Poet, writer, critic, and NEA gadfly (see his earlier essay this
website)
, Richard dropped the following critique
of his own personal experiences with the NEA, as discovered through the
Freedom Of Information Act.
In previous pieces, Richard has outlined the mediocrity of the choices for
NEA funding, the biases of class and the general insufficiency of such support
for the arts (insufficiency to the point of "saving grace";i.e., the NEA does
less harm than it otherwise might if it actually had any money to support the
arts, which it basically doesn't).
This particular piece outlines how the final decision making authority for
some serious individual grants turned out to be powerful, reactionary,
"artworld" jerks (for lack of a better term), and although an approved grant
was ultimately rescued, it basically required the approval of _The New York
Times_, the MOMA, _The New Criterion_ and _American Scholar_.
Precisely the institutions you don't want to set policy in the arts. Reactionary
and anti-working class institutions ALL, and in the end, the artist got cheated
out of $10,000 awarded him by his peers.
Richard doesn't believe in the internet, but can be reached at PO Box 444,
Prince Street, New York, NY 10012-0008. He does believe in hearing from
folks.
His book-art books include _Wordworks: Poems Selected and New_
(BOA, 1993), _Minimal Fictions_ (Asylum Arts, 1994), _Ecce Kosti_
(Archae, 1996), and _Opening_ (Depth Charge, 1996).
HOW AN NEA GRANT TO ME WAS REDUCED
The average intelligence of a committee is always lower than
the intelligence of its average member. Committees will often do
things more stupid than any member of the committee would have
done.--
Thomas Sowell, "Random Thoughts" (1993)
Late in October 1985 I received from the National Endowment for the
Arts not the familiar single-page rejection slip but a larger package that
included a letter from Frank S. M. Hodsoll, the chairman at the time. It told
me that the NEA had awarded me a grant for $15,000 from the Visual Arts
for my application in the category of "Prints/Drawings/Artists Books."
Pleased as any recipient would be, I did not discover for a decade the
problems and machinations behind this award.
What set my curiosity going was a letter from Professor Jacob Neusner,
an NEA Councilor at the time, that I'd been awarded not the intermediate
prize of fifteen grand, but the top prize of twenty-five grand. Later a friend
of a panelist told me that the panel considering my application had indeed
awarded me the top prize but that it was reduced at a point beyond their
adjudication. My friend didn't know why, while his friend the panelist wasn't
saying. When the award was acknowledged in the 1985 _Annual Report of
the NEA_, it was accompanied by an asterisk that said my grant was paid with
money appropriated in 1986. Sure enough, in the 1986 _Annual Report_ my
name appears again with another asterisk asserting that the grant was awarded
not in 1986 but in 1985. The fact that nothing else was similarly asterisked
in either book should have prompted me long ago to ask the NEA, as any
citizen is empowered to do of any government agency having any paper with
her or his name, for all documents relating to this grant.
Not until recently, however, did I get a more complete story, thanks to
petitioning the Freedom of Information Act officer at the NEA, citing (as any
petitioner should) 5 U.S.C. # 552 (B). To judge from the papers submitted
to me (and only those papers, as panelists are pledged to secrecy), at the
visual arts meeting in the early summer of 1985 six panelists unanimously
voted me the higher sum. They were Martha Beck, then director of The
Drawing Center, NY; Kathan Brown, still the director of the Crown Point
Press, Oakland, CA; the Georgia artist Cheryl Goldsleger, the Chicago artist
Ellen Lanyon, the Kansas artist Roger Shimomura, and the New York artist
Paul Zelevansky. Don't forget these names because they figure anonymously
later in the story.
Prior to the Eighty-Fifth meeting, August 2-4, 1985, of the National
Council of the Arts, which customarily rubber-stamps panels'
recommendations, the various departmental administrators prepared a sort of
briefing book identifying the winners of individual fellowships from their
program. To account for the six top awards, they appended a single sheet,
which copy I now have, characterizing the achievement of each winner.
