Should artists be paid a living wage?

[frazzled]

34. Impractical, but we should definitely bring back NEA grants to individual artists

These grants were scuttled in the 1990s, after many years, by the Gringrich culture wars ("we don't want our tax dollars paying for naughty or irreverent images!&quot . The grants were adjudicated by panels of distinguished peers in the various artistic fields (painting and sculpture, film and video, photography, music, etc.). Why should they be given? Because artists are workers, and, especially as they are emerging, need money not only to buy the materials they need to produce their work (paint and canvas, bronze or Cor-Ten steel, film processing or video cameras, computers or synthesizers) but to live on while they focus solely on creating. Because once they have the means to produce a body of work, free of waiting tables or driving cabs or teaching, they can then enter the market with an imprimatur from the nation's arts agency and be free to sell to earn their incomes.

Unless we have a program like the WPA Artist's program (many famous artists got their start there) that provides a wage, it is impractical to say they should earn a living wage (from whom?). But one-to-two-year grants or stipends, awarded by esteemed panels of other artists, can give them the credentials and working-space they need to set themselves free in the marketplace.

It's a shame how putzy and small the National Endowment for the Arts has become. I remember that Wesley Clark made the reinstitution of individual artists' grants a part of his campaign when he was running for president. I loved him for that. Well, fat chance in hell for both him and the grants.