16 December 2023

A History of the National Endowment for the Arts: Impact on Theater

 

A Supplement to the Regional Theater Series

[This installment of “A History of the National Endowment for the Arts,” the last section of Bauerlein and Grantham’s “National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1965-2008” I’ll be posting, is from Part II of the NEA report, “The Impact of the NEA.”  It’s divided into six topics—"Dance,” “Literature,” “Media Arts,” “Museums and Visual Arts,” “Music and Opera,” and “Theater”—but I’ll only be posting the theater segment. 

[This section serves as a summary of the work of the Arts Endowment in theater and its effect on the field.  If you’ve just joined this thread, I suggest that after reading “Impact on Theater,” you go back and read the rest of the serialized report, starting with the Introduction and Chapter 1, posted on 5 November. Then continue with Chapters 2 through 10/Epilogue, posted on 8, 11, 14, 17. 20, and 30 November, and 3 and 13 December.]

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS: A HISTORY, 1965-2008
edited by Mark Bauerlein with Ellen Grantham
(National Endowment for the Arts, 2009) 

p a r t  II 

The IMPACT of the NEA


Theater

bill o’brien
Theater Director

Introduction

In a speech to regional theater directors, whom she had assembled in 1935, Hallie Flanagan, theater producer, director, and playwright, insisted that theater in America “. . . must experiment with ideas, with the psychological relationship of men and women, with speech and rhythm forms, with dance and movement, with color and light or it must and should become a museum product.” The group was assembled to help launch Franklin Roosevelt’s Federal Theatre Project (FTP)—a division of the Works Progress Administration [WPA]. Flanagan recognized that the commercial concerns that had governed the field since the nation was established did not always support this type of exploration. To ensure artistic advances, and widespread access to them by the general public, federal support would be necessary. 

[Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945; 32nd President of the United States: 1933-45) took office in the midst of the Great Depression (1929-39). The WPA (1935-43) and its constituent programs like the FTP, among others, was intended to put Americans unemployed by the economic crisis, including artists of all disciplines, back to work. They were paid to do jobs in their professional fields for the public good.]

There had been no single national theater in the United States, such as those in Russia, England, France, and many other developed nations of the world. Apart from the brief, but influential tenure of the FTP (from 1935-39), the evolution of American theater progressed without the benefit of coordinated federal planning or consistent investment. Despite this lack of centralized support, talented artists and leaders began to emerge in the early and mid-twentieth century who were intent on creating a proud American theatrical tradition that would appropriately reflect the nation’s new position in the world. By the time they were through, a fledgling decentralized national theater movement had emerged, one that rivaled the ongoing dramatic achievements of any nation in the world.

Nonetheless, American theater still struggles with rising costs, audience loyalty, and rival entertainments. [See “A Crisis In America’s Theaters,” posted on Rick On Theater on 13 September 2023, and “The Regional Theater: Change or Die,” 3 October 2023.] Theater in America has been marked by a long struggle between art and commerce, and its evolution from popular entertainment forms such as vaudeville and melodrama have, at times, hampered its ability to be perceived as a serious art form. Still, in the twentieth century playwrights have marked one of our country’s most distinguished artistic traditions. Eugene O’Neill, Arthur Miller, and Tennessee Williams, among others, have created classics destined to endure as part of our national legacy.

These playwrights’ success lies partly in the fact that by the midpoint of the century amateur and educational theater was flourishing in many locations in the United States. Professional theater centered in New York and Broadway, the undisputed capital of the industry. But elsewhere, an active and talented set of artists and leaders explored new ways to produce theater. Their results were inspirational and helped to set a course for a more expansive national theater movement than had ever been seen before. One of them was Margo Jones from Dallas, Texas, who established the first nonprofit professional theater company in America in 1947, entitled Theatre ’47 (the name changed each year). Jones based her institution on a vision of a “golden age of American theatre.” In her influential 1951 book, Theatre-in-the-Round, she described her dream of a future in which theater plays a part in everybody’s life, and in which “civilization is constantly being enriched.” [Theatre ’47 lasted until Jones’s death in 1955.] Other leaders emerged in communities spread out across the country to join in the effort:

• Nina Vance and the Alley Theatre in Houston [founded in 1947]

• Zelda Fichandler and the Arena Stage in Washington, DC [founded in 1950]

• Gordon Davidson and the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles [opened in 1967]

• Jon Jory and Harlan Kleiman and the Long Wharf Theatre in New Haven, Connecticut [founded in 1965]

• Richard Block and the Actors Theatre of Louisville in Kentucky [founded in 1964]

• William Ball and the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco [founded 1965]

• Joseph Papp and the New York Shakespeare Festival in New York [conceived in 1954; now the Public Theater]

These and other pioneering thespians sought to plant the theater in the midst of American life, to make it as essential to ordinary citizens as any other entertainment they might enjoy. And they tried to base it in communities and to define it as much by artistic innovation as by market constraints. [See “Regional Theater: History,” 8 October 2023.]

