The State of the American Artist

1

The State of the American Artist: Foundations Respond to the Congressional Elimination of NEA Individual Artist Fellowships Elizabeth Metts Arts Administration, Teachers College, Columbia University Abstract In 1995, the 104th Congress mandated that the National Endowment for the Arts eliminate its individual artist fellowship program. With the congressional mandate came the question of who would support individual artists if not the NEA, and whether this new support would be more beneficial than the NEA with its project-based direct monetary grants. I examine the forms of support foundations have provided—including project grants, materials, professional development, artist space, and funding databases—and I argue that the elimination of the NEA’s fellowship program will help artists by providing and fostering a more diversified support system. Creative Capital Foundation filled a venture capitalist role formerly attributed to the NEA by promoting innovative and provocative works through its open application process. The Ford Foundation launched two influential research initiatives on artists’ needs and spearheaded the establishment of the USA Artists grant program. These two foundations’ initiatives have important policy implications—such as how scalable and sustainable these foundational responses can be without NEA participation—for American artists, given the likelihood that the NEA will not restore its individual artist fellowships.

Introduction

Established in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts was founded as an independent

agency of the federal government responsible for promoting artistic innovation and preserving

America’s cultural heritage. With the culture wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s, however,

the NEA fell under the scrutiny of the 104th Congress, led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich,

who sought to end the NEA’s funding of controversial and offensive artwork. Congress’s

solution was to eliminate the NEA’s individual artist fellowship program for artists in the fields

of dance, design, theater, music, and the visual and media arts, because the individual artists

grants were blamed for the cultural controversies of this time period. Who filled the sudden gap

left by the elimination of NEA’s individual artist grants? Four years after the congressional

mandate that ended the fellowship program, Ruby Lerner founded Creative Capital with an open

2

application process and a venture capitalist method of funding artists, one that promoted the

more provocative and new works that had caused problems for the NEA a few years earlier.

Concurrently, the Ford Foundation funded two national research initiatives into the state of the

American artist, resulting in highly influential reports on the types of support that artists need in

addition to direct monetary grants. Taking these reports into consideration, the Ford Foundation

then launched the USA Artists grant program with the help of three other foundations in hopes of

establishing a private endowment just for supporting artists. With the development and

establishment of both Creative Capital and the Ford Foundation’s programs comes the following

questions: Will these foundations be able to raise enough money and sustain that financial

support to have a private endowment for artists? And will they be able to sustain these efforts

without the backing of the NEA? By looking at how the NEA fellowship program worked and

how its elimination sparked this foundational response, we can analyze whether the NEA should

reinstate its individual artist fellowships for a set period of time with the sole purpose of

promoting a private sector response and bestowing its stamp of approval on national foundations

doing similar work.

The Gingrich Revolution and its Aftermath

On June 8, 1995, House Speaker Newt Gingrich was quoted in The New York Times for

his remarks on the National Endowment for the Arts. To Gingrich, the NEA served as “arts

patronage for an elite group.” This same article cites Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority

leader, who described the NEA as “an affront to the American taxpayer.”1 Across the hall on

1 Melinda Henneberger, “Republicans Battle Party on Arts Funds,” The New York Times (June 8, 1995), retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/08/nyregion/republicans-battle-party-on-arts-funds.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A5%22%7D (accessed November 24, 2014).

3

Capitol Hill, Republican senators of the 104th Congress also had something to say about the

NEA, in particular its grants to individual artists.2 Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas summed

up the Senate’s position on the NEA in light of the culture wars of the early 1990s: “The issue of

NEA grants to individuals has resurfaced as recent controversies have drawn new attention to the

NEA’s practice of awarding grants to individuals whose ‘art’ offends so many of us. I believe

that the time has come to draw the line on grants to individuals.”3 And with that, the 104th

Congress cut funding for the NEA and mandated that the NEA eliminate its fellowships to

individual artists in the fields of dance, design, theater, music, and the visual and media arts

beginning October 1, 1995.4

This congressional mandate was the culmination of six years of controversy regarding the

NEA. Since 1989, when the controversies over Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ and Robert

Mapplethorpe’s Perfect Moment made headlines and sparked the culture wars, the Religious

Right and then the 104th Congress had the NEA in their sights.5 When Newt Gingrich assumed

his position as Speaker of the House in 1994, he vigorously pursued the NEA and its

controversial use of taxpayer dollars to fund what he and other conservatives considered to be

“offensive” art.6 NEA Chairman Jane Alexander talked with Congress extensively and sought to

2 Gingrich’s 104th Congress marked the first time in 40 years that Republicans had the majority in both the House and the Senate [Mark Bauerlein and Ellen Grantham, National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1965-2008 (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2009): 115]. 3 Michael Brenson, Visionaries and Outcasts: The NEA, Congress, and the Place of the Visual Artist in America (New York: The New Press, 2001): 88. 4 Narric Rome, “Congressional Appropriators Consider Cutting NEA in Half,” Americans For The Arts Blog (August 1, 2013), retrieved from http://blog.artsusa.org/2013/08/01/congressional-appropriators-consider-cutting-nea-in-half/ (accessed November 26, 2014). 5 Joseph Zeigler, Arts in Crisis: The National Endowment for the Arts Versus America (Chicago: A Cappella Books, 1994): 76-77. Ted Johnson, “Ovation, Advocates Launch New Pus for Government Arts Funding,” Variety (March 24, 2014), retrieved from http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/ovation-advocates-launch-new-push-for-government-arts-funding-1201145122/ (accessed October 21, 2014). 6 Bauerlein and Grantham, 115; Gingrich’s “Contract with America” called for the elimination of the NEA.