About me they said the following:
RICHARD KOSTELANETZ is an important New York
visual artist whose books combining text and visual images
have been an important influence on other artists in this
country and abroad. In the past 20 years, he has published
numerous books of his own work, as well as over 30
anthologies of other visual artists' book projects. He has
received a Pulitzer Fellowship and a Guggenheim Fellowship.
However, at a meeting the morning of August 4, according to the NEA's
own minutes, one councilor, apparently Joseph Epstein, then as now the editor
of the _American Scholar_, "asked whether the Richard Kostelanetz described
in the brief career summary of the $25,000 Visual Arts Fellowship recipients
was the New York avant garde writer and publisher. He questioned it because
he did not think of Kostelanetz as a visual artist and felt that the description
was not representative of his career." Rather than challenge Epstein's limited
sense of career possibilities in America (and, behind that, the evident
limitations of his mind, unwilling to recognize prominence in areas unfamiliar
to him), "Program Director Richard Andrews informed him that Kostelanetz
had been recognized as a leader in conceptual art in the visual arts field for
the last 15 or 20 years. He is one of those artists whose work cannot be
neatly categorized." Consider this response courageous, as Andrews was then
new to his NEA job.
Even more self-consciously limited intellectually (and easily deceived by
Epstein), "Chairman Hodsoll asked whether Kostelanetz was in fact a visual
artist, and Mr. Andrews replied that he was, primarily as a creator of artist
books. Because this was the special $25,00 category, the Chairman was
uneasy about singling out someone on the cusp for the fellowship," to quote
again from NEA minutes now in my possession. Another panelist, probably
Samuel Lipman (then the publisher of _The New Criterion_), "knew Mr.
Kostelanetz chiefly as 'a critic and man of all work' who publishes Concrete
Poetry in which poetry is printed as shapes. It did not occur [to this
Councilor] that this was visual arts or poetry. In the literary community he
did not think Kostelanetz had a powerful name." Another unidentified panelist
"said it made him think he [Kostelanetz] should apply to the music panel for
his rendition of 'Peg O' My Heart.'" Whatever that last statement means, it
was surely stupid, and designed to reflect stupidity. Richard Andrews, whom
I'd not met before and haven't met since, replied that, "Kostelanetz does have
a large name in the visual arts community. If he did not have a name in the
literary world, Mr. Andrews could not address that failing, pointing out that
this fellowship was in the Visual Arts New Genre Category." Thanks, pal.
Another NEA Councilor "stated she had trouble with the fellowship to
Mr. Kostelanetz on several levels because he used to surface in Literature
Program applications and was not taken seriously by the literature community
at that time. She also thought he was 'stinking rich.'" Though names were
deleted from the papers submitted to me under the FOIA, the retention of
gender-specific pronouns prompts speculations to be raised later. This NEA
document continues, "Following the discussion [name deleted] moved that the
fellowship grant to Richard Kostelanetz be deleted. The vote passed. The
Council voted to recommend the rest of the Visual Arts grants."
Fortunately, the abortive Councilors did not have their way. Three days
later, on August 7, 1985, Richard Andrews prepared for Hugh Southern, the
NEA deputy director in charge of programs, a memorandum explaining the
grant to me.
Richard Kostelanetz is, beyond doubt, a visual artist. As a
visual artist, he applied to the Visual Artists Fellowship
category in the Printmaking/Drawing/Artists Books subcategory.
The panelists unanimously recommended him for a $25,000
fellowship, based on the quality of his work as a visual artist
and his sustained contribution to the field of artists' books
over the last 20 years.
