The argument over government funding of the arts has long since devolved into the kind of polarized debate that we too often see in American political discourse: Opposing viewpoints become frozen into loudly proclaimed positions, neither side really extending a respectful ear to the beliefs, concerns and articles of faith of the other. I will state the case in favor as I see it as honestly as possible--and then seriously consider the major points that the other side commonly makes.

I am, and always have been, supportive of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as well as the numerous state and local arts agencies that provide funding support for arts organizations as well as individual artists. At the most basic level it gives me warmth and comfort to know that America is providing some measure of public support above and beyond the marketplace. It most of all pleases me to know that many arts organizations have been able to bring cultural arts that lie outside of the major commercial media--television, movies, pop music--to all sections of America because of public support.

It chills me to consider the limitations that I am convinced would be fostered by the withdrawal of public support, more in terms of the range and variety offered by the many smaller arts presenters than by a possible drop in quality by the fewer major organizations, or by the loss of impetus provided by individual artist grants. But I believe that the benefits provided to America by providing public support at federal, state and local levels are more than worth the investment of tax money. And I am convinced of this less by practical arguments along the lines that the public investment returns lots of money to the various local communities than that public support enables greater variety and depth of culture. It is a separate discussion, but I'm certain that the greater variety and depth in our culture makes America a stronger and better culture in both spiritual and practical terms.

These are my basic convictions, and if anyone wishes to persuade me that the NEA ought to be cut back (today a fact of life--it's happening) or eliminated (a possibility, particularly if the Republican Party proves capable of maintaining its Congressional majorities for more than four more years) would have to shake these premises. While I believe that American culture would survive such an event--I would hardly regard even the total loss of the NEA a catastrophe--I would also have to be convinced that it would not be damaged or its development retarded. Indeed, I would hope for the day when a new art agency would fill the void.

Now that you know where I'm coming from, I want to try to come to terms with the four most significant arguments that those who would like to gut the NEA generally espouse, but with an eye towards hearing what people who are sympathetic to the position are trying to tell us.

* Support for art that is morally repugnant is unacceptable (the "moral argument").

* Tax dollars that support art don't support the best quality, and are therefore tax dollars not well spent (the "quality argument").

* The free market should determine what survives culturally (the "free market argument").

* Public support of culture is not among the right and proper role of government (the "role of government argument").

In the second portion of this commentary I want to consider the four pillar arguments against the NEA in terms of both their weaknesses and their strengths and appeal.

* Support for art that is morally repugnant is unacceptable (the "moral argument").

This is the most emotional argument, and probably the most prominent one. It is linked to the miniscule number of specific grants that were made into cause celebres on the basis of controversial content: Robert Mapplethorpe's and Andres Serrano's photographs, the performance art of the "NEA Four" as Karen Finley, Tim Miller, John Fleck came to be known, and that more recently of Ron Athey. Because it is so obvious that these controversial cases represent such a tiny part of what the NEA does, it is tempting to dismiss the argument out of hand. Even more so in that these are artists of not inconsiderable talents. Additionally, those who have used these cases and others to attack the agency are often times either using them to inflame their constituencies emotionally--that is, engaging in demagoguery--or merely pandering to them.

The reasons I believe this argument reaches people is their concern for what their children are exposed to, and the discomfort that they feel with non-commercial, avant garde, or "high" culture in general. The former runs similar to the pornography issue--there are certain things we simply don't feel our children should be exposed to--and public money should not be used to make this type of exposure more, but rather less likely. The more vague and general discomfort that the moral argument sharpens may tilt towards a sense that such things may ONLY exist due to public support. Removing the public support removes the source of discomfort--or, at least, its visibility in the media that is enough to provoke the discomfort. Even the alternative possibility, that the more offensive or alienating art forms might survive on private support alone, suggests that they will be visible only to their fans.

* Tax dollars that support art don't support the best quality, and are therefore tax dollars not well spent.

I remember an Op-Ed piece written by--of all people--former Attorney General Edwain Meese during the 1980's that asserted the NEA should be defunded because no grant had ever gone to a great artist or resulted in great art. Naturally, he offered this as a generality. Why would he bother to cite the names of arguably great artists in order to argue that they in fact are not great? He was preaching to a choir--albeit an ignorant one. To anyone knowledgeable who reads through the annual lists of NEA grant recipients there are certainly many wonderful artists. This argument flies in the face of the most obvious truth in order to add the mantle of respectability to the first argument: Not only is offensive and discomforting art being supported with public money, in addition it isn't very good art. Intellectually the point places the cart before the horse--because the NEA awarded a given artist a grant, ergo that artist is not great. Of course, what cannot be legitimately argued is that ALL art supported by public money is great. A full range of quality is logically associated with grant support--and why should it not turn out that some of the very best work is also offensive in nature? That this argument would convince anyone depends, I think, on exactly the same discomfort that I described above. It also implies that public money provided to an artist taints that artist, making it likely that he or she is a lesser artist BY VIRTUE of their receipt of a grant!

