NEA Death Notice Is Premature

The House of Representatives’ vote this week to end all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is not a death knell for the agency. Fortunately, the NEA has growing bipartisan support in the Senate, and the White House says President Clinton will veto any legislation that eliminates federal support.

The matter ought to be settled before it comes to a veto, which would just throw the issue back to Congress. After all, the NEA’s annual funding is $99.5 million, which would buy about one-third of a mile of Los Angeles subway. As Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.) said during the House debate, “We do less for the arts than almost any other country in the world--it’s embarrassing.”

It is true that since its creation in 1965 the agency has funded projects by some artists who offended some people. The controversies involved questions of taste or political or religious beliefs; disputes of these kinds are a natural consequence of artistic freedom.

On the other hand, the artworks that gave offense, such as a photograph by Andres Serrano that showed a crucifix in a jar of urine, are not representative of the NEA’s grants. Quite the contrary. In California, for example, the NEA funds projects for institutions including the American Film Institute, the Los Angeles Philharmonic Assn. and the Museum of Contemporary Art.

Since socially conservative legislators began attempting in 1989 to get rid of the NEA, its budget has steadily decreased to the current $99.5 million. Clinton’s budget request calls for raising it to $136 million. The slightly more generous Senate has voted $175 million annually, no doubt in anticipation of compromise with the House. At the very least, Clinton’s funding request ought to prevail. That is not asking too much for a country that prides itself on its creativity and unparalleled prosperity.