After giving Hodsoll a capsule history of the medium of Artists' Books,
Andrews explains:
Recommendations for the $25,-000 fellowships are taken on the
last day panel review after all the applications have been
reviewed and recommendations at $15,000 and $5,000 have
been completed. Nominations must come from among those
artists already recommended for a $15,000 fellowship. Each
nominee is considered thoroughly, and all six panelists must
agree on the $25,000 recipients....Visual Artists Fellowships at
$25,000 are not intended to be simply honorific but are awarded
to artists who have had a strong influence _and_ who are still
very much contributing to the field. Richard Kostelanetz's
application, therefore, survived extreme competition and he was
unanimously recommended.
The panel review process by which Mr. Kostelanetz was
recommended by a fellowship (review) is sound and consistent
with both our guidelines and the Visual Arts Program panel
procedures. However, I am of the opinion that the Council
process by which [our panelists'] recommendation was
overturned was not. Comments such as "professional grants
writer," "slot machine operator," and "stinking rich" are
extraneous personal views and would, of course, never be
admissible for discussion in a Visual Artists Fellowship panel.
Which is another way of saying that though the Council stood above the
panel in the adjudicatory hierarchy, the quality of its discussion was
considerably lower.
Exactly one week later, someone at the NEA named Paul Carlin issued a
"Memorandum" instructing the budget office to reduce the grant to me to
zero. Under "reason for change" is the following: "Chairman requested a
hold on this as a result of objections raised by August NCA." Accompanying
this document is a handwritten letter addressed to "Michael," who must be
Michael Faubion, then an assistant in the NEA Visual Arts Program. The
identity of its author is deleted, while its calligraphy differs from that of
Paul Carlin. Internal evidence suggests its author must be an assistant to
Frank Hodsoll. It reads:
I want to have a complete background on R.K. by the time F. H.
[Hodsoll] returns on Sept. 3. It should include the following:
1) Letters from the P/D/AB panel members summarizing their support
for R.K. (referring to Review Criteria) and reasons for recommending
the $25,000 level. First, a letter must be sent to them on the 19th,
after being reviewed by Hugh [Southern] and Art Warren. The letter
should simply state that some questions were raised about R.K. and
that, in the absence of panel transcripts or tapes, we need to contact
the panel to get a summary of their individual comments.
2) David [last name unknown] should go to the library and using Art
Index of Periodicals dig up any articles on R.K., whether positive or
negative. Also he should check the N.Y. Times (F.H. asked if
The Times had written about him).
3) You should, with your usual discretion, contact highly respected
individuals in the field to get their comments on R.K.--to be quoted
in my memo to F.H. It's not the quality of comments that counts,
but the quality of the speaker does. Perhaps [name deleted] or
[name deleted] can give the names of _national recognized artists,
curators, critics_, or others who would give comments about R.K.
Perhaps [name deleted] (MOMA), [name deleted]
4) We need Visual Studies Workshop book on Artists' Books ASAP.
Paul [apparently Carlin] will fill you in on my discussion with F.H.
--as can Hugh [Southern] or Ana [Steele].
Little did anyone guess that my innocent application was causing so much
overtime activity in Washington's August heat.
Obviously having nothing else better to do in summer's dogest days,
Michael Faubion was forced to draft under Richard Andrews' name individual
but similar letters, dated August 21, 1985, to the six panelists identified
above, asking them to "summarize in writing your reasons for recommending
Mr. Kostelanetz at the panel meeting." No more mindful of common
summertime schedules, this letter asked for replies by August 30. Thanks to
the Freedom of Information Act, I have copies of the responses as well, with
their authors' individual names crossed out. The six were obviously annoyed
to have their judgments reversed. On 27 August, one panelist typed that she
or he "was rather surprised and somewhat dismayed to hear of the reservations
expressed by some council members regarding the $25,000 grant
recommendation for Richard Kostelanetz." On the 28th, another typed, "We
were all familiar with his name. As I recall, he seemed an obvious choice for
the most distinguished grant; there was more discussion about the other
person to whom we awarded it than there was about Kostelanetz." A third,
typing on September 3rd, wrote:
Beginning in the late sixties, before this medium had a name,
no less a category, Kostelanetz created, edited, published, and
disseminated a vast range of visual/verbal works which have
influenced many artists and formed the basis for works that have
followed. His collaborative magazine, ASSEMBLING, not only
provided a forum (exhibition space) for hundreds of young (myself
included) and sometimes neglected artists from all over the world,
but it also gave birth to a publication format and strategy that
has been imitated and reinvented from Boston to Rome. In short,
any reading of the Artists Books form and its history would include
Kostelanetz as a major figure. In keeping with this and the spirit
of the Visual Arts Program guidelines, he is eminently qualified
to receive the $25,000 grant.