* The "free market" should determine what survives culturally.

There is a high level of quasi-religious acceptance in America that the free market ensures greater quality and vitality. This is not a new idea, but a central principle of conservative thinking. The quality argument strongly implies this position in that it suggests that any artist receiving a grant will fail the "greatness" test. Newt Gingrich would have us accept that by removing the NEA we will see a strengthening of the overall level of support--from the private sector.

That we should, "let artists do whatever they wish in the marketplace--but not at taxpayers expense" is the soundest point of them all, particularly if one accepts the premise that the free market is a good way to go. But precisely the reason for the existence of the agency is that it serve the nation's interest in cultural vitality in ways beyond the means of the market.

The simple logic of the free market argument opens a can of worms for what used to be thought of as the avant garde, but now tends to refer to itself as the non-profit sector. There is no doubt that the freedom to create art that answers to no one can be safely made in the private sector, but unsupported by the public sector little may be drawn from the marketplace. Either the artist must cater to the wishes of the marketplace in order to survive economically--or plan on creative work remaining discretionary while depending on some other means of support. Even with the existence of the NEA, this scenario is a very familiar one to artists. From an artists perspective the NEA individual grants are a small national sop--and now even that may be taken away. The fact that NEA grants recognize the individuality of artists in a way that the free market generally fails to do frequently has a disheartening effect on many artists. One would hope that an exhilarating atmosphere of freedom would surround the free market, but the reality is not so simple.

The free market argument succeeds or fails based on the macro-view: if most Americans agree with this view, it becomes very difficult to withstand it; when the majority favors the view that art created without concern for the market indeed should be supported, the free market argument dies. In the face of popular willingness that tax dollars should help sustain a valued, if not very commercial, component of our culture, the free market hardly goes away, it is simply not the only option. Beyond this, the major limitation of the free market argument is that is applicable only to the individual artist grant component of the NEA program. Organizational support is restricted only to non-profit organizations that aren't supposed to operate in the free market anyway.

Behind the free market argument is a sense of offense. That a few very specific artist grants have provided most of the emotional fuel firing the anti-NEA movement (refer back to the moral argument) indicates that many people experience discomfort, even outrage, over art that appears to fly in the face of some value(s) they hold dear. At an emotional level, people don't want to see public support for art at all if some of the art being supported does this. The fear among NEA supporters is that if the efforts to preserve individual artist grants fail, the structure of the private sector artworld itself could come under ideological attack. In the face of an emotionally charged political environment the possibility for demagoguery is a justifiable fear, yet the threat felt by people for their children must also be treated seriously.

* Public support of culture is not among the right and proper roles of government.

If you accept that government, particularly at the Federal level, ought to be limited to a few very particular functions in society, the NEA becomes one of many endangered agencies. Where the free market argument is too narrow to imply complete elimination of the NEA by itself, taken with this argument concerning the role of government the NEA could be shuttered. The main problem with this argument is that it is so broad--how many agencies don't fit into the "right and proper role of government"? A point that NEA advocates regularly make, that we spend only about $ .65 person capita (next year probably more like $ .45), an insignificant amount that could never truly help the economy if it were added back into the general budget, has no relevance to the proper role argument. If an agency's function falls outside the appropriate perview, it must go, regardless of size. Practically speaking, a relatively tiny agency that is ill perceived by many people is also relatively vulnerable to attack.

Regarded as a single thread the position against the NEA is rooted in an ideological acceptance that free expression belongs in the market arena, and that the artworld itself is a source of discomfort, if not outright cultural anathama. That there are many people who are concerned by what their children and families are exposed to needs to be recognized--it is this feeling of concern that pushes them away a supportive spirit. There are fears that need to be eased, but there is also a need to sell the important value to the nation of art that is supported as free and open expression. That there are people whose personal hostility to the artworld imbues them with an underlying desire to destroy it is obvious. It is this attitude that those of us who make up the artworld and its support system must resist by all civilized means at our disposal.

You can share you own thoughts if you like at our e-mail address: artscene@artscenecal.com

Bill Lasarow is the creator and editor of Art Scene -- THE Art Magazine for Southern California.