TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/071690/0716460.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.7 KB | 121 lines

                                                                                SHOW BUSINESS, Page 85

You Can Take This Grant and . . .


Arts groups are spurning the NEA's anti-obscenity clause

By WILLIAM A. HENRY III -- With reporting by Hays
Gorey/Washington and Linda Williams/New York


    When Paul Zimmer, director of the University of Iowa Press,
got notification of his annual grant of support from the
National Endowment for the Arts, the new language restricting
allowable content sent him on a long, brooding walk. When Los
Angeles choreographer Bella Lewitzky received her notice, she
just crossed out the offending restrictions against obscenity
before signing, a response the NEA would not allow.
Media-minded impresario Joseph Papp of New York City's Public
Theater wrote an op-ed open letter for the New York Times. The
business-minded board of the Oregon Shakespearean Festival, the
largest U.S. regional theater, held a private debate that led
to a unanimous vote.

    In each case, after undergoing the rigorous process of
qualifying for NEA money -- and building it into their budgets
-- the arts organizations  turned the funds down. They could not
tolerate the stipulation that Congress added to the NEA's 1990
appropriations: no funded work may involve obscenity,
"including, but not limited to, depictions of sado masochism,
homoeroticism, the exploitation of children, or individuals
engaged in sex acts." None of those who refused the money
produces material that remotely qualifies as obscene. But all
of them object to the vague, sweeping language and to the very
idea of empowering NEA bureaucrats to set a national standard
for obscenity, a matter the Supreme Court has repeatedly said
should be regulated by the varying norms of individual
communities.

    The language was imposed on the NEA as a result of its
funding of two photo shows. One involved sexually graphic works
by the late Robert Mapplethorpe, the other a depiction by
Andres Serrano of a plastic crucifix dunked in the artist's
urine. Although many people in the arts community expected the
ruckus to be short-lived, a year later it shows no sign of
abating. Some liberals question whether Endowment Chairman John
Frohnmayer need enforce the new rules so confrontationally: the
National Endowment for the Humanities is not requiring
recipients to sign any new pledge. But the pressure on the NEA
has been unrelenting, in part because the religious right has
discovered that the flap revived its flagging organizational
and fund-raising efforts.

    Frohnmayer has caved in to that pressure. He broke a
months-long relative silence to tell a private meeting of arts
leaders in Seattle in late June, "It is our job to recognize
the political realities," and indicated that some grants will
be denied on grounds other than artistic merit. Within days,
four examples emerged: performance artists Karen Finley, John
Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tom Miller. All had been funded before
and were recommended again by peers. But all emphasize sexual
issues, including feminism and empathy for gays, which are
flash points for the right. Finley, for example, appears nude
to decry abuse of women, and has been assailed by the
conservative syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert
Novak. One performance artist who survived the censors'
scrutiny, Rachel Rosenthal, said that although she "needed the
money badly," she would refuse it in protest. Another, Richard
Elovich, vowed to divert some of his $5,000 to artists whose
grants were canceled.

    While the NEA contract exempts works of proven artistic
merit, smut charges are all too frequently leveled at works of
substance. Classics such as Huckleberry Finn and Catcher in the
Rye have been banned in school libraries around the U.S.; many
who urge antipornography rules at the NEA also perceive rampant
obscenity in prime-time TV. As pro-NEA Representative Sidney
Yates of Illinois argues, "Shakespeare can be kind of bawdy.
The NEA's contract could encourage people to criticize grants
for the presentation of his plays." Opponents of the NEA's new
language also fear it could lead to a ban on anything involving
religion, social issues or politics. Says the Oregon Festival's
artistic director, Jerry Turner: "One of the biggest dangers
is that people will say, `Let's find something safe.'"

    Up to two dozen organizations have spurned the NEA outright
or formally objected and threatened to sue. While many of the
grants being turned down are relatively small -- the $49,500
to the Oregon troupe is half of 1% of its $10 million annual
budget -- winning NEA funds has traditionally served as a
legitimizing sign of merit and has led to larger donations from
corporations, foundations and patrons.

    The arts community is far from unanimous in thinking that
refusing NEA money is wise. Says Jack O'Brien, artistic
director of the Old Globe Theater in San Diego: "I think it
plays right into the hands of the enemies of the NEA. It allows
them to say, `See, these arts groups don't even need it.' The
central point is that this system works. By and large, the
money goes to the right places, and after two decades there
hasn't been a hint of fraud or scandal. What other Government
program can say that?"

    Arts leaders are pondering new maneuvers: mounting an
aggressive ad campaign against North Carolina Senator Jesse
Helms, an enemy of the NEA, or taking NEA money but publicly
disavowing the pledge they have signed, thus daring the
Government to litigate First Amendment issues. The leaders
agree on one thing: just when artists thought they demonstrated
the value of their work to the nation, it has become clear that
the task of educating the public has only begun.