Another panelist, also typing on September 3rd, cited:
three reasons why I support Richard Kostelanetz for a $25,000
fellowship. Most importantly is the quality of his work.
Mr. Kostelanetz's book work explores a range of resources,
information, and material that I find very impressive.
_Exhaustive Parallel Intervals_ is a visually interesting book
that I think is very strong. My understanding of the criteria
for the $25,000 fellowships is that the artist must have made
additional contributions to the art field, above the quality of
the art work. Mr. Kostelanetz has also edited a number of books
of other writers'/artists' works. These books are experimental
in nature and have helped promote and explore other artists' work,
Two panelists submitted handwritten (but, alas, less quotable) statements
also supporting the award to me. Pleased to have them, thanks to the FOIA,
I count them among the nicest encomia ever to come my way. All six
panelists deserve my gratitude now for taking the trouble to write, as well as
my apologies for causing the meddlesome NEA to disrupt their late summers.
On September 11, 1985, Richard Andrews prepared for Hodsoll a
memorandum that included "copies of responses from the six panelists," "a
more complete resume for Kostelanetz, researched by the Visual Arts staff,"
and "two excerpts from Visual Studies Workshop's recently (this month)
published history of artists' books. _Artists' Books_ is the first
comprehensive study of the genre and includes a number of essays by artists
and critics. The two excerpts enclosed here referring to Kostelanetz's work
are Robert Morgan's 'Systemic Books by Artists' and Kostelanetz's own essay
'Book Art.'"
Andrews adds, "I would like to meet with you as soon as you have had the
chance to read through this material. We normally would release the names
of the fellowship[p recipients at the end of this month. In the event
Kostelanetz is awarded a fellowship, we would want to include his name in
the FY [fiscal year] 85 press release, even though his funds would be coming
from the FY '86 budget." That last remark accounts for the repeated
asterisk.
What I cannot ascertain from the papers submitted to me is exactly how
and when, on whose authority, the grant was reduced from twenty-five to
fifteen grand (or, more precisely, upped from nil to fifteen). What we do
know is that, thanks to the efforts of many generous and principled people,
an award (albeit reduced) and perhaps the integrity of the NEA were saved.
Understand this episode and you begin to recognize how our precious arts
agency can be sabotaged from within by people lacking respect for it and for
American art. And thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, which is a
uniquely American achievement constantly threatened by alien subversives, we
were able to find out what happened, who deserves praise, and who courted
blame. One wonders as well how many other grants duly awarded by NEA
panels were killed by spuriously damaging remarks uttered by NEA councilors
and then whether blackballed applicants will ever find out?
Before closing, I have one nagging question. Who the hell ever thought
I was "stinking rich."? Knowing as much about her as she does about me, I
could imagine this woman to copulate with animals and molest prepubescent
children, and the fact that their example encourages me to think the worst of
her becomes a general index of the "unthoughtfulness" of NEA panelists
during the Ronald Reagan era, not to mention unseemly presumptuousness,
insufficient literacy, and a self-consciously limited sense of career options in
art. According to the NEA minutes, the _women_ present at the 4 August
meeting were the painter Helen Frankenthaler, the choreographer Martha
Graham, the choral conductor Margaret Hillis, the actress Celeste Holm, the
author Toni Morrison, and the Lord-knows-what Lida Rogers, none of whom
has ever met me or examined my bank account with my knowledge. Until
any of these women wishes, in an act of disassociation, to identify the one
who would discredit them all, it is reasonable to assume that any of them
could have said it and thus that all of them approve of it (and by that fact
disqualify themselves from ever again serving in such cultural capacities). My
hunch, based upon the speaker's purported familiarity with literature (quoted
above) is that the perpetrator must be Morrison, her Nobel Prize in Literature
notwithstanding.