4

save the NEA, but she could not save the individual artist fellowships.7 Though the fellowship

program was not the program that funded the so-called controversial works of Serrano and

Mapplethorpe—as these were funded by subgrants from the Southeastern Center for

Contemporary Art and the Institute of Contemporary Art in Philadelphia, respectively—the

fellowship program became the target of the Gingrich Revolution within the 104th Congress.8

Thus, beginning with the fiscal year of 1996, the NEA stopped funding individual artists through

its fellowship program, with the exception of creative writing fellowships.9 So, what happened to

the other artists in the midst of the 1995 congressional mandate ending the individual artist

fellowship program? If not the NEA, who was looking out for and helping out artists in the fields

of dance, design, theater, music, and the visual and media arts?

Assessing the Ban’s Impact

On the surface, the elimination of the NEA individual artist fellowship seems like a loss.

The NEA is the arbiter of artistic excellence in the United States, the “independent federal

agency that funds and promotes artistic excellence, creativity, and innovation.”10 But two

scholars on government arts funding suggest that the NEA may not be the best when it comes to

comprehensive artist support. In his book Good and Plenty, Tyler Cowen argues that the

elimination of artist fellowships may actually be more beneficial for artists and fostering

creativity in light of the growing conservatism of the NEA. Cowen observes that the NEA plays

7 Jane Alexander, Command Performance: An Actress In The Theater of Politics (Boston: Da Capo Press, 2001): 269. 8 Brenson, 92-93. 9 The Congressional changes to the NEA included: 1) the elimination of grants to individuals with exceptions of field of literature and honorific fellowships for jazz musicians and folk and traditional artists; and 2) the elimination of grants to organizations for the purpose of subgranting to other organizations or artists, except for regional, state, and local arts agencies (NEA History, p.120). 10 National Endowment for the Arts, “Home,” Retrieved from http://arts.gov/ (accessed October 8, 2014).

5

two roles: a venture capitalist role and a preservation role.11 He contends that the NEA has

“moved away from its venture capitalist role, which it never fully embraced in the first place, and

has become increasingly conservative.”12

By focusing on preserving America’s cultural heritage, or what the NEA determines to be

our cultural heritage, the NEA has been able to avoid being phased out by Congress—as

Gingrich tried to do in 1995—but at a cost to the American artist.13 If the NEA is supposed to be

the national agency responsible for supporting artistic creation, what is it funding? Cowen shows

how the shift in conservative funding practices has been one away from “encouraging individual

creativity” toward “invest[ing] more heavily in the staff and bureaucracy of the art world.” By

letting the organizations decide how to use their grant money, the NEA keeps itself out of the

spotlight—and it keeps itself from being a target for congressional opponents.

In addition to Cowen’s argument that the NEA is now focused on the staff and

bureaucracy of arts organizations, art critic Michael Brenson addresses the immediate impact the

1995 ban had on the American artist. In describing the congressional support for the ban just

before the bill was passed in October 1995, Brenson notes, “it was hard to find anyone willing to

stand up for the individual artist.”14 He explains that, “[a]fter Congress eliminated funding to

individuals, the Endowment detached the power of art from the power of the artist.”15 Not only

does Brenson acknowledge the NEA’s apparent disregard and lack of concern for the American

artist, but he also asks another key question I will be addressing in this paper:

Can the private sector make up for what has been lost with the elimination of NEA fellowships and the severely diminished influence of government patronage? It is

11 Tyler Cowen, Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006): 65. 12 Ibid., 96. 13 Bauerlein and Grantham, 117. 14 Brenson, 89. 15 Ibid., 90.

6

impossible to know at this point how much the private sector can do, and how it can expand and reinvent arts patronage, but it cannot replace the NEA.16

While Brenson is right in that the prestige of NEA grants cannot be replaced, what is the

alternative?

In the 1996 study, Financial Support for Artists, writer Anne Focke “came to the

conclusion that ample sources of assistance for artists existed and predicted that the foundation

community would fill in the gaps left by the withdrawal of the NEA.”17 Despite the arts

community’s doubts over Focke’s prediction, I use it as the jumping off point for this paper. By

looking at the different types of support foundations have provided—from project grants,

materials, professional development, artist space, and funding databases—I argue that the NEA’s

elimination of artist fellowships will help artists in the long run by providing and fostering a

more diversified support system than that of the NEA grants.

