course be proposed and undertaken if state agencies conducted the broad range of activities the Bill anticipates. I said above that Bill has unwanted consequences. Most importantly, it would vastly escalate bureaucratic procedures. The administration of state plans and financial formulas, the allocations and reallocations of funds amongst the states, the retrieval of funds not obligated prior to 60 days before the end of the fiscal year, findings made to determine whether federal funds indeed supplanted nonfederal funds, arguments regarding compliance with federal standards, actions regarding default, failure to comply, or diversion, all seem to me to add bureaucratic structures and personnel, and thousands of wastefully expanded man hours and dollars. The present administration of the State Humanities Committee Program is simple, direct, clearly understood and, most importantly, represents a living agreement between federal officials and state citizens, all of whom have a common end in view. There is no guarantee that agreement will always be forthcoming or that the relationship will be effective in every instance, but I believe much more in the efficacy of sensitive and responsive human relationships over formalistic and codified requirements and responses. In short, Senator, I cannot see clear advantages in the proposed amendment of Section 7 and I can see evident dangers in it. This letter is already too long-I'd welcome the opportunity to expand or clarify my views to you, members of your committee staff or to members of the committee at any time. Cordially, WALLACE B. EDGERTON, President. PORTLAND, OREG., October 25, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Russell Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR PELL: As I thank you and Senator Javits for your past and continuing support for the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities, I urge you to vote against the amendment to $1800 which would require that funding for state humanities programs go through a state agency. It has been my observation that the existing method of granting funds through a citizens' committee has worked efficiently, responsively, and economically. I do not feel this same enthusiasm for every state commission, even in Oregon. In view of the effective operation of the present method, I think we should not make a change. Sincerely, MARY T. WINCH. RONALD FELDMAN FINE ARTS, INC. Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I have been following with interest the hearings of the Select Education Subcommittee relating to funding of the National Endowment of the Arts. I understand that this is a difficult and complex procedure, and I am sure you want to be as thorough as possible. I believe the committee has failed to gather information and testimony from those who are active professionals in the contemporary visual arts. Not only are funds for visual arts inadequate, but N.E.A. has failed to properly allocate them. Many of the programs that I believe necessary are opposed by N.E.A. and the newly proposed Museum Institute. The needs are great and the job so important that I can not acquiesce when I see enormous shortchanging of important segments of the visual arts. This is not like most other fields of endeavor. The largest share of funds should be where the risks are, where history records that change, reflection, criticism, and transformation occur. Firstly, the artist is nearly forgotten. Fifty or sixty grants is almost a hoax. Unless this is increased by a very substantial number all other programs are useless and we will be left with merely a large bureaucracy that will exist to feed itself. Secondly, we must review priorities for the support system of artistic endeavor. N.E.A. appears to favor funding community art centers and museums. Community art centers are worthwhile, but they rely heavily on galleries for exhibitions encourage discussion. I salute the spirit in which the amendments were offered and should like to convey to you in this letter my reaction to your tentative proposals. Your remarks on the Senate floor indicate you seek autonomy and permanence for Humanities programs conducted at the state level. Several paragraphs of the Bill itself identify three general goals: the sharing of funding between federal and state governments, reasonably equitable distribution of federal funds amongst the states and in the requirement for state plans-the bill seeks program coherence. In my view, these purposes will not be insured by the amendments. As well, unlooked for and unwanted consequences would flow from the provisions of the Bill. Regarding autonomy or the self-governing capacity of the proposed State Humanities Councils, I can see no respect in which the proposed program's autonomy usefully exceeds that of the present state committees. The proposed State Plans would require the concurrence of the Endowment, the circumstance which presently prevails. Should the proposed State agencies or the present State Humanities Committees seek permanence? As a former federal employee I question the merit of permanence per se in federal legislation. An assurance of permanence, it seems to me, would do just the opposite of what is needed. What is needed are vital and creative programs which respond to perceived needs of the several states' citizens. The present committees which seek to respond to these needs should exist just as long as they fulfill this function. Let the tenure of State level humanities programs be determined by their relevance and citizen acceptance. I can't imagine anything more deadening to creative and intelligent programming than the assurance beforehand that however minimally one carried out the mandate, the agency would have permanent life. The proposed Bill seeks a sharing of funding between federal and state sources. I've not seen recent figures but for the first several years of the State Humanities Committee Program, funds from a variety of sources, not only the state government but individuals, corporations and institutions well exceeded the federal share of the committee's resources. The proposed Bill carries the threat of limiting non-federal funds to those of the State only and would not, I feel increase the percentage of funds coming from non-federal sources. The proposed Bill seeks a reasonably equitably distribution amongst the states. I believe a review of the funds going to the 50 states presently would reflect distribution that is highly equitable. The present arrangement does not allocate funds on an inflexible formula but seeks to relate funding in a sensitive and coherent way to the needs and resources of the states. I have reservations about the drawing of state plans and their acceptance by the Endowment. One has