home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- THEATER, Page 81Are Artists Godless Perverts?
-
-
- In the battle over public funding, opponents seem to be winning
-
-
- At the end of Indecent Materials, a pair of one-act plays
- linking homophobia to right-wing criticism of the National
- Endowment for the Arts, an actor from North Carolina steps out
- of character to vow that this year his state will unseat the
- NEA's foremost critic, Senator Jesse Helms. Despite that
- bravado, many cultural leaders fear that what started out as
- a skirmish against would-be censors is turning into an
- unwinnable war. After years of debate about whether public
- funding for the arts was growing fast enough, cultural
- institutions now worry whether the NEA will survive at all, at
- least on terms consistent with intellectual freedom. Says Yale
- Drama School professor David Chambers, a prominent director in
- nonprofit theaters: "The arts lobby has failed."
-
- The anti-NEA debate was ignited in June 1989 by a photo
- exhibition that included homosexually explicit work by the late
- Robert Mapplethorpe. As is made plain by Indecent Materials,
- which last week transferred from Durham, N.C., to New York
- City's Public Theater, the flash point for Helms was gay
- rights. The opening play, drawn from Helms' words, quotes him
- assailing "homosexuals who are trying to force their way into
- undeserved respectability."
-
- But the assault from the right has expanded to target all
- sorts of dissident material touching on politics, religion and
- power relationships between the genders. Conservatives reject
- the argument that artists deserve aid because cutting-edge
- ideas lead to progress. Instead, the right has advanced the
- know-nothing notion that artists tend to be leftist, godless
- and sexually perverse and that public funding amounts to
- promoting an "antifamily agenda."
-
- Sensible citizens may be able to laugh off the idea of
- depravity emanating from their civic orchestra, ballet or
- Shakespeare theater. But in a battle conducted chiefly in the
- media, all it takes is a couple of controversial recipients to
- overshadow thousands of uncontested ones. And in the overheated
- climate of current debate, attempts to weed out controversial
- recipients can poison relations between the NEA and its
- beneficiaries. Last week the endowment reaffirmed a decision to
- strip grants from four performance artists, all of whom deal
- with sexual issues, after they had been chosen by fellow
- creators. NEA Chairman John Frohnmayer asserted that their work
- would not "enhance public understanding and appreciation of the
- arts."
-
- In addition, the NEA expanded on a detailed anti-obscenity
- pledge that recipients have been required to sign by setting
- up a process to investigate charges of obscenity from "any
- responsible source." At first blink, the procedure sounded so
- cumbersome and so fraught with potential for misuse by accusers
- seeking publicity that many in the arts said NEA money might
- no longer be worth having. Impresario Joseph Papp of the Public
- Theater, which spurned one $50,000 NEA grant and expects to
- reject another for $325,000, denounced the new procedure as "a
- kind of cultural vice squad with people ratting on one
- another."
-
- The NEA's survival is scheduled for debate in the House in
- September or October, and pending proposals range from
- unrestricted reauthorization to outright extinction. The
- pork-barrel aspects of the agency -- it funds many hundreds of
- institutions, large and small, in all 50 states -- would seem
- to ensure its survival in some form. But Anne Murphy, executive
- director of the American Arts Alliance, seemingly speaks for
- much of the U.S. cultural leadership when she warns, "The
- endowment is bleeding to death."
-
-
- By William A. Henry III. Reported by Janice C. Simpson/New York,
- with other bureaus.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-