NEA Fellowships: The Official Stamp of Approval

Before analyzing the nature of the foundational response, I will begin with an overview

of the NEA granting process as a means of comparison when it comes to supporting individual

artists. In particular, I will look at how the grant review process worked and the type of support

provided through individual artist fellowships during the five years leading up to the

congressional ban in 1995. This time period also coincides with the height of the culture wars

and the beginning of the Gingrich Revolution.

16 Ibid., 125. 17 Ann M. Galligan and Joni Maya Cherbo, “Financial Support for Individual Artists,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 34: 1 (August 7, 2010), retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JAML.34.1.23-42 (accessed November 20, 2014): 26.

7

From 1990 to 1995, the NEA’s Annual Reports provide insight into the nature of the

individual artist fellowships in the fields of dance, design, theatre, music, and the visual and

media arts before the congressional ban. The grant descriptions in these Annual Reports show

that the NEA provided artists with direct monetary grants for specific projects or productions.

For example, choreographers who applied for the artist fellowship program in dance could

receive a one-year grant of $7,000, a two-year grant of $20,000, or a three-year grant of $45,000

to help with artistic development. For visual artists, grants were awarded on a two-year cycle: for

the first year, artists in the fields of photography, sculpture, and crafts would receive $20,000 for

their projects; for the second year, artists in painting and other genres would receive $20,000.18

Overall, individual artist fellowships were meant to help artists with a certain project.

So how did the NEA decide which individual artists would be awarded these

fellowships? Beginning with its establishment in 1965, the NEA has relied on a peer panel

review system. Under this system, art professionals and experts are brought in by the NEA

Chairman to review grant applications and narrow them down for the National Council on the

Arts. Roger Stevens, the first NEA Chairman, established this review method to keep politics out

of art by putting artists and art administrators in charge of the review process rather than

politicians.19 Though the peer panels were originally intended to keep partisan politics out of the

NEA, this line became blurred once the NEA’s appropriations dramatically increased under

President Nixon.20 Thus, as the NEA continued to receive more funding and more grant

applications, the NEA became more visible and its peer panels became more politicized. When

controversy broke out over Serrano and Mapplethorpe in 1989, Congress had the opportunity it

18 National Endowment for the Arts, 1994 Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 1994). 19 Cowen, 96. 20 Ibid.

8

had been waiting for to assert more control over the grant review and award process. Scholar

Ann M. Gallighan notes how, in 1990, Congress created an Independent Commission to review

the NEA’s grantmaking procedures and also raised the question of direct congressional

involvement in the grantmaking process during the congressional reauthorization hearings.21

Furthermore, Congress’s increasing presence is evident in the mandate eliminating individual

artist fellowships. This had a negative impact on the peer panel system. Cowen observes how,

“[n]ot only was it harder to find artists willing to serve on peer panels but with most of the

Endowment’s funding going to institutional projects, there were fewer places for artists in the

peer panel system.”22 Additionally, Cowen points out how artists were not in as much demand

for panels given that there were no individual art fellowship applications for them to review.

While I will later discuss in more detail Washington, D.C.-based think tank Urban

Institute’s instrumental study from 2003, Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support

Structure for U.S. Artists, the study points out that the end of the NEA fellowships meant more

than just an end of funding and an end of artists on panels. It meant a loss of an arts network:

Older respondents (typically over 40) indicated that NEA peer review panels, as well as other periodic meetings and programs sponsored by NEA, enabled the creation of connections and networks to other artists that would not otherwise have occurred. Many respondents spoke, for example, of long-term connections they had made by serving on NEA panels, having a voice in NEA policy discussions, and meeting artist peers through NEA site visits.23

Thus, the Urban Institute’s study of artists and their view of what the NEA provided them reveal

another type of support artists received from the NEA. Though not direct monetary grants, artists

gained access to an arts community, a place where they were able to make connections with

21 Ann M. Galligan, “The Politicization of Peer-Review Panels at the NEA,” Paying the Piper: Causes and Consequences of Art Patronage, Ed. Judith H. Balfe (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993): 266. 22 Brenson, 92. 23 Urban Institute, Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structure for U.S. Artists (2003), retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411311_investing_in_creativity.pdf (accessed October 19, 2014): 75; emphases added.

9

peers. But as Cowen points out—and as the Urban Institute study reinforces—the congressional

ban on artist fellowships hindered artists from serving on these panels and making these

connections.

This overview of the NEA individual artist fellowship program shows how the NEA used

to provide artists with two types of support: direct monetary grants and networking opportunities.

And the increase in politicization of the peer review process and Congress’s presence on the

National Council on the Arts, the NEA’s preservation role took precedence over its venture

capitalist one. While Focke predicted that foundations would fill the gap, I will show how they

did so in a way that might prove more beneficial than NEA support. Not only do the two

foundations I will focus on—the Creative Capital Foundation and the Ford Foundation—provide

direct monetary grants and networking opportunities through their respective initiatives, they

also provide additional forms of support that are important for the artist in the long run.

