254
PAllTISAN rlEVlEW
artists or institutions engaged in social objectives. (Rockefeller's largest
grant in recent years, amounting to almost two million dollars, was
awarded to the "Intercultural Film/Video Program" not in order to
enable visual artists to experiment with new visions or advance film and
video techniques but rather to "create work that explores cultural diver–
sity"). One is not surprised to learn that Rockefeller is considering a new
play initiative designed to fund works that deal with an issue the
program directors call "conflict resolution." Heaven help the playwright
with other issues in mind.
As for the Ford Foundation, whose enlightened Arts Division under
W. McNeil Lowry was largely responsible for the massive explosion of
An,erican nonprofit dance, theater, symphony, and opera companies since
the sixties (including many racially diverse institutions), the lion's share of
program budgets now goes to urban and rural poverty, education, gov–
ernance and public policy, and international affairs. This is entirely under–
standable, given such pressing needs at home and abroad. But once again
a reduced arts budget - $5.5 million in 1983, out of fifty-four million
for education and culture - goes to institutions devising projects similar
to the Foundation's civil rights and social justice programs. Ford de–
scrihes its arts division as pursuing two goals, "cultural diversity and
strengthening creativity in the performing arts," and adds, "Both goals
have become increasingly interconnected, particularly since mainstream
arts institutions have become more interested in culturally diverse art and
audiences in recent years . At the same time, much of the new performing
art the Foundation has supported has been that of minority artists and
arts organizations."
One might question whether this new "interest" on the part of
mainstream arts organizations, genuine though it may be, is quite as ob–
sessive as reflected in recent foundation grants . Has this passion for cul–
turally diverse art arisen spontaneously, or is it the result of external
pressures , notably a desperate need to qualify for subsidies? Whatever the
answer, there is no doubt that a lockstep mentality is ruling today's
funding fashions, where the flavors of the year (or decade) are cultural
diversity and multiculturalism. Examples of this can be furnished from any
number of private foundations - not to mention federal, state, and civic
funding agencies, and private corporations such as AT&T. The Nathan
Cummings Foundation is a typical example. Its entire arts budget
(approximately $800,000) goes to what the officers call "culturally spe–
cific arts institutions" and "community-based arts organizations." Well,
at least this money goes directly to minority organizations and not
to
coercing mainstream institutions into changing their natures.
Even the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur grants, originally de-
