Title: Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts | The Heritage Foundation
Headings: Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
Laurence Jarvik
Authors
Subscribe to email updates

Content: 18 Indeed, a study by the Association of American Cultures (AAC) revealed that private funders found major museum exhibits, opera, ballet, symphony orchestras, and public television to be "attractive" for donors without an official government stamp. 19
Economist Tyler Cowen also sees an ominous effect to government arts programs: " Once donors believe that government has accepted the responsibility for maintaining culture, they will be less willing to give." 20 This analysis is consistent with recent public statements from foundation executives that the private sector will not make up the gap resulting from decreases in NEA funding, despite record levels of private giving in recent years. Cowen's conclusion: " The government can best support the arts by leaving them alone, offering background assistance through the tax system and the enforcement of copyright." 21
Reason #4: The NEA Lowers the Quality of American Art
NEA funding also threatens the independence of art and of artists. Recognizing how government subsidies threaten artistic inspiration, Ralph Waldo Emerson declared that "Beauty will not come at the call of the legislature.... It will come, as always, unannounced, and spring up between the feet of brave and earnest men." 22 Recent critics echo Emerson's creed.