In almost every community across the land one can find small art galleries, little theatre groups, and other artistically talented endeavors. Various arts are taught in both public and private schools, and art is considered a very essential part of our cultural life.

Art is a highly subjective thing. The same thing can be "art" to one man and "trash" to the next. It is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. This is the essence of the arts - to express subtleties and nuances that evoke a wealth of "feelings" in the patron.

The expression of artistic ideas is as old as the human race. Witness the cave drawings of primitive man. As the primitive's art served a dual purpose of aesthetics and magic, so does modern art achieve both beauty and function.

Aside from the artistic qualities of music, sculpture, poetry and paintings, design plays a major part in all our artifacts of the 20th century.

Automobiles are more than four wheels, engine, seats and steering wheel. They are expressions of art. The design of autos plays a major part in most people's choice of transportation. And so it is with houses. Why do certain professionals deal with architecture when men have figured out how to build homes ages ago?

In 1936 the Supreme Court affirmed the power of Congress to appropriate public money (taxes) for purposes of furthering the arts. Those who questioned the wisdom of state involvement in aesthetic considerations were overruled and eventually the government established the "National Endowment for the Arts."

There are many convincing arguments for subsidized arts. They usually appeal to the alleged merits of cultural development of the masses. "Life is not lived by bread alone," as the saying goes. The implication is clear. A full and well-rounded life is more than mere survival.

The United States doesn't have a "National Endowment for Religion," but it does have a "National Endowment for the Arts." This endowment is a government bureaucracy with an army of bureaucrats supported by taxpayers' money. Their budget is over 330 million dollars. One has to wonder how this money would have been spent had it been left in the hands of the taxpayers. Willie Nelson concerts? Beatles records? Black felt paintings of stallions? Who knows?

When government enters the subjective arena of "art," the results are pathetic and often disgusting. Officials of the National Endowment must make decisions as to which artists will share in the funds. Some artists are accepted and others must be rejected.

Among the "art" projects accepted for subsidy by the Endowment are the following: a series of paintings, each canvas nothing more than a subtle graduation of gray; stuffed animals set in an environment of sand, plywood and dirt; a motion picture where the script called for a dog to be tied to a lamp post and shot with a rifle; the work of a well-known painter who bottled his own excrement and sold it as "artist's s--t."

When there was an uproar about the quality of the proposals approved for funding, officials changed the rules so that hence-forth all applicants were to omit their intended use of the grant, and applications were simply accepted.

What is art? It is whatever you think it is. So, if you are in charge of dispensing tax money to artists, you will give the money to artists whose art you like. Recently Joan Mondale, the presidential candidate's wife, administered the program and wrote checks to anyone who curried her favor. Since the Endowment pass a resolution that asserted "the arts are a right, not a privilege," I guess you could say that Joan Mondale was deeply involved in the human rights movement.

Government subsidy to the arts encourages both elitism and politicization. One could make a strong argument that subsidized art is not really art at all, but rather a subtle form of state propaganda. The message is that the art that is tax-supported is the "approved art" and unsubsidized art is without merit, left to the tasteless vagaries of crass commercialism. It is in this way that government approved art programs tend to stifle real creativity by subtly influencing artists to create art that will qualify for grants.

Helpless taxpayers across the nation are forced to pay for such luxurious amenities as the Washington Opera House. It is a gross travesty to tax the poor, who pay the most of their income in taxes, for gala affairs attended by politicians and their wealthy friends.

We all should be free to support any art we wish. However, no one should be forced to pay for art they have no interest in, and may even find repugnant. Whatever kinds of art are in demand by consumers will flourish, and art that can't compete in the market has the alternative of seeking private donations and patrons.

The state and art don't mix. They never have and never will. If one were to examine the history of governments, one will find that states have always used artists and their art for purposes of power and oppression.

I know many fine people who have artistic talent. Some are successful in selling their art to others. I dabble in classical guitar and lute music. Years ago I completed a few paintings that no one would buy, so I gave them away. I can't imagine any moral grounds on which I could coerce others to financially support my artistic expressions.

# 22 - Copyright © 1985 by Lorne Strider