mate aim of Government to take taxes from all people to educate the children.

Mrs. SHEPPARD. They were capable of error, I agree.

Representative HALL. Would you make an exception in the case of education?

Mrs. SHEPPARD. I would absolutely make no exception.

Representative HALL. I have to say I totally disagree with you, but I respect your right.

Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Cornell.
Representative CORNELL. No questions.
Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Meeds.
Representative MEEDS. No questions.
Representative BRADEMAS. Senator Pell.
Senator PELL. I have one comment to make.
I thought the witness was excellent.

I would draw the contrast here with the previous witness, that the committee welcomes critical witnesses and gives them ample hearing when they present their arguments in a reasonable manner and don't accuse people of not giving a damn or accuse people of lying and also bring television cameras so that one can both be in the position of being an interrogator and also have one's own camera to immortalize it for the local community. In that case you find some of us on this panel less interested in hearing that kind of presentation.

Yours has been reasonable, excellent, very critical, and it makes a good deal of sense.

Thank you.

Representative BRADEMAS. I might say, Mrs. Sheppard, by way of footnote, that I gave 2 years of my life to the study of anarchism, which I find quite a fascinating theory. Actually, I found many of the anarchists whom I studied very sympathetic people. I know there is a great big circle that runs from anarchism around to, I guess, Ronald Reagan at the other end of the line where they meet. I am not quite. sure. I am not trying to put you any place on that spectrum.

Mrs. SHEPPARD. May I be permitted to disassociate myself totally from anarchism?

Representative BRADEMAS. Surely.

I don't know whether that means you want to associate yourself with Ronald Reagan.

Mrs. SHEPPARD. No comment.

Representative BRADEMAS. Thank you.

Mrs. SHEPPARD. May I thank you, Mr. Brademas, Senator Pell, and other members of the committee, for what I consider very courteous treatment of me.

Representative BRADEMAS. Thank you. We are glad to have you with us.

Is Dean Brustein here? Mr. Brustein, go ahead. We are pleased to have you here with us, sir.

Mr. BRUSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRUSTEIN, DEAN, YALE SCHOOL OF DRAMA

Mr. BRUSTEIN. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this committee on behalf of the National Endowment for the Arts because, over the last 10 years, I have had the peculiar advantage of

being at once the analyst, participant, and beneficiary of its wise administration.

As dean of a drama school at Yale, I have witnessed the Endowment's effect on theater training; as artistic director of a professional company, I have seen its influence on theater organization; as a drama critic for various periodicals, I have observed its impact on theater production; and as a panel member of the theater division for 2 years, I have also had the opportunity to see the way its decisions were reached and executed.

From these several vantage points, it has been easy for me to conclude that the National Endowment for the Arts is, at present, the single most important force in the American theater; indeed, it is doubtful that there would be a serious American theater were it not for the Endowment's help and support.

What this agency recognized from its inception was that theater was not just a pleasant relaxation for residents of and visitors to New York City, but rather an important aspect of spiritual growth for all American citizens. From the beginning, the National Endowment emphasized three cardinal points: (1) that the American theater must be decentralized; (2) that it must be institutionalized; and (3) that it must aim for artistic standards of excellence.

Decentralizing the theater meant the birth of the resident theater movement where companies have now begun to evolve in virtually every major city in the United States, and many of the smaller onesNew Haven, for example, with a population of 150,000 now has two well-supported permanent companies in residence.

Institutionalizing the theater meant that the demands of the box office would no longer rule the stage, and that a permanent staff could continue to grow together over a period of years, evolving imaginative fiscal and artistic methods. And improving the theater meant a process of growth and continuity that would permit American companies eventually to compete with any national theaters in the world.

What the Endowment recognized was that America-so diverse in its geographical, ethnic, and racial makeup-could never have a single representative national theater, like those in England, France, and Sweden, but would rather be made up of many resident and experimental companies, each reflecting the needs of its constituency, and, taken as a whole, representing the pluralistic nature of the country itself.

As a result, the Endowment now provides, with the help of expert panels, support to all qualified institutions, regardless of their size or popularity, maintaining at the same time strict and objective standards for determining assistance to the performing arts.

With this help, and in terms of numbers, the American resident and experimental theater movement has grown considerably over the past 10 years. But institutional theater is still young here, and much, much more remains to be done.

It is only a short while since Americans began to realize that the theater was not just a fly-by-night commercial product-like TV, popular music, and most movies-but also had the potential to be an important artistic force, like opera, dance, the novel, and the visual arts. Given our late start, we are still very far from where we should be. At the present time, the United States contributes less to the arts

343

capita than any other major country in the world, including nada-indeed the city of Vienna alone outstrips all Federal giving its aid to the performing arts. So this is the opportunity not so ch for self-congratulation-though we have come a long way from - thirties but rather for consolidating and advancing our gains. The National Endowment for the Arts, with its wise leadership, od organization, and expert panels, is one of the few American titutions that has managed to command the respect and support its constituency at a time when a growing cynicism is dominating national mood. It is for this reason, as well as for its devotion to ellence in an age of mediocrity, that I strongly recommend to this mmittee that its life be extended indefinitely, and its appropriations tly increased.

Representative BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brustein, a most thoughtful statement.

We are well aware of the extraordinary contributions that you have de as the dean of the Yale School of Drama to the theater in Amerilife.

As a Harvard man, I only wish we had you in Cambridge.

et me put two or three questions to you.

In our hearings in September, a number of witnesses stated that the dowment policy of not giving grants to American theater comnies to tour abroad should be changed.