Foundations Respond: A Diversified Support System

Creative Capital Foundation: “Investing in Artists Who Shape the Future”24

With the help of the Andy Warhol Foundation, Creative Capital became the first

foundation to respond to the elimination of NEA artist fellowships when it was established in

1999, just four years after the congressional ban.25 Brenson explains that Creative Capital

represented “the first major attempt to fill the gap that was created by the elimination of NEA

fellowships and made a point of declaring it would fund controversial and provocative artists.”26

Though Brenson wrote his book in 2001, just two years after Creative Capital was established,

24 Creative Capital, “Home,” retrieved from http://www.creative-capital.org/ (accessed October 15, 2014). 25 Felda Hardymon and Ann Leamon, Creative Capital: Sustaining the Arts (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2010): 1. 26 Brenson, 144.

10

his words still hold true. In an article from The Wall Street Journal, columnist Steve Dollar wrote

how Creative Capital’s list of 2013 grant recipients “highlighted many proposals that defy

convention.”27

What allows the Creative Capital Foundation to fund “controversial” and “provocative”

artists—the artists that purportedly got the NEA into trouble and eventually led to the

congressional mandate—and what Dollar touched upon in his article, is Creative Capital’s

venture capitalist model of funding. Being a private foundation, Creative Capital is able to focus

on its venture capitalist role in promoting new works, unlike the NEA, given that it is

independent agency of the federal government. Though artists can receive only one Creative

Capital grant, the grants last between three and five years and are valued up to $90,000: $50,000

in direct monetary support and $40,000 of mentoring and career development services.28

Furthermore, Dollar explains that what distinguishes founder Ruby Lerner’s Creative Capital

from other foundations and types of artist support is “a longer-term commitment, for up to five

years, and an emphasis, [Lerner] said, on ‘what will make someone stronger when they leave us

than when they came in.’”29 During this three-to-five-year period, Creative Capital artists are

“expected to learn how to manage the business of their art.”30 Furthermore, the foundation offers

nonmonetary support through its Professional Development Program and its Artist Advisor

Program. Both of these programs provide Creative Capital artists with a network—which

disappeared with the elimination of the NEA fellowships—as well as other tools to develop their

careers as artists. 27 Steve Dollar, “Where Good Ideas Go to Live,” The Wall Street Journal (January 14, 2013), retrieved from (accessed November 17, 2014). 28 Creative Capital, “About Us,” retrieved from http://www.creative-capital.org/aboutus/whatwedo (accessed November 1, 2014); Initial grant: $10,000; Supplemental funding includes: Infrastructure funding ($5,000); Special opportunities ($1,500); Coaching and PD ($1,000); Project funding ($20,000); Promotional funding ($7,500); Expansion funding ($5,000); Total: $50,000 (Hardymon and Leamon, 19). 29 Dollar. 30 Hardymon and Leamon, 1.

11

Beyond the monetary and nonmonetary support structures Creative Capital has in place,

Creative Capital uses an open application process. This process allows the foundation to discover

new and exciting artists that might not have enough experience and exposure to receive the

nomination “almost all other funding models” require.31 Creative Capital’s Board Secretary

Robert Feldman notes two benefits of this open application system:

The open application process . . . does two exciting things. It allows us to discover completely new, fresh artists like Brent Green, a totally self-taught animator from Appalachia. And it lets us find people who are former MacArthur award winners, whom no one would ever nominate for a grant because it’s though that they’ve achieved success. But they still want to do fresh and exciting things.32

Feldman’s repetition of “new,” “fresh,” and “exciting” points to Creative Capital’s focus on and

dedication to finding and funding “innovation.”33 It is also important to note that, with the open

application process, comes a greater number of applications, which the foundation reviews with

a peer panel process similar to the NEA. However, because Creative Capital is a private

foundation and not an independent agency of the federal government, congressional pressure is

not there.34

31 Hardymon and Leamon, 5. 32 Ibid. 33 Though “innovation” is hard to define and measure, this is a key difference between Creative Capital and the NEA and demonstrates how Creative Capital has filled the venture capitalist role of the NEA, one the NEA has been put aside for the more conservative role of preserving America’s cultural heritage. Not until 2010 did “innovation” return as an NEA priority—despite its being in the NEA mission statement—as evidenced in its Strategic Plan for FY2012-16 with its “A Note On Innovation,” and its 2011 magazine issue, “What Is Innovation?” in which artist interviews reveal the difficult in determining what counts as innovation. 34 “One of the downsides of the fellowships program, in spite of all the beacon-like qualities it had, was that we received 5,000 applications a year and we gave 100 fellowships . . .. It cultivated a kind of lottery-like, passive culture in the individual artist’s world . . .. Artists did think they had to know somebody on the panel and that it was an insider kind of thing” (Brenson, 132). Without this politicization, Creative Capital has accomplished the following with respect to artist support: Since 1999, we have committed $30 million in financial and advisory support to 419 projects representing 529 artists, and our Professional Development Program has reached more than 8,000 artists in 375 communities, representing 30 states and D.C.

