|
|
Get Four
|  | JULY 27, 2004
By Thane Peterson Beyond the 1990s' "Culture Wars" National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Dana Gioia explains his mission to bring the arts back to the American mainstream In my opinion, Dana Gioia is just about the best possible chairman for the National Endowment for the Arts the country could have right now. President Bush appointed Gioia (pronounced "Joy-a") in February, 2003, after conductor and composer Michael P. Hammond died after only a week as NEA chairman. While it can be argued that Gioia's choices are somewhat conservative, a more daring NEA chief probably wouldn't have won the approval of the current Congress. And there's no arguing that he has been successful in making art more accessible to a broader swath of Americans. Gioia has moved the NEA, which has been chronically underfunded since 1996 because of backing such controversial art as Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic nude photos, back into the mainstream with uncontroversial (and politically unassailable) projects. A good example is Shakespeare in American Communities, which he calls his "signature initiative." Thirty theater companies tour the country performing the Bard's plays at military bases and in more than 200 communities that don't have live professional theater. Other NEA initiatives range from programs honoring jazz masters such as Billy Taylor and Chico Hamilton to a recent report documenting an alarming decline in literary reading. While these projects are worthwhile, I confess I'd like to see the NEA resume funding some controversial, cutting-edge projects, too. But it's undeniable that Gioia has reestablished the organization's credibility -- and ability to get money -- with lawmakers. Remarkably, funding from the federal government has been climbing: For fiscal 2005, the Bush Administration proposes to raise how much it gives the NEA by 15%, to $139.4 million. IRRELEVANT POETRY? Gioia's practical approach to the arts and funding is a reflection of his personal philosophy. Born in Los Angeles in 1950 of Italian and Mexican heritage, he was the first in his family to attend college, receiving a BA and MBA from Stanford and an MA in comparative literature from Harvard. He worked for General Foods for 15 years, eventually becoming vice-president for marketing, all the while writing poetry and essays. In 1992, he became a full-time writer. In doing so, Gioia was putting his money where his mouth was: The previous year he had published a controversial article in The Atlantic arguing that poetry had become the private and largely irrelevant province of a small coterie of academics. To become relevant again, he argued, poetry needed to be taken up by nonacademic practitioners and become more mainstream. With his own work, Gioia has been a major force for reintroducing rhyme and narrative to the form. (Check out his writing at danagioia.net.) I recently caught up with Gioia by phone to talk about the NEA and his priorities. Here are edited excerpts of our conversation: Q: Let's start by talking about what you refer to in speeches as "the crisis" in arts funding. Why is it a crisis? A: The national consensus that created the National Endowment for the Arts to lead federal [arts] funding fell apart about 10 years ago. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the NEA has a budget that's only about one-third of what it enjoyed in its heyday. Within a few years of the federal consensus breaking down, the state consensus did. Over the past three years, state funding for the arts has declined 60%. Even though public funding represents only a small portion of total arts funding in America, public dollars tend to be the catalyst that raise the rest of the money. Every dollar the NEA gives tends to raise $7. Without strong public support of the arts, corporate, foundation, and private dollars tend to go elsewhere. Q: Aren't market forces at work here? A: I'm a strong believer in the market. But the market really only does one thing: It tells us the price of everything. A culture decides what things in society are beyond price. For example, the U.S. believes that education should be made available to all children outside of the marketplace. It believes a court system should operate outside the marketplace. To say that the government should play some role in fostering arts and arts education in the country doesn't take anything away from the marketplace. It augments it. Q: What will be the consequences of letting arts funding continue to dwindle? A: The main effect is that whole segments of the population lose access to the arts. The people who are hurt the worst are children, especially in schools. Most Americans, for reasons of location and income, don't have much access to the arts. In fact, we live in a country where the average 18-year-old has never been to the theater, the symphony, dance, opera, or most of the other performing arts. Their idea of culture is mostly restricted to electronic entertainment. I love electronic entertainment as much as the next person, but it worries me if this is your whole experience of culture.
BW MALL
SPONSORED LINKS
Buy a link now! | | |
 Copyright 2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
