Have you been following the NEA controversy? Artnet’s Ben Davis sums it up: “The National Endowment for the Arts is in hot water with conservative politicians. Again.” In my opinion, encouraging artists to create change isn’t a bad thing. We do it without being asked, on much smaller and quieter levels of engagement. However, inviting 75 professionals from the art world and asking them to participate in changing America’s view are out of line.

But the NEA didn’t request artist support for government propaganda. So what really happened? The NEA wanted to rally the arts community together to inspire change and community service for Obama’s Serve.gov. After reading the transcripts, the controversy around the conference call seems unfair.

The public made this an issue in fear of manipulation and persuasion of the media. According to the Oxford dictionary, propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.” Government use of propaganda is definitely unethical. It always has been. I understand the desire to gain participation from the arts community in order to drum up a grassroots movement for community involvement, but I don’t necessarily support the idea. I guess you could say I’m on the fence.

When I read the transcript of the “NEA conference call,” the truth is it doesn’t light my fire. It seems to me to be a lot of hot air. It is neither particularly sinister, nor particularly inspiring. But, aside from the fact that what took place on the “NEA Conference Call” was no threat to the principles Courrielche claims to be preserving, we should also be clear that what is now being attacked is not a “political” NEA, but government art support in general, the idea that art might be more than a minor pastime, that it might actually be worthy of attention beyond the gallery. And that is absolutely a principle that is worth defending.