174
PARTISAN REVIEW
confusion by referring to those in the academy and the media and those
who are running the endowments - the populists, the trendy - as the
"elite." The fact is that the true elite are the many outstanding writers,
artists, and intellectuals who are opposed to the pseudo-elite. The
conservative populists speaking presumably in the name of the people are
outdoing the leftist populists, who are opposed to what they call elitism.
Actually, it is not too difficult to sort out the institutions and indi–
viduals who should be funded by the endowments, but only if the func–
tion of the endowments is seen as the support of the major institutions,
the serious magazines, the outstanding writers, artists, intellectuals, and
scholars - and not pork-barrel projects, pseudo-experiments, regional en–
terprises, multicultural causes, wild, offensive schemes. And the endow–
ments have to be free of political pressure or interference. Serious
talented art cannot be judged by the public at large . On the other hand,
there is no reason why pseudo-art that has only shock value should be
supported by public funds. This is not censorship, for people are still free
to express themselves or perform as they please.
European nations have had their problems in the funding of the arts.
But generally, their leading artists and critics have recognized the out–
standing institutions and individuals deserving of support. In Italy, for ex–
ample, the major opera companies which are known to the serious per–
formers and critics receive regular contributions, despite the fact that
many different political parties have led the country.
My own experience in this regard is instructive. In 1965, I was asked
by the chairman of the NEA to chair a new organization, the
Coordinating Council of Literary Magazines, to dispense a grant from
NEA to deserving publications. I was joined by several editors of serious
literary periodicals, and we had no problem in funding the best maga–
zines for a couple of years. However, the pressure built up to establish
popular, regional panels for populist ventures and for political interests.
We might have been able to resist these pressures, if they had not been
supported by the literature program director at the NEA, and later by
the new chairman. As a result, CCLM ultimately deteriorated, par–
ticularly after I left it, into another supporter of race, class, gender, and
regIon.
Another telling instance was the response of the Massachusetts
Cultural Council, that state's funding agency a few years ago to a grant
application from
Partisan Review.
We were informed in an official letter
that in the council's opinion, although the magazine was excellent, it
did not qualify for a grant because it was not popular enough and did