12

Ford Foundation: “Support for America’s Finest Artists”35

Whereas the Creative Capital Foundation filled the venture capitalist role of the NEA

through Creative Capital’s application process, longer-term grants, and career development

programs, the Ford Foundation provided a different kind of support through its research

initiatives and its encouragement of a permanent private endowment for individual artists left

without federal funding. In 2000, a year after Creative Capital was founded and five years after

the congressional ban, the Ford Foundation played an instrumental role in putting individual

artists on the private sector’s agenda. With the help of 37 other donors, the Ford Foundation

commissioned the Urban Institute to study the state of the American support infrastructure for

artists. The driving questions behind this influential study briefly mentioned before, Investing in

Creativity, reveal the impact of the ban on artists, and how the arts community could fill the gap

of the NEA:

1. How are artists valued in society? 2. What kind of demand is there for their work and social contributions? 3. What kinds of material supports do artists need? 4. Are artists’ training programs preparing them for the environments they will

encounter? 5. What kinds of connections and networks enable artists to pursue their careers? 6. What kinds of information are necessary to assess this more comprehensive notion of

support for artists?36

These questions highlight the uncertainty surrounding the American artist after the congressional

ban. If the NEA has detached art from the artist, as Brenson believes, and removed the stamp of

approval, then how do Americans know which artists to value? The Urban Institute includes an

alarming statistic on the value of the artist in American society: “Although 96% of Americans

35 United States Artists, “Home,” retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/ (accessed October 8, 2014). 36 Urban Institute, i.

13

value ART in their communities and lives, only 27% value ARTISTS.”37 Yet there are more than

two million artists living in the United States.38 Lastly, the Urban Institute study’s research

questions shed light on the different types of support that artists needed, more than just the direct

monetary grants of the NEA: materials, training, networks, and information, the main resource

the Ford Foundation has endeavored to provide through its initiatives.

With the financial support of the Ford Foundation, the Urban Institute not only published

its report in 2003 on the different types of support artists needed and the need for stakeholders to

come together to provide a comprehensive infrastructure to support artists, it also partnered with

the New York Foundation for the Arts to create the NYFA Source database. While NYFA

originally established its Visual Artist Information Hotline in 1990, it was not until Urban

Institute’s Ford-commissioned study that the database came to the Institute’s attention and

became an area of concern. As stated in the Urban Institute study, “there was no comprehensive

picture of how [artists] are supported. A key element in determining this picture was to create a

database documenting all of the current support mechanisms available to artists.”39 With the help

of the Urban Institute in 2001 and 2002, NYFA Source became “the most comprehensive

resource for individual artist . . .. This database is free and accessible online . . .. It tracks over

8,500 programs available to U.S. artists and covers all disciplines.”40

The same year the Urban Institute study was published, the Ford Foundation embarked

on its own 10-year research initiative, known as LINC (Leveraging Investments in Creativity).

Between 2003 and 2013, the Ford Foundation conducted LINC in hopes that it “would engage 37 United States Artists, “About,” retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/about (accessed October 8, 2014). 38 United States Artists, “United States Artists Launches,” retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/news/usa/united_states_artists_launches (accessed October 15, 2014). 39 New York Foundation for the Arts, “About NYFA Source,” retrieved from http://source.nyfa.org/content/content/contendisplay.aspx?CID=0 (accessed November 10, 2014). 40 NYFA Current, “The Business of Art: The Top 10 Questions” (October 10, 2007), retrieved from http://current.nyfa.org/post/68820249499/top-10-artist-questions (November 24, 2014).

14

policymakers, funders, and practitioners; generate useful new knowledge; and precipitate

multiple ‘downstream’ improvements for a diverse range of artist in all parts of the country.”41

LINC’s list of research topics included Artist Space; Health Care; Convenings/Proceedings;

Creative Communities; Survey/Data-Driven Practices; and Place-Based Strategies.42 As with the

Urban Institute study, the Ford Foundation’s findings during these 10 years sought to increase

national awareness of the different types of support that artists need. Artists were no longer

receiving NEA fellowships, so what could be done to make up for this lack of federal support

and recognition? The LINC initiative again called the arts community’s attention to artists’ need

for materials, chief among them, artist networks and communities, health care—given that artists

do not receive normal employment benefits—and studio space.43

The Ford Foundation, with a $100 million grant and the help of the MetLife Foundation,

expanded upon LINC’s focus on studio space in 2010, just three years before the LINC initiative

was to end. This partnership resulted in National Artist Space Database, as well as another 10-

year initiative, Supporting Diverse Art Spaces. LINC Executive Director Judilee Reed comments

on the importance of this new initiative: “It’s an important step toward building a lasting

