Forum addresses gov't and arts

The role of government in the arts, an issue of increasing controversy in recent years, was addressed at a forum sponsored by The Greater Philadelphia Art Consortium at the Institute of Contemporary Art Tuesday evening. The forum, which was moderated by David Hoekema, Associate Philosophy Preofessor at the University of Delaware, featured a panel of three accomplished members of the academic and art communities. Hilton Kramer, the former art editor of the New York Times and current editor and critic of New Criterion magazine, Judith Stein, curator of the Philadelphia Museum of Fine Arts, and John Carvalho, assisstant philosophy professor at Villanova explained their views on the subject in a panel discussion. Hoekema opened by telling the audience of about 50 people that the purpose of the Consortium, comprised of 12 universities in the Delaware Valley including the University, is to bring issues of academic and philosophic concern to an audience of both academic professionals and the general public. "[This event is] dedicated to testing the truth of the fond delusion that philosophy is of greater interest to the general public than it is to philosophers," he said. Kramer began the discussion by stating that the government has no legal responsibility to the arts. He went on to say that although he initially was a fervent advocate of government-sponsored art projects, today he feels passionately that government should be entirely divorced from the arts. "What began as program to access to the best artists and give access to the greatest number of people degenerated into something else," he said. He cited the Federal Arts Project as "the single most devastating thing that ever happened to American taste" and the government commissioned murals that depicted happy, innocent scenes of American daily life as a "fiction and fraud" of American society. Telling about her personal experience as a recipient of government grants, Stein argued at the other end of the spectrum in favor of government support of the arts. She made a strong case against Kramer, speaking bout the benefits that museums and other artists received. She stressed the importance of educationg the public, of dealing with censorship and of preserving the NEA Review Panel. Carvalho addressed the philosophical perspective on the issue of government in art. He discussed the distinction between moral and legal resposibilities, public and private art, and the role of sexuality, censorship, and human nature as they interplay with aesthetics. A lively question and answer period followed during which one emotional and angry artist in the audience retorted to Kramer's position by claiming that the NEA has funded many of her fellow artists and enabled those whose work was approved to succeed. The sharp exchange of words between artist and critic added vitality and intensity to the complex discussion. Ann Bora, President of the Board of Governors of the Consortium, was very pleased with the discussion. "I thought it was a scintillating and provocative discussion and the three panelists represented three different viewpoints," she said. Echoing one of Carvalho's points, she said that art is a process that involves everyone and the public should not be concerned with how the NEA should spend its money because that is a government issue beyond control, but rather it should be used to bring quality art to the public.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.