Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
White House Says NEA Telecon With Artists About Politics Won't Happen Again
We've been following the fallout from the August 10 telecon with National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) officials and artists. Most recently, I blogged about it yesterday at the site Big Government, which released full audio and a transcript of the call, during which the NEA's communications director and others in the Obama administration encouraged participants to create art that would further the president's political agenda.
Here's the latest, from ABC News:
Today White House officials are meeting with the chiefs of staff of the executive branch agencies to discuss rules and best practices in this area, a conversation during which they will be told that that while White House lawyers do not believe that the NEA call violated the law, "the appearance issues troubled some participants," [White House spokesman Bill] Burton said. "It is the policy of the administration that grant decisions should be on the merits and that government officials should avoid even creating the incorrect appearance that politics has anything to do with these decisions."
After listening to the transcript and the audio posted at the conservative website BigHollywood.Breitbart.com—secretly recorded by Los Angeles filmmaker Patrick Couriellech—Melanie Sloan, executive director of the good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told ABC News that the call was "disturbing."
"Government agencies are not supposed to be engaged in political activities," Sloan said. "Here, because they didn't veer off into 'This is about the election,' where you'd get into violations of the Hatch Act, it's not illegal. But it doesn't look good—it looks terrible. It's inappropriate."
Hat tip: Andrew Hazlett of The Occasional: Ideas, Art, and Culture in Interesting Times.
Joe M|9.22.09 @ 1:16PM|#
The new world of media and information is kicking some ass lately. I love it. Clearly, the old networks and newspapers are obsolescing themselves.
Rich|9.22.09 @ 1:19PM|#
Today White House officials are meeting with the chiefs of
staff of the executive branch agencies to discuss rules and best
practices in this area
Looking forward to reading the transcript.
EJM|9.22.09 @ 1:22PM|#
...Melanie Sloan, executive director of the good-government
group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW),
told ABC News that the call was "disturbing."
It's not directly related, but I don't think anyone here has
mentioned CREW's
(recently released) latest list of the "Most Corrupt Members of
Congress" (link via TRI's
site).
Kevin|9.22.09 @ 1:24PM|#
Today White House officials are meeting with the chiefs of
staff of the executive branch agencies to discuss rules and best
practices in this area
Hopefully those "best practices" don't include stuff like, "Do a
better job of making sure we aren't recorded."
pdf|9.22.09 @ 1:42PM|#
White House Says NEA Telecon With Artists About Politics
Won't Happen Again
Hooray, America is saved!
|9.22.09 @ 1:47PM|#
This is just a little bump in the road for the lefties; there is no chance this whole "welfare for artists whose work is not good enough for anybody to pay for" program will ever die.
|9.22.09 @ 1:50PM|#
You will note that Burton's statement admits no wrongdoing, and
doesn't contain any statements, or even hints, that any current
activities of the White House will change.
Because this is the Parsin' Administration, I have no doubt that
the Artists for Obama program will continue completely unchanged.
Only without any teleconferences.
Abdul|9.22.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Does that mean Sugarfree can't get paid for his health care performance art piece? 'Cause that means he's been covering his body in chocolate syrup for no good reason.
skr|9.22.09 @ 1:53PM|#
@ mitch,
actually, it is generally worse than "artists whose work is not
good". Most of the artists I know that have received NEA grants are
working artists that make plenty of money selling their art in
galleries. It may be more analogous to millionaires collecting
social security.
|9.22.09 @ 1:56PM|#
'Cause that means he's been covering his body in chocolate
syrup for no good reason.
I have a good reason. It's called "Tuesday."
Michael|9.22.09 @ 1:58PM|#
GGGGAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"To the extent there was any misunderstanding about what the NEA may do to support the national service initiative, we will correct it. We regret any comments on the call that may have been misunderstood or troubled other participants. We are fully committed to the NEA's historic mission, and we will take all steps necessary to ensure that there is no further cause for questions or concerns about that commitment."
