Sunday, June 7, 1998
At a panel discussion on the arts, a woman suddenly looked at me with a mixture of shock and disbelief -- as if she had been handed a letter with a return address that said "Theodore Kaczynski."
Several people in the audience were aghast -- like passengers on a bus watching Timothy McVeigh climb aboard.
That's me -- Unabomber to the cultural elite. Terrorist to the Bohemian arts nation. As popular as the county sheriff at a Mapplethorpe exhibition.
What set off the arts crowd like mixing diesel fuel and fertilizer is an idea so radical it was approved by the U.S. House this year, and nearly passed by the Senate:
Abolish the NEA.
"NEA means Not Exactly Art," I joked. "Or, Needless Elitist Art. How about, Nearly Eliminated Agency?"
Not funny. They didn't just take umbrage -- they grabbed it with both hands. If umbrage had not been nailed down, they would have hurled it at me.
Maybe it was because they had just spent the day hearing presentations by local arts groups. And there I was, playing designated Darth Vader, putting pork rinds in the petit fours, a barbarian at the ballet, torching everything good and bright and beautiful . . .
Well, not exactly. I like art. I'd buy more if I could find an Elvis on velvet as long as my sofa. I just oppose involuntary federal funding of con artists.
I tried to explain why the National Endowment for the Arts has been whacked like Van Gogh's ear, from $162 million a few years ago to $98 million this year -- less than 1 percent of the $10 billion donated to the arts privately.
The agency is so desperate, President Clinton appointed a new director from the Country Music Association. But the NEA could pay Dolly Parton to smear her naked body with chocolate at the Grand Ol' Opry; they could submerge crucifixes in draft beer at monster truck rallies and give "performance art" grants to pro wrestlers, and it won't change their Nitwit Egghead Attitude.
When the Supreme Court was asked to affirm a decency standard imposed by Congress, NEA artists claimed decency violates their First Amendment rights. A federal judge replied, "First Amendment law has taken some odd turns lately."
It's unconstitutional to put a cross on government property, he said, "but if a cross is immersed in urine, a government grant cannot be withheld on the ground that the art would offend general standards of decency and respect for the religious beliefs of most Americans."
The NEA is very liberal with our money: 80 percent goes to districts represented by Democrats; 32 percent goes to New York City, with 3 percent of the population; 20 percent goes to administration.
There's worse waste. The National Science Foundation granted $107,000 to study flatulence jokes, and $220,000 to study why men don't smile as often as women (must have been before Viagra).
But the NEA seems to go out of its way to insult taxpayers with obscene and offensive "art." It has become the National Entitlement for the Arts, because the laws of federal physics mandate: Every reckless generosity becomes a constitutional right.
Saying things like that doesn't make artists smile often. It makes their faces twist like a cubist Picasso.
"Challenging our beliefs makes them stronger," I was told.
"How can you oppose the First Amendment?" I was asked.
"There are plenty of good arts groups funded by NEA," they said.
And the last defense of modern scoundrels: "It's for the children."
If the NEA is for kids, when do we get a check in the mail for all the crayon critters on the front of my refrigerator?
The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to federal money." Subsidized speech is not free.
And if obscene art reinforces our beliefs, maybe we should skip church on Sunday and go to see Corpus Christi, the New York play about a gay Jesus who has sex with his disciples. I don't think so.
Good arts groups use NEA money. But most can get by without it. And if they can't, why should taxpayers be forced to support art that can't survive on its own merits?
I was surprised the arts crowd is so easily offended by an opposing point of view. I thought folks who support stuff that's too gross for Springer would be a little more open minded.
But it was a fun hour of give and take. They gave it to me, and I took it. My opinion was offensive, obnoxious, deliberately provocative.
So where's my NEA grant for Neanderthal Editorial Arts?
Peter Bronson is editorial page editor of The Enquirer. If you have questions or comments, call 768-8301, or write to 312 Elm Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.
BRONSON ARCHIVE
