I’m not even sure what I think about this one
In the LA Times, Jonathan Chait makes the case for abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts.
“The NEA is a major stick in the eye to the, um, culturally traditional. (I was going to write “guys named Jethro who own pickup trucks” but I’m trying not to inflame cultural sensitivities here.) In the past, the NEA has provoked enormous controversy by funding artists such as Andres Serrano, whose artworks include a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine. Two years ago, the NEA helped support a group that put on “Broadway Bares XII,” an AIDS fundraiser featuring nude performers. And even though the overwhelming majority of its projects aren’t controversial, let’s face it, the NEA is in large part a way of forcing the NASCAR set to subsidize the art house set.”
Well, first of all, I’ve never been to a “Broadway Bares” event, but written reports that I’ve read give me the impression it doesn’t feature nude performers. Rather, scantily-clad ones such as you might see at a burlesque show or beach.
And second, if I start listing the ways “the art house set” are forced to subsidize “the Nascar set” we’ll be here all afternoon.
Still, though my gut reaction is to resist abolishing the NEA, I think Chait makes one or two points that shouldn’t be dismissed.