What this episode suggests is the need for sensitivity-training of all NEA
Councilors prior to their serving (particularly in the economics of independent
artists), the automatic rejection of those who refuse such training, and the
need for a mechanism for the prompt removal of any Councilor uncouth
enough to jeopardize the NEA's reputation. On further thought, perhaps the
wisdom of this episode is that such trustees are unnecessary and thus
expendable, initially for wasting not only public money but administrators'
valuable time, but also for patent professional insufficiencies.
The NEA records suggest that the initial perpetrator, Joseph Epstein, who
did not reply to an earlier version of this expose, assumed that his colleagues
were easily deceived, if not congenitally unbright. It follows that the
difference between the panelists and the councilors is that the former had the
moxie necessary to refute him. Considering this example of Epstein's
bureaucratic behavior, most of us would correctly wonder about his activities
as the editor of _American Scholar_ all these years. It is obvious that he
encourages us to think what we want about Phi Beta Kappa, the magazine's
publisher and thus his employer. (Can I be alone in wanting to return my
PBK key?) I would be remiss if I did not mention that he first came to my
attention a decade before, in 1975, with a review of my book _The End of
Intelligent Writing_ (1974). Published under the acknowledged pseudonym
of Aristedes, that name appearing for the first time, this carping attack
reflected the envy of those who rise in literature by kissing butt, rather than
doing major work. Strictly from internal evidence (e.g., especially his
characterization of a purported literary career), I had no trouble identifying
"Aristedes" as Epstein himself. Obviously, anyone so eager to exploit one's
employer and deceive his peers, in this case at the NEA, on behalf of his or
her petty animosities must be doing similarly elsewhere.
I don't think I'm doing a disservice exposing those who tried to kill the
panelists' grant to me, because, quite simply, if they didn't want to be
regarded as petty and malicious, as _distrustees_, they shouldn't have done
what they did. That they thought they were acting in secret is no better an
excuse for them than it was for any other rogues in history. Not at all. One
wonders how any of them would feel if he or she suddenly discovered several
years after that they had been relieved of ten thousand dollars (and nearly
robbed of much more) through no fault of their own, not by urban thugs but
by purportedly distinguished citizens out to discredit their class and kind,
incidentally illustrating vivaciously the old Woody Guthrie song that some
guys will rob you with a six-gun, others with a fountain pen.
In response to an earlier version of this memoir, one councilor recently
wrote me, "I do think we formed a lynch mob and discussed you without
respect for you but with wanton disrespect. My memory of the incident is
strong only in that I walked out disgusted with myself for being part of a
lynch mob. You may quote me if wish." To him, in retrospect, the killing
of the grant was not just a mugging, which would be my characterization, but
a lynching, albeit in absentia thankfully. If, as is often said, a neo-
conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, then consider that this episode
was perhaps ingeniously designed to change _my_ politics to resemble that of
the self-deluded conservative NEA councilors, so profoundly devious were
their ultimate motives. If only to illustrate their success at this last effort,
shouldn't I conclude this expose by advocating the rapid long-term
incarceration of _all_ muggers and lynchers, with no excuses for race,
ethnicity, or class? Shouldn't I add that all nouveau conservatives should
support me in this prosecution, if only to distinguish themselves, in principle
as well as practice, from self-conscious opportunists.
Richard Kostelantez
back to author list