only to peer into the enumerable file drawers at the U.S. Office of Education-where a multitude of State plans are interred-to be struck by their formalistic and superficial character. The State Humanities Committees, however, represent a new idea in government and I think an exciting one. The broad themes along which the Committees' programs are organized are those derived from the living texture of the lives of the citizens of each state. Their concerns and their enthusiasms-on which humanistic knowledge may usefully bear-animates the entire program of State Committees and represents a vital, living impetus which grows out of its unique voluntary participation, its emphasis on current important issues and its focus on public education of the informed citizen. There is another aspect of the proposed state plan mechanism which strikes me as potentially harmful. As I read the proposed language, it would authorize each state to conduct every activity presently conducted by the National Endowment for the Humanities, including the funding of research and fellowship programs and the support of educational institutions and programs. The present state humanities committees are restricted to public education programs for the out-of-school adult. To encourage state agencies to engage in the full range of support of the humanities which the Endowment presently undertakes, would be to encourage a spate of mediocre research proposals which are now rightfully turned aside by the Endowment. It could establish a "second best" fellowship mechanism in each state. Those applicants who lose out in present fellowship competitions would be funded by the mix of federal and state monies. It is my sense that thoughful reflection on this provision of the proposed Bill is particularly important. I know of your personal concern to support work of quality and excellence and I think you would be appalled at the kind of work which would in due cation Subcommittee, September 16, 1975. We are particularly glad that your committee could hear responses from university students themselves concerning the Tower Amendment. We believe that athletics are a valuable and integral part of our educational institutions and that all students should have equal opportunities for athletic experiences within our colleges and universities. Despite the overall excellence of the testimony, there is one gross error that must be called to your attention. On page two the following statement is given: "The $50,000 in financial aid directed to the women's program in the same year (1973-74) represented the first and only financial aid ever given to female athletes at the University of Minnesota." This financial aid was never given. No female athletes have ever received any type of financial assistance based upon athletic ability at this university. There has never been any money directed to the women's program for scholarships/grants-in-aid for female athletes. We call this error to your attention and trust that you will be able to change your own record and any other permanent records on file which include this testimony. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. BELMAR GUNDERSON, Acting Director. CITY OF ATLANTA, Atlanta, Ga., October 29, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CLAIBORNE: It is the City of Atlanta's earnest hope that the Congress will view favorably the three-year funding authorization for the National Endowment for the Arts as proposed by the Associated Councils of the Arts through the good offices of Mr. Louis Harris. We believe these levels of funding to be entirely justified, in light of the crucial role the arts have come to play in American society, particularly during this period of economic crisis. If we are concerned for the quality of life in America, we must be concerned for the arts in America. As Mayor of a large city, I am convinced that a broad cultural program is essential to making urban living a good experience for people. We have increased dramatically our local contribution to the arts in the last eighteen (18) months, but we do not have the capacity to meet all of the City's needs. The arts provide an essential service to which all Americans, regardless of income, race or creed, must be guaranteed access. Just as Congress has acted to support the continued health of those institutions providing basic public services, the federal government must provide adequate support to the National Endowment for the Arts in its efforts to ensure the vitality and accessibility of the arts in America. We respectfully urge you to support the increased level of funding recommended by the Associated Councils for the Arts and Mr. Harris. Yours for Atlanta, MAYNARD JACKSON, Mayor. CULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS, Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I am writing you of our organization's concern about Senate Bill, S. 1809. This bill calls for a ceiling of $126 million of funding for the arts through the National Endowment. This figure is quite alarming, for it is far too low and would mean that many of our nation's cultural treasures would not be able to continue. The Associated Councils of the Arts has recommended a three year authorization with annual ceilings of $180, $210, and $250 million. The recently completed study by the National Committee for Cultural Resources urged that $250 million be budgeted for the next fiscal year. Cultural Communications Corp. of Philadelphia is an audience development organization through which 7 major non-profit organizations pool their mailing lists. We work together to develop audiences for all performing arts group in and information. Most museums are too large, over staffed, and run by committees that inhibit curators from taking risks. At this moment in our society it is privately owned contemporary art galleries which are taking all the monetary and aesthetic risks and struggling to keep alive creative endeavor. Of all artist support systems the galleries provide more continual help. They are the front line. I do not mean prestigious galleries selling blue chip twentieth century art, but contemporary galleries that take art directly from the artist's studio for public exhibition. Contrary to popular mythology, at least 80% of these exhibitions fail to even meet their direct costs. Without galleries expanding their energies to backroom sales of recognized masters they would close their doors-a large percentage do every year. It is a fragile system. In view of the above I propose: That individual grants to artists be increased from approximately 60 to at least 500. That grants to artists be made for at least two years. That half the grants be made on a selection basis and half on a lottery basis with some