The Critical Case on NEA

In response to Christopher Knight’s May 14 article (“Radice Destroying the NEA to Save It”) decrying the National Endowment for the Arts for refusing to fund two more art exhibits: He has unintentionally made the case that the NEA is a politically driven, not artistically driven, bureaucracy.

Knight claims that acting chairman Anne-Imelda Radice, “like (John E.) Frohnmayer before her . . . has virtually no record as a distinguished figure in the visual arts.” That never seemed to matter to the likes of Knight so long as Frohnmayer was merrily funding increasingly outrageous exhibits.

Only when, under intense public and congressional scrutiny, the NEA announces it will award grants based on merit and attempt to avoid particularly controversial exhibits does Knight cry foul. I submit that Knight and those of like mind are only angry because the champions of the “art” they prefer are no longer calling the shots in the NEA. For every offensive exhibit not funded, another equally deserving applicant may receive an opportunity.

This is not an issue of whether an artist has the right to create and display his or her works. This simply is a matter of using scarce public resources to finance the arts, and taxpayers are justifiably demanding a voice in deciding what art they will fund.

DAVID B. FORDYCE

Los Angeles