Artists Blast Funding Guidelines

Despite congressional approval last week of a toned-down version of a controversial amendment banning federal aid for "obscene" art, Harvard's arts community said yesterday the restrictions still run contrary to the purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

The amendment, originally sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), was cleared by the Senate last Friday in a tumultuous debate which ended with a 65-31 vote for modified limitations on national arts funding. A House-Senate conference committee also passed a nearly identical version last week.

A final vote on the issue will take place later this fall, when both houses must vote to approve the final conference report.

"The NEA is important because it represents the symbol of public support. It's a catalyst," said Peter Walsh, director of publications and public relations at the Harvard University Arts museums. "I personally find the amendment's language general and vague--unenforceable."

Artists at Harvard and nationwide rallied against the so-called Helms Amendment this summer, when it was originally passed by the Senate. And they continue to say that While groups such as Harvard's art museums are not likely to lose any funding, the legislation will still set an unfortunate precedent.

"In our country, we don't sentence our artists to death, like the Ayatollah, or send them off to slave labor camps, like Stalin," wrote Professor of English Robert S. Brustein in the October issue of

American Theatre. "Our more humanitarianmethod is to wave flags and brandish Bibles andremove their source of funding in the name ofdemocracy and decency," said Brustein, theartistic director of Harvard's American RepertoryTheatre (ART).

Helms launched the furor this summer, when hedeclared the NEA-funded exhibits of photographersRobert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano offensiveand sacrilegeous. In particular, Helms and othercritics blasted the homoerotic content of some ofMapplethorpe's work and a Serrano picture of acrucifix submerged in urine.

NEA grants fund a large percentage of publicprograms run by the University artsmuseums--including exhibitions, lectures, concertsand brochures, but the museum depends upon itsendowment for other expenses, said Walsh.

"If [NEA funding] is cut, it just means lesspublic exhibitions and specials," Walsh said. "Idon't speculate any change in our policy. We willcontinue to apply for government money as always."

University art museums received only 16 grantsfrom the NEA in the past four years, amounting to$300,000, according development officer SusanKany. The ART receives $250,00 each year,totalling 5 percent of its budget, according toBrustein.

Louis G. Bakanowsky, who heads the CarpenterCenter for the Visual Arts and is a professor ofvisual and environmental studies, said the revisedHelms Amendment passed last week would mean lessmoney for public exhibitions at the center.

"Art deals with all of life and not theexclusive domain of conventions and acceptedvalues of the majority," Bakanowsky saidyesterday. "We're going in the wrong direction.The East bloc is going towards more freedom, andwe're going in the opposite direction. Isn't itironic?"

University art experts said the newrestrictions would have an impact on exhibits andshows here because Harvard will refuse to complywith them--and thus lose NEA funding.

Specifically, the revised legislation bansfederal funds for art works that "promote,disseminate, or produce duce obscene depiction ofsadomasochism, homo-eroticism, the sexualexploitation of children, or individuals engagedin sexual intercourse."

Dropped were Helms' original limitations on artthat denigrated a race, religion, creed, sex,handicap or ethnicity