Has there ever been a more condescending, passive-aggressive
administration prior to what we have now? I guess all that we
plebes can do is just assume the media omitted the explanation of
the true meaning behind these comments that were allegedly
"misunderstood" because it was too complex for our tiny brains to
process.
Fuck.
Paul|9.22.09 @ 1:59PM|#
No law was broken? No law was broken?!! By my estimation, this is a huge violation of Campaign Finance Reform laws. The government using it's influence with one of its own agencies to create art which depicts the aims and goals of a specific administration? How the fuck is this not a violation of CFR?
Cap\'n NoStar|9.22.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Is anyone surprised that the practices of our community-organizer-in-chief's administration bears more than a passing resemblance to the unethical and illegal workings of the community organization, ACORN, from whence he came?
Abdul|9.22.09 @ 2:05PM|#
"White House Says NEA Telecon With Artists About Politics Won't
Happen Again"
Because they're going to be much sneakier next time around.
Jim Treacher|9.22.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Has there ever been a more condescending, passive-aggressive administration prior to what we have now?
If so, they'll be the first ones to remind you about it.
Cap\', NoStar|9.22.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Memo from White House to NEA:
Do a better job vetting your call list than we do vetting our
czars.
|9.22.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Is anyone surprised that the practices of our community-organizer-in-chief's administration bears more than a passing resemblance to the unethical and illegal workings of the community organization, ACORN, from whence he came?
We shouldn't be, considering how much he boasted about being a
"community organizer." "From whence he came" is a bit strong,
though; he definitely did some work for ACORN (which his websites
at various times have boasted about, denied, then altered the
denial to be technically true) though he wasn't a full-time worker
for them or part of the leadership.
Mike M.|9.22.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Has there ever been a more condescending, passive-aggressive
administration prior to what we have now?
Carter is the only one I can think of who comes close.
Cap\'n NoStar|9.22.09 @ 2:26PM|#
John Thacker,
You are correct. B.O. wasn't in ACORN leadership. However, he did
serve as a leadership trainer and as legal councel.
He also told a group of ACORN people that they would be called upon
during the transition to his administration for help and
guidance.
There is no way that our president isn't aware of the corrupt
culture that exists at ACORN and wasn't effected by it, and there
is reason to suspect that he had an influence creating it.
Teabagger\'s Ball|9.22.09 @ 2:38PM|#
"Yeah, the Carter/Obama comparisons are starting to come thick
and fast."
And has anyone seen Carter's birth certificate? I know I
haven't.
Teabagger\'s Ball|9.22.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"We shouldn't be, considering how much he boasted about being a
"community organizer."
IIRC, his community organizing didn't produce the results he had
hope for so he quit and went to law school so he could get into
politics.
Hopefully, his political organizing won't produce the results he
hopes for and he'll quit in order to move into a career he's best
suited for. Male escort.
Abdul|9.22.09 @ 2:43PM|#
And has anyone seen Carter's birth certificate? I know I
haven't.
And he's from Georgia--A Soviet sleeper agent!!!
Reverend Wright|9.22.09 @ 2:44PM|#
"There is no way that our president isn't aware of the corrupt
culture that exists at ACORN and wasn't effected by it, and there
is reason to suspect that he had an influence creating it."
Oh you'd be suprized just how clueless this Obama really is.
Russ 2000|9.22.09 @ 2:51PM|#
You will note that Burton's statement admits no wrongdoing,
and doesn't contain any statements, or even hints, that any current
activities of the White House will change.
I always find it more disturbing that they say it's bad because it
LOOKS bad rather than saying it's bad because it's WRONG in the
first place.
|9.22.09 @ 2:53PM|#
I just got this chain email from an old friend - it was too good
not to share. Send it on to as many people as possible!
***
The NEA brings us offensive sick "art" in the name of weird wacko
special interest groups.
