The increase at the NEA

Yesterday, Rob asked why give the NEA more money when it should be axed for the way it promoted its version of art over the last few years (or even decades).

Roger Kimball at NRO Online has this comment about the NEA

" Pronounce the acronym "NEA," and most people think Robert Mapplethorpe, photographs of crucifixes floating in urine, and performance artists prancing about naked, smeared with chocolate, and skirling about the evils of patriarchy."

That's what I think of the NEA when I hear of it. However, Kimball goes on to say the new director, Dana Gioia, who believes the purpose of the NEA is to bring art and culture to America, the classics instead of the latest trendiest and offensive stuff.

So the NEA appears to be doing the job it was originally set out for. Bringing art and culture to Americans who may not be able to go to NY or LA or cannot afford the prices the theaters there can charge for productions.

Now an argument can be made if the Government should be funding the arts at all, that is a good discussion to have (I don't think they should be), but at this time NEA is apparently using their funding to promote good art rather then shock art whose only purpose is to offend as many people as possible (IMHO).

I don't think an arts program will be a big help to economic development and would rather the funding be used differently (even not using it so the deficit wouldn't be so high) but at least the funding appears to be used well at this time.