infrastructure for independent artists in this country. It’s important because the initiative will not

only help anchor organizations that support artists in their communities . . . but it will also

support affordable and accessible spaces in their community.”44

Concurrently with this artist space initiative, the Ford Foundation is also working toward

a private endowment for artists through its USA Artists initiative. Influenced by the Urban 41 Ford Foundation, “LINC and the Ford Foundation Award $1 Million in Grants to Emerging Arts and Cultural Facilities” (February 8, 2011), retrieved from http://www.fordfoundation.org/newsroom/news-from-ford/447 (accessed October 8, 2014). 42 LINC, “Research,” retrieved from http://www.lincnet.net/1591 (accessed October 15, 2014). 43 Urban Institute, 34. 44 Ula Ilyntzky, “Ford Foundation Giving $100M In Arts Grants,” The Huffington Post (June 5, 2010), retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/ford-foundation-giving-10_n_525468.html (accessed November 5, 2014).

15

Institute study and launched in September 2005 with both assistance and seed money from the

Rockefeller, Prudential, and Rasmuson foundations, USA Artists serves as both grantmaker and

artist advocate.45 As a grantmaker, USA Artists’ USA Fellows program awards “at least 50

outstanding American artists” direct monetary grants of $50,000.46 USA Artist awards are

unrestricted, which, according to the Urban Institute, are more valued by artists “because of their

flexibility.”47 In addition to the flexibility of unrestricted grants, the USA Artists initiative

provides its artists with the flexibility to create, innovate, and take risks “without political and

market pressures.”48

As an advocate for American artists, the USA Artists initiative “provides a structure for

private donors, corporate philanthropies, and foundations to come together to form a permanent

endowment that will support individual artists in perpetuity.”49 Establishing a permanent,

privately funded endowment was something former NEA Chairman Jane Alexander attempted to

do before the appropriations cuts were passed in 1995. In trying to save the NEA from the

Gingrich Revolution, Alexander went to Hollywood in 1995 in hopes of establishing a private

endowment given the uncertain future of the NEA.50

Not only does the Ford Foundation’s goal of establishing a private endowment allow

other foundations to fill the monetary role of NEA artist fellowships, but it also gets the private

sector directly involved in supporting individual artists. This type of support was absent when 45 United States Artists, “Founders,” retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/founders (accessed November 25, 2014). 46 United States Artists, “United States Artists Launches.” 47 Urban Institute, 42. 48 United States Artists, “Mission, vision & values,” retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/about/mission_vision_values (accessed November 25, 2014). 49 To date, the Ford-led USA Artist program has had the following impact: 382 USA Fellowships awarded over eight years; each year, at least one artist from each of the 50 states receives a grant of $50,000; 91% of these grant funds are used to develop new art [United States Artists, “Milestones,” retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/about/milestones (accessed November 26, 2014)]. 50 Alexander, 250; This effort was to no avail, though, as Hollywood-based Creative Coalition responded to Alexander that “arts belong at the national table,” rather than at the private sector table. (Bauerlein and Grantham, 120).

16

the NEA did grant individual fellowships, given that the fellowships did not require matching

grants unlike the NEA’s grants to organizations.51 Thus, whereas the Creative Capital

Foundation filled the venture capitalist role of the NEA, the Ford Foundation filled the NEA’s

role in getting private support for individual artists.

The Future of the American Artist: What Does It Look Like and How Can We Shape It?

As demonstrated above, the two foundations that immediately responded to the

congressional ban—Creative Capital and Ford—filled the gap left by the NEA through both

direct monetary support and research initiatives to put the true needs of American artists back on

the arts community’s agenda. Though the artists who have benefitted from this foundational

response don’t receive the official stamp of approval that came with an NEA fellowship, they

have received professional development and other types of support that are more substantial than

a simple one-year project grant. But is this sufficient to not only support the two million artists

living in the United States, but also to put artists back on the national agenda?52

In December 2002, just before Dana Gioia was sworn in as President George W. Bush’s

NEA Chairman, former National Council on the Arts member Raymond Learsy called for the

reinstatement of the fellowship program.53 He quoted American painter and photographer Chuck

51 NEA, 1994 Annual Report: 3. 52 The nation’s leading arts advocacy group, Americans for the Arts, has a “For Artists” page as one of its advocacy topics. But this page serves simply as another resource for artists—how to get in touch with local arts agencies, how to find housing and health insurance, how to join an artist network, how to find grants to apply to from partner organizations Fractured Atlas, Creative Capital, and WomenArts Foundation. While this resource page is beneficial for artists looking for help and answers, it does not advocate for a return of the NEA fellowship program, of more government funding for artists. Americans for the Arts are focused on the following advocacy efforts: Cultural Exchanges Through the U.S. Department of State; Improving the Visa Process for Foreign Guest Artists; Tax Fairness for Artists and Writers; Protecting Performing Arts Technology [Americans For the Arts, “For Artists,” retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/by-topic/for-artists (accessed November 26, 2014)]. 53 Raymond J. Learsy, “To Encourage Great Art, Help Great Artists,” The New York Times (December 3, 2002), retrieved from

17

Close on why NEA grants are unlike other types of support: “Of all the awards and prizes and

honorary degrees, everything else that I’ve gotten in my career, the N.E.A. grant was the most

important, came earliest, means the most.”54 The type of support Close describes is invaluable

because, at the end of the day, an NEA grant holds national importance and gives artists national

significance. But will the NEA ever renew its fellowship program? Can it? Should it?

