This is a paper I am working on.....here's the introduction
Approaching the End of Artistic Freedom: The Systematic Downsizing of Intellectual Expression through the Restructuring of the NEA
“Artists are society’s watchers, critics and champions. They speak the unspeakable, even if it manifests itself in horrifying, untidy or esoteric matters.”
-- Statement to House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education
Introduction
In keeping with the tenor of the mid-1960s, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was established with an implicit anti-Russian rhetoric, aiming to counter the homogenizing influence of Soviet realism by promoting diversity and creativity. The NEA’s founding charter reflected this mission, asserting the need to “devote the fullest attention to freedom of artistic and humanistic expression… [and] the encouragement of free inquiry and expression.”[1] This foundational commitment to diversity and independent thought positioned the NEA as a champion of artistic freedom, aligning with broader societal movements of the time. However, in the intervening decades, this freedom has faced relentless challenges.
The sixties, dominated by the civil rights movement, gave way to the seventies and the women’s movement, the eighties with the disability and gay/lesbian rights movements, and the nineties with a conservative backlash that sought to suppress any speech or art deemed offensive.[2] The current dismantling of the NEA stems, in part, from what Time magazine has described as “the browning of America,” fueling a paranoid response to demographic and cultural changes.[3] This conservative movement has not only sought to make civil rights gains less visible by limiting support for certain artists but has also emboldened government officials and self-appointed guardians of public morality to impose tighter controls over artistic content.[4] These efforts have created a deep division in America’s beliefs about artistic value, freedom of expression, and the broader principle of cultivating independent individuals—a value deeply rooted in the ideals of the nation’s founding.
During its first three decades, the NEA flourished, with its budget peaking at $162 million in 1995. Although this constituted less than 0.02 percent of the federal budget,[5] critics increasingly attacked the agency’s perceived promotion of controversial art, leading to significant budget cuts and structural changes. By 1996, the NEA’s budget had been slashed to $99.5 million,[6]
despite specific provisions in the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 prohibiting federal interference in artistic decisions.[7]
This mandate of noninterference was blatantly disregarded by figures such as Senator Jesse Helms and Senator Alfonse D’Amato, who vocally condemned federally funded art they found objectionable.[8] Their attacks, alongside Newt Gingrich’s efforts to “zero out” the NEA and NEH, marked a turning point in the cultural and political landscape. As Jennifer L. Smith notes, this period exposed “the complexities of maintaining artistic integrity within a federally funded institution.”⁹ The broader implications of these efforts extend beyond funding battles, revealing a profound ideological conflict over the role of public support for the arts in a democratic society.
The NEA’s evolution is not merely a reflection of changing budgets but of larger societal debates about equity, representation, and freedom. Scholars like Emma Chen highlight the systemic disparities in public arts funding, which have historically excluded marginalized communities.¹[9] Programs like “Challenge America” and “Our Town” have sought to address these inequities, but challenges persist.[10] Amid these tensions, the COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the vulnerability of the arts sector, prompting unprecedented federal support through initiatives like the American Rescue Plan.¹² These developments serve as a reminder that public funding for the arts is not just a financial issue but a barometer of national values and priorities.
The National Endowment for the Arts was established in 1965; its charter included this directive: the Endowment must devote “the fullest attention to freedom of artistic and humanistic expression…The intent of this act should be the encouragement of free inquiry and expression…conformity for its own sake is not to be encouraged and no undue preference should be given to any particular style or school of thought.” Continuing to grow and flourish for the first 30 years, in 1995, the NEA had a budget of 162 million dollars. While this is a relatively small amount of tax dollars (less than .02 percent of the federal budget/ less than $.38 per capita per year), in 1996 the NEA’s budget was cut to 99.5 million. Even though a specific policy of noninterference was written into the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965:
“…It is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry, but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.
In the administration of this Act no department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States shall exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the policy determination, personnel, or curriculum, or the administration or operation of any school or other non-Federal agency, institution, organization or association.”[11]
In direct non-regard for this language, federal employees such as Senator Jesse Helms and Senator Alfonse D’Amato stood on the senate floor espousing their own opinions regarding the product of some artists’ work and how the endowment should be administered. Newt Gingrich had also promised to ‘zero out’ the NEA and NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) in the future. As a result of his inquiry, and the help of his powerful conservative friends, it looks as though he may have accomplished this end.[1]
[1] National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, Pub. L. No. 89-209 (1965).
[2]Michael Wingfield Walker, "Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA's New Funding Restrictions," Washington University Law Review (1993).
[3] Time Magazine, "The Browning of America," March 1990.
[4] Robert C. Post, "NEA v. Finley: A Decision in Search of a Rationale," Washington University Law Review (1998).
[5] National Endowment for the Arts, Annual Budget Reports, 1995.
[6] NEA Annual Report, 1996.
[7] Congressional Record, July 26, 1989.
[8] Jennifer L. Smith, "Censorship and the National Endowment for the Arts: An Analytical Look at the NEA's Funding Decisions," ScholarWorks at WMU.
[9]Emma Chen, "Investigating Inequitable Arts Funding and Collective Impact in the Creative Economy," The Arts Journal (2023).
[10] NEA Reports on “Challenge America” and “Our Town,” www.arts.gov.
[11] 20 U.S.C. 953 [c]
[12] Dorton, Pamela A “The End of Artistic Freedom” Michigan State University, East Lansing MI (1996).