supported reauthorizing the Endowmentnand opposed restrictions on artists;nand he also was explicit in rejectingnpornography and obscenity at federalnexpense. The National Council on thenArts, led by New York State SenatornRoy Goodman and Florida State SenatornBob Johnson, unanimously adoptednSenator Pell’s position, in the exactnlanguage of his statement. I have hadnconversations with members of thenHouse of Representatives in which,ntime and again, these same pointsncame out, as Representative StevenGunderson expressed them: yes to thenarts, no to pornography, and no toncensorship. This I take to be the commonlynheld, middle position, and it isnmy position.nIn general, public policy is bestnserved when we legislate in generalnlanguage, working the public willnthrough agencies, not through thenspecification of do’s and don’ts. Anglo-nSaxon pragmatism favors practical solutionsnover theoretical definitions.nCongress wants to define policy andncreate an executive agency to carry outnpolicy; it cannot be expected to conductnan oversight hearing every threendays. That explains why, these days,npeople have rightly focused upon whatnCongress has to do to accomplish thengoals of the Helms-Pell, Armey-Yatesnconsensus: what kind of language donwe have to write into the reauthorizationnlegislation so that a congressmannsupporting the arts through the Endowment,nwhich I think a vast majoritynof the members of both houses wantsnto do, does not have to lose his or hernseat in the House or in the Senate?nWhat has happened to short-circuitnthe political process by destroying thenvast middle? A small number of conservatives,nwhom I respect, do not favorntax support for the arts in any form. Anlarger number of artists, whom I alsonrespect, and not only because my wifenis among them, oppose all limitationsnon the use of public funds for the arts.nJust recently Jonathan Yardley in thenWashington Post cited an artist whonmaintains, “You give us the money,nand we’ll tell you what great art is.”nUnhappily, for twenty-five years we didngive them the money, and they did tellnus what great art is, and, in some tinynfraction of the cases, the choices havenstruck the center of public opinionnwith such force that the Endowment isn10/CHRONICLESnstill reeling.nWhen Senator Pell created the Endowmentnin 1965, he had in mind notna federal ministry of culture, but anfederal foundation; that is, a tertiumnquid, a mixture of a foundation, likenRockefeller or Ford, and a federalnagency. He further wanted the Endowmentnto serve on the local andnstate levels, nurturing the arts in everynconstituency, serving arts of a varietynof disciplines, responding to taste andnjudgment diffused across the country.nThat is why he made a major issue outnof the establishment of the arts councilsnin the states as state agencies.nThere is no escaping the issues ofnobscenity, pornography, and offense tonreligious and racial groups, becausenwhen the Endowment, a tax-supportednagency within the political process,nmakes a grant, however small, peoplenwrongly or rightly see governmentnsponsorship implicit in whatever is thenartistic outcome. The Endowmentncreates 250 million art critics. So hownare we going to make grants in such anway that the standards of taste andnjudgment of a very broad communitynregister? In principle, the answer lies inna policy of local, state, and regionalnparticipation in a variety of Endowmentncompetitions. I derive the principlenfrom what is at stake, which is thenissue of obscenity. The definition ofnobscenity begins with what a communitynconsiders offensive, so let the definitionnof artistic excellence likewisenrespond to community consensus onnwhat is beautiful and true and great art.nSpecifically, the larger problemsnemerge from grants made to individualnartists, writers and poets, visual artists,nsculptors, and the like. At this timengrants to individual artists are made in annational competition. I propose “regionalization”nof most (though not all)ngrants to individual artists, meaning,nthat the administration of grants tonwriters and poets, visual artists, solonperformers, and the like, be located innregional organizations. Why the regions?nBecause they may bring to fullnexpression the consensus of localitiesnand communities, Atlanta as well asnSalt Lake City, Boston as well asnChicago. Why not conduct the competitionsnthrough the 50 states and thenhalf-dozen special constituencies? Becausenthese form too small a base, bothnto produce adequate competition andnnnto provide sufficient grants. It will bendifficult for North Dakota or RhodenIsland to conduct a competition forngrants to solo performers or poets, butnthe Midwest or New England foundationsnfor the arts can do a fine job.nThen North Carolina need not tellnNew York what to do, nor New York,nNorth Carolina.nNow you may rightly say that thenSeranno grant was a state, not a federalnaction, a decision made in Winston-nSalem by the Southeastern Center fornContemporary Art. And I plead guilty:nit was the choice of Senator Helms’snstate, not Senator Moynihan’s. It’s annimperfect world. All I can recommendnis that we follow the model of thenobscenity definition and appeal to thenstates and the regions to choose thenpoets and writers, the visual artists andnthe solo performers, that, in their judgment,ndo work of true excellence.nI appeal, therefore, not to the statenof the arts, which some deplore, nor tona rhetoric of free expression, which fornsome substitutes for argument. I amnlooking for ways in which the NEA cannbe rebuilt to reflect a consensus, andnthis will mean doing some of the thingsnwe now do in different ways. If I amnwrong, if there is no consensus, thennmy modest proposal will prove monumentallynirrelevant. But then, I amnconfident, there also will be no NEA.nFor in the end we shall not havenentitlement without accountability, notnfor the Department of Defense andnnot for the NEA, to name the largestnand the smallest agencies, so unequalnin size, but so equal in the weight ofnpublic concern we attach to them.nWhen President Carter had to appointna chairman for the NationalnEndowment for the Humanities inn1978-79, he was reported to have saidnthat he found himself subjected to thenheaviest pressures he ever encounterednin making any appointment—and hen(quite fairly) confessed he was not surenwhat humanities are anyhow. And I amnsure that President Bush by this pointnmust wonder whether people carenmore for a dollar of tax money spentnon a bottle of urine and a plastic statuenof Christ than five billion dollars for anspace station that may prove a sourcenof equal exasperation.n—Jacob Neusnern