***
I remember the PISS CHRIST-a statue of Jesus Christ in a jar of
urine. And a mosaic of the Virgin Mary done with poop. And a Robert
Mappelthorpe photo shoot that showed an almost naked leather clad
homosexual with the handle end of a bullwhip shoved up his rear
end.
***
Defund NEA now-their "art" makes normal people sick. Send them to
the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair events to stage their stuff-at
their own expense-not at taxpayer expense." Booyah! (PS - I added
the "booyah")
Tomcat1066|9.22.09 @ 3:14PM|#
PR/MP
Would you be OK with tax dollars going for art you happen to
like?
I ask, because I'm not cool with that. I don't want tax dollars
subsidizing any kind of art. This isn't a conservative
site, but a libertarian one. Keep in mind that we don't really give
a shit what it's paid for in the past. I'm not offended by the
medium for that art, I'm offended that tax dollars are spent on
anything so frivilous as art.
|9.22.09 @ 3:24PM|#
I want to create some art that depicts eminent domain
abuse.
Do you think that would get funded? Maybe if I add some 'don't
tread on me' snakes?
Also I think Hannah Giles and that other guy should apply for
funding to do sting operations on the PIRGs. What do you think
their chances are?
In other words, if they get to select the "issue" which are worthy
of depiction, they are influencing the politics oft he art.
Why is it the mainstream media frets daily over health care, and
totally ignores eminent domain and takings?
|9.22.09 @ 3:26PM|#
It's completely ridiculous that we even have an NEA. The fact that some in the government might look at the organization as an asset is not surprising, it's expected. That coupled with the the kind of smut that they sometimes fund is simply frozen piss on top of the shit cake.
|9.22.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Today White House officials are meeting with the chiefs of
staff of the executive branch agencies to discuss rules and best
practices in this area
I'm skeptical about the Obama administration doing anything that
approaches the common sense meaning of "best practices".
Of course, my idea of "best practices" for the executive branch
would be to fire the 90% of the employees doing unconstitutional
stuff, repeal 90% of the published rules and regulations in
existence, veto everything Congress does, and otherwise take a lot
of vacation time.
|9.22.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Tomcat, the art I like pays for itself - whether it's a song I
pay for, a magazine I buy, or a movie I go to see. The fact of the
matter is that unpatriotic, gay, and anti-religious art DOES NOT
MAKE A PROFIT - hense the need for Uncle Sam to foot the
bill.
Capitalism would not be possible without an America rooted in
Biblical and Patriotic principals, and this is why Obama's
Socialist minions are trying to use the NEA/NEH/NPR/PBS to defame
American Tradition - because there is NO WAY anti-American "art"
like Jesus in a jar of pee would sell. If they tried to sell that
junk at Target, my guess is Target would go out of business! And
Will.i.am can burn in hell!!!
Tomcat1066|9.22.09 @ 3:48PM|#
Tomcat, the art I like pays for itself - whether it's a song
I pay for, a magazine I buy, or a movie I go to see. The fact of
the matter is that unpatriotic, gay, and anti-religious art DOES
NOT MAKE A PROFIT - hense the need for Uncle Sam to foot the
bill.
Not exactly. A lot of people getting the NEA money are working
artists, meaning people actually buy their work all on it's own. In
other words, it makes a profit. The context of the art, while
unappealing to you, appeals to others for a variety of
reasons...including those with money to spend on art who share the
ideology. Let's face it, there's plenty of those folks...regardless
of what that ideology is.
Capitalism would not be possible without an America rooted in
Biblical and Patriotic principals, and this is why Obama's
Socialist minions are trying to use the NEA/NEH/NPR/PBS to defame
American Tradition - because there is NO WAY anti-American "art"
like Jesus in a jar of pee would sell. If they tried to sell that
junk at Target, my guess is Target would go out of business! And
Will.i.am can burn in hell!!!
