When I first decided to prepare the video presentation on the NEA, I have to be honest: I just wanted to get it over with. Worried about doing this presentation and the white paper at the same time, I knew that all of the organizations that were on the initial list would be interesting, and all of the interviewees would have thoughtful and insightful things to say. I’m used to hitting the ground running with many of my classes, so why not with this project? It’ll be fine. What I didn’t realize was that learning about the NEA would lead me down a rabbit hole of interesting and complicated histories about the conflicting ideologies surrounding art that this country has.
The facts about the NEA are simple on paper (or on video), but the implications roll around in my head. The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent federal agency. It was founded in 1965 after an act called the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act was passed by Congress in 1965. It provides thousands of grants each year to individuals and arts organizations throughout the country, as it’s the only arts funder that provides financial support to all states and territories in the United States. They also have initiatives that help expose people to the arts, from Shakespeare to songwriting.
It’s the most all-encompassing arts organization I’ve ever come across. Most of the organizations I’m familiar with are museums, or local organizations that have small scopes. This is new to me, and it’s hard to process the vastness of this organization’s influence. As an organization, it is probably the most idyllic option to make the arts more equitable and accessible for the entire United States. And since this is the United States, the scope that the NEA contributes to the arts is what makes it a target for those who want to destroy it.
In looking at the initial legislation that founded the agency, the statements in the section on the declaration of findings and purposes in the 1965 act feel just as radical to me now as I bet they felt in 1965. The statement establishes peak importance to the arts. But in upholding this statement, art can’t just be art to the democracy. Art is a tool of the state and is given the burden of representing a diverse nation that honors its cultural heritage, that serves as an honorable example to other countries as to what to inspire to, as primary method freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry for all. And this tool is manifested as the NEA.
To continue the analogy, the NEA is a tool that many people think does not belong on the federal level. As the NEA bears the burden to uphold the high values at the vast scope that it does, it’s consistently either at the center of controversy or at the break of destruction due to the continued aggression from the state that once valued it. Just in the past year, it’s had to adjust its budget to prepare for an agency shutdown. Knowing this, I want the NEA to continue to exist not only because of what it’s already done but of the vast potential it has if it’s centered as a tool needed not only to build our society but to heal our society.
My standpoint currently though, is limited. As I share the basics of the NEA and the personal feelings that I developed during the research process, I’m looking forward to getting the insider’s perspective from those who work for the National Endowment for the Arts and its sister agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Questions for our interviewees such as “How do the values of your mission statement influence your day-to-day work?” or “What are some of the difficulties of working at such a large scope in the arts?” rattle in my mind, among other more philosophical thoughts that may or may not be helpful. Regardless, I’m looking forward to having a deeper understanding of the NEA, and having my viewpoint as an outsider expanded.