Trying to answer these questions has several important policy implications for American

artists. The simple answer is that the NEA will most likely not renew its individual artist

fellowship program. Not only does Brenson allude to this—that the “private sector is probably

the only hope now for an ambitious fellowship program”—but both political and economic

trends also support this answer.55 On the political front, Variety editor Ted Johnson observes that

Tea Party conservatives have taken the place of Reagan’s Religious Right and Gingrich’s 104th

Congress when it comes to opposing government funding for the arts.56 NEA appropriations

have been decreasing gradually under the Obama administration. Just this past year, the House

Appropriations Subcommittee proposed a bill that would cut NEA funding by 49%, bringing the

budget down to $75 million, which is significantly less than it was when the NEA still funded

individual artists.57 Former Chairman Jane Alexander had to deal with a similar percentage

decrease in funding, which led to the firing of half her staff and the restructuring of the grant

programs.58 Even if Congress had not mandated the elimination of the individual artist

fellowships, it is uncertain whether the NEA would have been able to fund them in light of the

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/opinion/03LEAR.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A6%22%7D (accessed November 21, 2014). 54 Ibid.; emphases added 55 Brenson, 144. 56 Johnson, “Ovation.” 57 Rome. 58 D’Jamila Salem, “NEA Plans Nearly 50% Cut in Staff,” Los Angeles Times (October 19, 1995), retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-19/entertainment/ca-58754_1_big-budget-cuts (accessed October 15, 2014).

18

cuts. Fortunately, the House’s bill did not pass, saving the NEA from a 49% budget cut.59 But as

this House bill demonstrates, the NEA is still under scrutiny, and the arts appear to be an easy

target for Congress.

Thus, the future of American artists depends on foundations such as Creative Capital and

Ford to continue providing direct monetary grants, training programs, networking opportunities,

and other resources that will keep artists on the private sector agenda. However, with these

responses come the questions of sustainability and scale. For Creative Capital, founder Ruby

Lerner raises this concern when she notes how—even though Creative Capital provides a venture

capital model of granting money to artists—it does not have a venture capital model of making

money itself.60 With Ford, the question of resources also comes up with respect to its USA

Artists initiative. Though founded with seed money from three other foundations, will they be

able to contribute at a consistent level for years to come? And how will they gain more donors to

add to their private endowment if their name isn’t as established as the NEA’s when it comes to

attracting more donors and matching grants? After nine years of existence, the USA Artists

program has the financial backing of 44 foundations, four benefactors, 11 patrons, and four

partners. This currently amounts to a $19.1 million investment in artists. Yet scholars Hardymon

and Leamon state that the minimum amount for establishing a private endowment is $60

million.61 Will Creative Capital and USA Artists be able to reach the $60 million needed in the

future, given the other artistic causes competing for foundational funds?62 Do they have enough

momentum without the backing of the NEA?

59 Rome. 60 Hardymon and Leamon, 1; “Just as it’s important for our artists to know that we stand beside them, we need to have our funders stand beside us. I’d just love to have an endowment.” 61 Ibid., 10. 62 Galligan and Cherbo, 36. They note how audience building and organizational stability will “inevitably compete for limited funds.”

19

Granted, Creative Capital and Ford are not the only foundations supporting individual

artists. There are countless organizations across the country supporting artists in one way or

another.63 But these two were two of the first and were founded in direct response to the ban and

the question of who would help artists. Not only were they two of the first foundations to

respond and in a way that filled gaps left behind by the NEA, but they also leave us with an

option for the future. If the NEA were to ever reinstate its fellowships, it should do so for a set

period of time with the sole purpose of promoting a private sector response and bestowing its

stamp of approval on national foundations doing similar work. Just as the NEA has done with its

grants to organizations in making them matching grants, the NEA should do the same with its

individual artist fellowships during this set time period. This would appease both conservatives

opposed to federal arts funding with the set time period and would renew national attention to

individual artists, helping jumpstart their careers as well as jumpstart more foundational and

private sector support, as the 1995 ban has proven to do.

63 The Foundation Center provides an answer to “Where can I find funding as an individual artist?” with a list of organizations for artists to look into for funding (retrieved from http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/full_list.html, accessed November 26, 2014). NYFA Source serves as a resource with “over 12,000 awards, services, and publications for individual artists and art professionals” (retrieved from http://source.nyfa.org/content/search/search.aspx?SA=1 (accessed November 26, 2014).

