fields have had an opportunity to examine the details of the NEA plan, some will take exception to the fact that arts professionals were only cursorily involved in the process before the plan was submitted to Congress. Yet a public airing of points of view, rather than the submission of a compromise plan negotiated in private, may lead to a more open and democratic process in the end. The document, lacking not only the integral participation of the fields it seeks to serve, but also the formal endorsement of the agency’s own advisory Council, will undoubtedly stir a lively public debate on the arts.
It is now up to arts leaders to participate in the planning process by both responding to the report and adding other concerns to the agenda for future discussion. Whether intentionally or not, Congress and the Endowment have surely created both the opportunity and the necessity for such a debate. ❑