There is a second and related issue and that is whether or not the dowment should be supporting theater companies from abroad in s country.

ould you comment on those two questions?

Mr. BRUSTEIN. I think I would have to reply by saying it is all a estion of priorities.

As long as the amount of the appropriation is so relatively small, I uld, I suppose, voice objection to tours abroad by American comies or tours to America by European companies. If the approprians were to increase, I think by all means we should send our best npanies abroad so that countries like France and England and eden can see just how we are evolving. Obviously those countries e very little difficulty in sending their companies to our country 1 I think we ought to reciprocate.

As far as supporting the Royal Shakespeare Co. or the Comédieançaise or any other European company in the United States, I am, principle, in favor of it, but because of the limitation or funds. I uld think that is a lower priority of National Endowment funds. Representative BRADEMAS. Could you give us a general comment ́ond what you have already said in your statement about the health resident theaters in the United States today?

Ir. BRUSTEIN. I think it is probably the most promising artistic vement in the United States at the present time.

Just in terms of numbers, statistics vary, but there are between 34 155 companies that are listed as resident companies in the country ompared to just a handful 10 years ago.

think the growing size of it testifies to its health. Of course, the 1th must be intrinsic in the company, itself, and on that basis I uld say that it varies.

Some of those companies are very strong, very vigorous, very ongoing. Others are precarious, are hanging on with their teeth. Once again we come back to the question of funds. I think an infusion of funds has proved in every case to be a vivifying and vitalizing force in American theater.

Representative BRADEMAS. My final question, Dean Brustein, is this: If a significant increase in funds for the Arts Endowment were made available for the theater, what would you recommend as the appropriate ways to expend those moneys?

Mr. BRUSTEIN. First of all, I think there should be an increase in allotments to the various institutions that are receiving the money now because while in some cases these funds constitute a good proportion, sometimes the major proportion of the theater's support, that still is not enough.

As we are just beginning to realize, the institutional theater is not and cannot be a profitmaking institution. It cannot receive its lion's share from the box office and still maintain its own standard, still maintain ticket prices at a level at which people can afford, not cutting out a large portion of the population because it is beyond their pocketbook.

I would, and I sound as though I am beating my own drum in this case, but I would encourage support for theater training in this country. The National Endowment is just beginning to make gestures in that direction.

I think it is terribly important to recognize that theaters cannot survive and flourish in this country without young people being developed and nurtured as artists for those companies. You cannot keep picking flowers from the garden without planting seed.

Representative BRADEMAS. Do you think it appropriate that in time. the Government should support basic operating costs of theaters as distinguished from the present general policy of providing funds for project-oriented activities?

Mr. BRUSTEIN. Yes.

Actually, if you don't mind my saying so, the project approach simply causes companies to engage in various subterfuges. The money really is essentially for operating funds. It forces the theater to go into areas that it normally would not enter just to attract the funds.

I think it should be a direct and frank contribution to the operating fund of the theater.

Representative BRADEMAS. Thank you very much.

Senator Pell?

Senator PELL. I have no questions.

Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Miller.

Representative MILLER. Do you make a distinction in priorities for bringing into creation new companies and maintaining those which are already given a limited amount of funding?

Mr. BRUSTEIN. I think it is always an error to try to create a new company either with Government funds or with the private foundation funds.

Our experience in the past has proven that to be a mistake.

The Ford contribution to the Oklahoma City Theater was an attempt to bring the theater out of nothing. If the community and driving artistic people in that community want a theater, it will be estab

lished. I think the Endowment's qualification that a theater be in existence for 2 years before it receives Government funds is a sensible. one because by that time the theater will have demonstrated that it belongs in that community and that the people want it.

Representative MILLER. Thank you.

I guess my question then would be: Is there a greater priority for those theaters, let us say, that are qualified by being in existence for 2 years, for maybe the next 3 years of funding to get on their way than there is to put operating money, if you will, in already existing theaters?

Mr. BRUSTEIN. I am afraid I don't understand your question.

Representative MILLER. A theater may come in existence in Oklahoma City for a 2-year period and it may vanish without help; whereas a theater that has been in existence for a longer period of time may be able to sustain itself.

I am just looking in terms of where we best utilize moneys.

Is it a better utilization to give that infant theater a greater priority in expenditure of these moneys or to continue to provide operating expenses or projects for theaters that are better and longer established? Mr. BRUSTEIN. I would answer that question by ducking it in a way, by saying that the money should go to the best theaters in operation. A good theater may only have been in operation for 2 years or 30 years but the priority should go from the best down to the least qualified. That is a subjective judgment that I think is arrived at by a good panel of critics and artistic directors.

Representative MILLER. Thank you.
Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Hall.

Representative HALL. I am wondering about your statement at the end of your testimony.

Are you saying that the aid has been mediocre or the arts have been mediocre?

Mr. BRUSTEIN. That is a rhetorical phrase which often stubs my prose.

I am saying there is a tendency in a democracy like the United States to push down to the lowest common denominator. We see this, of course, in television. There is an expectation that the largest number of people will always like the least impressive, the least effective, the least ambitious kinds of works.

What I am suggesting in my statement is that the theaters were trying to raise the level of taste and that deserves support from people and people's representatives.

Representative HALL, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no further questions.

Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Cornell.

Representative CORNELL. No questions.

Representative BRADEMAS. Mr. Meeds.

Representative MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am a little disturbed, probably I just misunderstood your statement, that the funding should go to the best theaters.

I certainly agree that theater should be an instrument to raise the aspirations and education of the people, but there is a lot of relativity within that phrase, also.