20

Bibliography

Alexander, Jane. Command Performance: An Actress In The Theater of Politics. Boston: Da

Capo Press, 2001.

Americans For The Arts. “For Artists.” Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/by-

topic/for-artists (accessed November 26, 2014).

Associated Press. “GOP Foes of Tax-Financed Arts Win Victory in House.” Los Angeles Times.

July 14, 1994. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-14/news/mn-

23834_1_arts-endowment (accessed October 15, 2014).

Ball, Don, Paulette Beete, and Rebecca Gross. “What Is Innovation?” NEA Arts no. 4 (2011).

Retrieved from http://arts.gov/NEARTS/2011v4-what-innovation (accessed November

14, 2014).

Bauerlein, Mark, and Ellen Grantham. National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1965-2008.

Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2009.

Brenson, Michael. Visionaries and Outcasts: The NEA, Congress, and the Place of the Visual

Artist in America. New York: The New Press, 2001.

Cowen, Tyler. Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2006.

Creative Capital. Retrieved from http://www.creative-capital.org/ (accessed October 8, 2014).

Dollar, Steve. “Where Good Ideas Go to Live.” The Wall Street Journal (January 14, 2013).

Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323442804578234031871723490

(accessed November 17, 2014).

21

Galligan, Ann M. “The Politicization of Peer-Review Panels at the NEA.” Paying the Piper:

Causes and Consequences of Art Patronage. Ed. Judith H. Balfe. Urbana: University of

Illinois Press, 1993.

Galligan, Ann M. and Joni Maya Cherbo. “Financial Support for Individual Artists.” The Journal

of Arts Management, Law, and Society 34: 1 (August 7, 2010). Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JAML.34.1.23-42 (accessed November 20, 2014).

Ford Foundation. “LINC and the Ford Foundation Award $1 Million in Grants to Emerging Arts

and Cultural Facilities” (February 8, 2011). Retrieved from

http://www.fordfoundation.org/newsroom/news-from-ford/447 (accessed October 8,

2014).

Hardymon, Felda, and Ann Leamon. Creative Capital: Sustaining the Arts. Boston: Harvard

Business School Publishing, 2010.

Henneberger, Melinda. “Republicans Battle Party on Arts Funds.” The New York Times (June 8,

1995). Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/08/nyregion/republicans-battle-

party-on-arts-

funds.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI

%3A5%22%7D (accessed November 24, 2014).

Hessenius, Barry. “Ruby Lerner Discusses Arts Funding on Barry’s Blog.” Barry’s Blog. March

4, 2014. Retrieved from http://blog.creative-capital.org/2014/03/ruby-on-barrys-blog/

(accessed October 14, 2014).

Ilyntzky, Ula. “Ford Foundation Giving $100M In Arts Grants.” The Huffington Post (June 5,

2010). Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/ford-foundation-

giving-10_n_525468.html (accessed November 5, 2014).

22

Johnson, Ted. “Ovation, Advocates Launch New Pus for Government Arts Funding.” Variety.

March 24, 2014. Retrieved from http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/ovation-advocates-

launch-new-push-for-government-arts-funding-1201145122/ (accessed October 21,

2014).

Learsy, Raymond J. “To Encourage Great Art, Help Great Artists,” The New York Times

(December 3, 2002). Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/opinion/03LEAR.html?module=Search&mabRewar

d=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A6%22%7D (accessed November 21,

2014).

LINC. “Research.” Retrieved from http://www.lincnet.net/1591 (accessed October 15, 2014).

National Endowment for the Arts. “A Note on Innovation.” Art Works For America: Strategic

Plan, FY 2012-2016 (October 2010). Retrieved from

http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEAStrategicPlan2012-2016_0.pdf (accessed November

15, 2014): 14.

National Endowment for the Arts. 1994 Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment

for the Arts, 1994.

New York Foundation for the Arts. “About NYFA Source. Retrieved from

http://source.nyfa.org/content/content/contendisplay.aspx?CID=0 (accessed November

10, 2014).

Rome, Narric. “Congressional Appropriators Consider Cutting NEA in Half.” Americans For

The Arts Blog (August 1, 2013). Retrieved from

http://blog.artsusa.org/2013/08/01/congressional-appropriators-consider-cutting-nea-in-

half/ (accessed November 26, 2014).

23

Salem, D’Jamila. “NEA Plans Nearly 50% Cut in Staff.” Los Angeles Times. October 19, 1995.

Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-19/entertainment/ca-58754_1_big-

budget-cuts (accessed October 15, 2014).

United States Artists. Retrieved from http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/ (accessed October 15,

2014).

Urban Institute. Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structure for U.S. Artists. 2003.

Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411311_investing_in_creativity.pdf

(accessed October 19, 2014).

Zeigler, Joseph. Arts in Crisis: The National Endowment for the Arts Versus America. Chicago:

A Cappella Books, 1994.

The State of the American Artist

Documents

Transcript of The State of the American Artist