The grants were for art exhibitions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Virginia Commonwealth University, both featuring the work of widely exhibited contemporary artists. Both shows contain images of body parts, including genitalia (though the show in Virginia has only a single, tiny photo of a penis). None of the art seems particularly outrageous, but Radice told Congress earlier this month she would veto sexually explicit art.
A number of arts advocates voiced dismay. Wendy Strothman, director of Boston’s Beacon Press, rejected a potential NEA grant for $39,000. “We can’t accept your money when doing so will threaten our right to free expression,” she wrote Radice. Artist Trust of Washington state and three Seattle artists turned down $17,000 worth of grants. Murry DePillars, dean of the School of the Arts at Virginia Commonwealth, withdrew as an NEA panelist, and the entire NEA sculpture-panel meeting to review grant proposals disbanded in protest.
But many in the arts community seem reluctant to heap more criticism on the NEA in an election year. “I don’t agree with the decision, but I’m not ballistic about it,” says Wendy Luers, a National Council member. “We’ve seen no advantage to making noise,” says one arts lobbyist.
A spokesperson for Radice said she may veto more grants. With firm loyalties to the White House, Radice wants to duck controversy. “My objective is to make sure the endowment survives,” she says. While critics decry the politicization of arts funding, many NEA supporters are taking Radice at her word.