Bad art won't sell, true, and if people find the medium disgusting
then they definitely won't sell. A jar of urine won't sell, it
doesn't matter of Osama bin Laden was in that shit. But remember
that your view of art that will sell isn't the same as
everyone else's.
Capitalism doesn't require Biblical principles to work. In fact,
the greatness of capitalism is that it doesn't require altruism at
all to function, which is the downfall of socialistic economies. To
argue that it does shows a willful ignorance of economics. While,
as a Christian myself, I agree that Christian principles are
important, I don't agree that it's essential for capitalism.
Killing the NEA wouldn't remove art that you find objectionable. It
would simply remove government money from the pockets of those who
create it. In fact, there are people who thought those art
pieces you found so disgusting were actually pretty good. I don't
know why, but they did. And someone would have bought them as
well.
|9.22.09 @ 3:54PM|#
I'm not offended by the medium for that art, I'm offended
that tax dollars are spent on anything so frivilous as
art.
I won't even go that far. The government buys paintings, photos,
sculptures, etc to decorate the buildings that the government owns.
Hell, they pay architects to design buildings that are triumphs or
travesies of that art.
Funding art for art's sake is where I draw the line. The NEA and
NEH should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Typical Artist|9.22.09 @ 3:56PM|#
This is just a little bump in the road for the lefties;
there is no chance this whole "welfare for artists whose work is
not good enough for anybody to pay for" program will ever
die.
Obama wants you to buy my art.
Paul|9.22.09 @ 4:07PM|#
A lot of people getting the NEA money are working artists,
meaning people actually buy their work all on it's own. In other
words, it makes a profit.
So why are they getting NEA money?
Bertha Lewis|9.22.09 @ 4:37PM|#
"So why are they getting NEA money?"
Because they know how to game the system.
(keep shredding thos documents, Dashawn, I'm gonna surf the web for
a while...)
|9.22.09 @ 5:15PM|#
The fact of the matter is that unpatriotic, gay, and anti-religious art DOES NOT MAKE A PROFIT - hense the need for Uncle Sam to foot the bill.
Actually, IIANM, Maplethorpe was very successful commercially. It's
possible that the stuff he sold was not as provocative as the stuff
in that particular exhibition but there was a pretty consistent
theme running through his work.
There's a market for everything.
Unfortunately, most of us are painfully aware of the market for
picking the taxpayers' pockets.
Tomcat1066|9.23.09 @ 5:07AM|#
So why are they getting NEA money?
That's the $65,000 question. Frankly, I have no idea why. I don't
want my tax dollars supporting artists, period. Like J sub D, I
really don't have a problem with government as consumer of art,
buying pieces for decoration (in limited amounts...and then, I'd
prefer them to go cheap), but the NEA presents a double edged
sword.
If the artist is commercially successful, then why do they need and
NEA grant? If not, then why should the taxpayers support an artist
who's art no one wants to buy?
"Markets Are Magical!"|10.3.09 @ 1:41AM|#
This is what is so entertaining about the Libertarian personality
disorder.
Its victims tend to focus more energy on reciting their fears,
and phobias, than they do on collecting, and objectively
representing valid evidence for those fears.
On the scale of things to get upset about, this ranks near the bottom, but leave it to Libertarians to apply a crippling paranoia to virtually any non-Libertarian action. They're in good company.
We get it. Libertarians, and Conservatives are prone to hysteria over almost any political act that Democrats/Liberals engage in. However, nothing in the transcript could be deemed by any rational person as being outrageous.
Simply stating that it makes you feel "uncomfortable" is a moot point, because the default position in this type of mania is feeling uncomfortable.
Furthermore, as usual, many of you don't even know the full scope of the NEA, or the myths associated with the past controversies. All you know is what you hear echoing in the chamber.
This is just another example of how lost, and detached Conservatives and Libertarians are. They're grasping at straws.
"The harsh bigotry of no expectations," indeed.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245