November 13, 1997 | Read Time: 5 minutes
Although the National Endowment for the Arts appears to have beaten back another effort to abolish it, art in the United States in general — and non-profit arts groups in particular — remain in perilous condition, a new N.E.A. report argues.
The reason, the report contends, is that elite artistic and grant-making organizations have not been sufficiently democratic in their support of the arts. If only those high-brow institutions would open themselves up more to their communities, then more Americans would appreciate the role that non-commercial art plays in their daily lives — and more would be willing to invest in its continued survival.
Yet while Americans may prefer the Beatles to Beethoven and Spielberg to Shakespeare, the real root of the problem is that arts groups and grant makers in recent years have been too democratic. Indeed, the current plight of the arts may have as much to do with their having grown too fast — and without enough concern for quality — than with insufficient public appreciation of non-commercial art.
The N.E.A.’s report, titled “American Canvas: An Arts Legacy for our Communities,” grew out of a year-long series of forums called to examine the role the arts play in America. While the investigation found numerous examples of how non-commercial arts groups and artists were enhancing the quality of life throughout the United States, the overall picture was of the “marginalization of non-profit culture.”
Yet the report’s suggestion that the arts are underappreciated is inconsistent with the evidence about the participation of Americans in artistic activities. According to the N.E.A.’s own 1992 survey, which is barely mentioned in “American Canvas,” nearly two-thirds of all adults watched or listened to the work of non-profit arts groups through the media, 58 per cent engaged in artistic work themselves, and 43 per cent attended a performance or exhibition in person.
Still, as the report notes, the times clearly have been tough for the arts world. Until recently, private donations have been falling as traditional sources of support, such as foundations and corporations, have turned their attentions elsewhere. Educators, faced with tight budgets, have been cutting back on arts programs in the schools. And the development of new communications technologies has raised a series of unexpected challenges, such as insuring that culture does not get lost on the “information superhighway.”
Furthermore, as the report notes, the need for public support of the non-profit arts is greater now than ever. Fed largely by the efforts of the N.E.A., the Ford Foundation, and other grant makers, the number of arts organizations has grown dramatically since the 1960s.
To take one example, from 1965 to 1994 the number of professional dance companies in the United States increased from 37 to 400. The largest ones, according to Dance/USA, an organization that represents non-profit dance groups, currently face an average annual deficit of 36 per cent. Such rapid growth in the number of arts organizations, though originally reflecting an increase in the size of the population eager for what those groups produced, has exceeded the willingness of the American people to support them all.
During that same period, the nature of artistic endeavors has also been transformed, which too has taken a toll on the arts world. Some artists have become more concerned with producing a purely emotional reaction in the viewer — or with making a purely political statement — than with illuminating the true and the beautiful. And without an allegiance to beauty, the critic Roger Kimball has written, “art degenerates into a caricature of itself.” In such cases, people become less willing to support it.
Instead of recognizing those developments as the cause of the current problems, however, the N.E.A. report calls for further democratization as a remedy. More needs to be done, the report argues, to show that artistic expression can be found in all manner of activities, from “fashion and foodways” to “song, celebration, and stories.”
“Art is no longer just for artists and their specialized, discerning audiences,” the report declares. “Rather, art has something to offer all Americans.” People need to see the prevalence of art in their everyday lives, it adds.
When artistic expression is said to be found in everyday activities, however, its unique qualities are inevitably diminished. Just as the N.E.A. lost support among the public because it failed to apply adequate artistic standards in the awarding of its grants, so too is public interest in the arts inseparable from the kind of critical judgments and discernment that much of today’s art world no longer regards as relevant.
In the past, elite grant makers and the managers of a few elite organizations served as arbiters (and cultivators) of quality in the arts. By performing that role, they enabled a less-discriminating public to enjoy real artistic experiences, thereby building the kind of broad involvement in and support for the arts in the United States that few other countries can match.
Today, many of those elites no longer wish to play such a role, or they have already made the same retreat from artistic standards that “American Canvas” deems to be so essential. Ironically, the future of non-profit arts groups in the United States may depend more on their being able to recover those past practices than in abandoning them.
Leslie Lenkowsky is professor of public policy and philanthropic studies based at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy in Indianapolis and a regular contributor to these pages. His e-mail address is llenkows@iupui.edu