criteria established for entry. That money be provided to artists to pay for costs directly relating to exhibitions of their work in galleries including shipping, installation, insurance, photography, and advertising expenses but not normal gallery overhead. That the gallery reimburse the artist 100% of the funds he has contributed to the exhibition from the proceeds of any sales before they share their usual percentage. That in addition, and most importantly, the artist be required to provide a commensurate work to a public institution whether or not enough work is sold to reimburse the artist. In this way the nation will have something of value that will become part of its heritage. That more funds be provided to colleges and universities to purchase work by living artists where it will continually and directly benefit students and where strong and intelligent programs already exist and are closer to current developments. That funding be provided to colleges and universities to organize traveling exhibitions that must go to at least three institutions (most would easily be desirable to six). Once the initial organizations is completed it is extremely wasteful that an exhibition be available in only one place—this is caused mostly by lack of communication. These exhibitions serve not only students, but in many instances are the sole source of information for a large and interested public. That funds be available to art critics (all of whom are underpaid) to research and write in-depth studies. These are not elitist proposals but practical methods of encouraging and ensuring a healthy, creative environment in the United States. The innovative role that the visual arts play in our society can not be ignored. They record our highest goals and aspirations. They record our failures and transform them into challenges. They are the humanizing element in our society, and they must not and can not be shortchanged. Now that funds for the visual arts are a reality, programs must be in telligently explored and all points of view expressed and analyzed. The decisions that are made today will effect the cultural life of the United States for years to come. I do hope that my position as a private gallery director does not in any way undermine the strength and integrity of my proposals. In addition to the fact that most contemporary art galleries consider themselves to be performing an important public function, it seems to me that if you were analyzing the automobile, the natural gas, or the aircraft manufacturing industry you would have to hear from executives of private companies in order to have a thorough grasp of the issues. In this case it is even more imperative as qualified professionals who understand the entire spcetrum of the visual arts are in short supply. Sincerely yours, Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, RONALD FELDMAN. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, WOMEN'S INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS, Minneapolis, Minn., October 28, 1975. Chairman, Senate Education Subcommittee, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: The Women's Intercollegiate Athletic Department at the University of Minnesota would like to offer its hearty support of the testimony given by members of the Twin Cities Student Assembly before the Senate Edu the theatre which we would not have been able to enjoy without the support of the National Endowment for the Arts to our theatres. In addition, I would like to point out that the arts in our community also provide many needed jobs and support to the local economy. I look forward to hearing of your affirmative vote for the National Endowment for the Arts. Sincerely, MAX W. JACOBS. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., October 31, 1975.. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Senate Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities, DEAR MR. PELL: Very shortly you will be considering the appropriate bills. dealing with funding of the National Endowment of the Arts for the coming fiscal year and in following years. The National Endowment of the Arts is certainly one of the more significant pieces of legislation that came into being in the Sixties. In its first decade its effect is being felt at all levels of the country and the $126 million funding ceiling that is called for in the present bills cannot possibly adequately serve the needs of this important agency. The Associated Council of the Arts and the National Committee for Cultural Resources have recently urged levels of at least $200 to $225 million for the next fiscal year and the following year. May I ask for your support in amending the present bills to reflect these levels. Only at these levels can the Endowment really be responsive to the overwhelming needs of the people of this country for artists,. programs and projects sponsored by the National Endowment of the Arts. Yours sincerely, PHILIP SEMARK. SEATTLE, WASH., November 1, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, DEAR SENATOR PELL: As long time season ticket holders to the Seattle Repertory Theatre, we strongly urge you to support and implement funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The need for increased appropriations is urgent. Thank you for giving this letter your consideration. Sincerely, MR. & MRS. MELVIN ROALSVIG. BALTIMORE, MD., November 3, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Chairman, Senate Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities, DEAR SENATOR: I am writing to express my deep concern for and support of the reauthorization of the National Endowment for the Arts, due to expire June 30, 1976. The Endowment has been an integral part of the life and success of Center State since 1965. Center Stage is Baltimore's only resident theater. In the past three years the Endowment has granted Center Stage a total of $442,000; $202,000 went to upgrade the artistic quality of the theater and expand community services (i.e. workshops for students and educators, performances for senior citizens and the disadvantaged, etc.) and $140,000 to enable the Young People's Theater to tour elementary and high schools in Baltimore City and all the counties in the State. In January, 1974, Center Stage's theater was totally destroyed by fire. Shortly after the fire, Center Stage applied to and was awarded a grant in the amount of $100,000 from the Endowment to cover the architectural and engineering fees necessary to renovate an old Baltimore landmark, Loyola College, as the new home of Center Stage. I urge you to support the reauthorization of the National Endowment for the Arts and thereby help maintain and increase the cultural enrichment of our lives, Thank you. Sincerely, C. B. KRAFT. |