What Would a Post-NEA (Arts) America Look Like?

Nonprofit arts organizations can be nonprofit arts organizations. Big deal. If the NEA’s funding were eliminated, how would that change what they do?

In 2017, during the first year of the last Trump presidency, George Will wrote this in the Washington Post:

Are NEA enthusiasts serene about government stipulating, as it must, art’s public purposes that justify public funding? Or do they insist that public funds should be expended for no defined public purpose?… the NEA’s effects are regressive, funding programs that are… ‘generally enjoyed by people of higher-income levels, making them a wealth transfer from poorer to wealthier.’… Distilled to its essence, the argument for the NEA is: Art is a Good Thing, therefore a government subsidy for it is a Good Deed. To appreciate the non sequitur, substitute ‘macaroni and cheese’ for ‘art.’

I no longer read the Post for Bezosius Hypocritus reasons. And while I’ve never been a big fan of George Will, whom I find to be even more of an elitist than those he excoriates in this article, he makes an interesting point. I would take (and have taken) his point a step further: even if “macaroni and cheese” were considered a valid purpose for subsidy, does every producer of “macaroni and cheese” deserve that subsidy? If that were the case, the government might as well subsidize Kraft (the equivalent would be government subsidy of Broadway because they often do better art).

Oh, wait. The government does subsidize Kraft.

The Heritage Foundation has listed its Lettermaniacal “Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. This is not a surprise, as the far-right think tank would also like to eliminate Medicare, the minimum wage, Social Security, unions, Head Start, Planned Parenthood, voting rights for those people, and every other neglected American value for which liberals fought. The surprise, if there is one, is that the White House listens to the people who listen to the Heritage Foundation now. Simply, Rupert listens; and if Rupert’s Rogues like it, the president likes it.

Reason #2 is interestingly provocative. “The NEA is Welfare for Cultural Elitists.” On this, they’re not completely wrong. Their research is not complete, but it doesn’t take Columbo to see that the people being served by the arts (at least in the largest, most awarded organizations), as described by the audience (because little actual charity is going on), are mainly older, White, wealthy people. These same people even buy into that notion: donors donate so that donors may attend.

“Despite heartwarming anecdotes, claims for the therapeutic use of the arts are not supported by empirical scientific evidence. Studies that claim to show the arts prevent crime are methodologically questionable, due to problems of self-selection.”

None of the other nine reasons are defensible. They’re all structured on the opinion that limited government is preferable, which it is…to them. Limited government is always preferable to those who are harmed by simple human decency, such as the corporate kakistocracy that has burnt its torches and enabled this slow-motion coup d’état.

On November 2, 2023, the House voted down an amendment (as part of House Resolution 4821) to eliminate funding for the NEA, 292-129, with 17 abstaining. All 205 members of the Democratic Party who were present (10 abstained) voted no in order to keep the funding, along with 87 republicans. 129 republicans voted to eliminate the funding.

Here’s the thing. We just had a new election. Of those 129 republicans who voted to eliminate funding, how many were re-elected, torches and all? You may have read in other media how the Democrats did. Nuff said.

So, what will the American arts scene look like if/when NEA funding is eliminated?

After all, that’s why you clicked on this article. The quick answer, of course, is “I don’t know because I can’t see the future.” And, in fact, you’re likely to have more answers than I on that. I look forward to reading them.

Will art just stop?

It’s hard to believe that art will cease to be created by artists. Artists, who have never received a great deal of financial support, have continued to create even though they average poverty level earnings through their art (about $25/hour is the median, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). It is also safest to say that those who create their own art (and would benefit from an NEA) earn far less than graphic designers and other artists who create corporate art for consumer consumption.

Will nonprofit arts organizations just go out of business?

The nonprofit arts organizations that continue this “art for art’s sake” shenanigans will indeed go out of business — kicking, screaming, and begging for money. The ones who act like charities will succeed. It’s really that simple.

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that nonprofit arts organizations exist because they qualify. Existing and succeeding are two different things. Here’s what the tax court decided in 1968 regarding the technical difference between commercial arts organizations and nonprofit arts organizations:

The Court cited Broadway Theatre League of Lynchburg, Va. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 346 (W.D. Va. 1968)….

The following characteristics were attributed to commercial theaters:

• Commercial theaters are operated to make a profit;
• They choose plays having the greatest mass audience appeal;
• They run the plays as long as they can attract a crowd;
• They set ticket prices to pay the total costs of production and to return a profit; and,
• Since their focus is perennially on the box office, they do not generally organize other activities to educate the public and they do not encourage and instruct relatively unknown playwrights and actors.

The following characteristics were attributed to tax-exempt organizations:

• Tax-exempt organizations are not operated to make a profit;
• They fulfill their artistic and community obligations by focusing on the highest possible standards of performance by serving the community broadly; by developing new and original works; and by providing educational programs and opportunities for new talent;
• They keep the great classics of the theater alive; they are willing to experiment with new forms of dramatic writing, acting, and staging;
• They present a number of plays over a season for a relatively short specified time period;
• Many present their performances in halls of limited capacity;
• With tax-exempt organizations, for various reasons, box office receipts do not cover the cost of producing the plays.

I couldn’t tell you if any court would rule that way today. All of the aforementioned is true, but today’s arts organizations don’t always follow the 1968 intentions. In fact, too many follow the commercial arts’ intentions. Not to mention that in the larger courts, precedent doesn’t seem to be as powerful an argument as it once was. After all, this is what 1968 looked like:

Also, “highest possible standards of performance” is comically inadequate in that it’s completely subjective and meaningless — and equally applicable to the commercial production of art.

So yes, you can technically be a nonprofit arts organization just by being a nonprofit arts organization.

Whoop-de-doo.

It doesn’t mean you deserve funding in a 2025, post-pandemic, “populist,” George Will-friendly administration. Or any administration.

If you want the “eliminate the NEA” argument to go out the window, just measure your results with a charity mindset and make the argument moot. Others do it and are doing well. You can, too.

Once your metrics are in (and not the tired, unsubstantial, and specious metrics of “butts in seats” and positive economic impact, both of which are commercial outcomes, not charitable ones) and prove worth, then all this divisiveness goes away.

Now that you’ve made it all the way through the article (and bravo for that):

What will the American arts scene look like if/when NEA funding is eliminated? What will nonprofits have to do in order to succeed?

---