In the 1950s, the Ford Foundation’s W. McNeil Lowry [director of arts and humanities programs (1957-64); vice president (1964-74)] conceived a new strategy to support the nascent nonprofit theater. The foundation began to award arts grants, national in distribution, as leveraged investments in the development of resident theaters across the country. Support was provided to, among others, an ambitious new theater in Minneapolis. The Guthrie Theater [founded in 1963], established by Sir Tyrone Guthrie, Peter Zeisler, and a group of energetic artists, opened its doors in a sparkling facility as a repertory ensemble company. Elsewhere, notably in Stratford, Connecticut, and Ashland, Oregon, new theater festivals were created [American Shakespeare Theatre (1955-89) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (founded 1935), respectively]. Concurrently, in New York City, brilliant young playwrights gathered at La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club [founded 1961] and other little-known spaces to produce exciting pieces “off-off-Broadway.” [See “Greenwich Village Theater in the 1960s,” 12 and 15 December 2011; also “Caffe Cino,” 11 and 14 September 2018.]

In the 1960s, the landscape of theater began to change as a confluence of societal forces—including improved public education, relative prosperity, increased leisure time, and advances by women and minorities in public life—sparked more consumer interest in the arts. These same influences helped bring the National Endowment for the Arts into being.

The NEA Enters The Scene

By 1965, the year the Arts Endowment was established, theater in America had become a vibrant and vital cultural tradition, though mainly in New York City and the handful of other communities fortunate enough to have a professional regional theater company. The movement was primed for growth and the potential of the Endowment’s influence was felt almost immediately in the theater world.

The first National Council on the Arts contained several noteworthy figures from the field, such as Helen Hayes, Charlton Heston, Gregory Peck, Sidney Poitier, and Richard Rodgers. In May of 1966, the council declared that one of its primary goals was to support “the development of a larger and more appreciative audience for the theatre.” Among its first actions was a decision to undertake studies of several pilot projects in the field of repertory theater. The council understood that many of the best theater companies already benefited from grants from a number of foundations, including the Ford Foundation, which continued to back regional theaters in the 1960s. While the council felt that their ability to win support elsewhere should not exclude these organizations from receiving federal awards, it also reasoned that it would be imperative to broaden Arts Endowment support in a way that would appropriately reflect the national reach and responsibility of the new agency. Hence, the council also set about encouraging “grants to professional groups to be formed with strong local and regional support,” and “grants, research, and liaison work with the idea of sending the best repertory companies on tour to play in university theaters.”

Another early action by the National Council on the Arts generated an experimental program entitled the Laboratory Theatre Project. Formed in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education and state and local school boards, the program aimed to provide American cities with professional theater companies that would present outstanding performances at no charge to secondary school children during weekday afternoons and to adult audiences during weekend performances.

In 1966, the first two Laboratory Theatre Project grants were awarded to Trinity Square Repertory Company in [Providence,] Rhode Island and Repertory Theatre of New Orleans. Under the direction of Adrian Hall and John McQuiggan, Trinity Square used the award to produce Anton Chekhov’s Three Sisters, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, George Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan, and Eugene O’Neill’s Ah, Wilderness! The Repertory Theatre of New Orleans, under the direction of Stuart Vaughn, received funds to present Brandon Thomas’s Charley’s Aunt, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, and Richard Sheridan’s The Rivals. Theater critics responded quickly to the productions. William Glover of Associated Press wrote, “The biggest theatrical angel this season isn’t on Broadway—but in Washington. He is Uncle Sam, backing a multipurpose test of drama in education. . . . Taking part, in a rare display of agency togetherness, are the National Endowment for the Arts, the United States Office of Education [1867-1972; succeeded by the United States Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services] and state and local boards of Education. . . . It is the first time that two Federal units have meshed efforts and cash in the cause of culture.”

Other grants awarded that year went to the New York Shakespeare Festival for its mobile theater units, to San Francisco’s American Conservatory Theater for its training and educational programs, to the Experimental Playwrights’ Theater to produce outstanding new American plays, and to the National Repertory Theatre to support touring classical productions throughout the country.

[I haven’t been able to identify the Experimental Playwrights’ Theater, which was also mentioned in Chap. 2 (8 November 2023), but the National Repertory Theatre was founded in 1961 as a touring company by Michael Dewell (1931-94) and Frances Ann Hersey (1919-2001). It seems to have been based in New York City until 1967, when it moved to Washington, D.C., becoming the resident company at Ford’s Theatre. In 1970, NRT moved to Los Angeles as the National Repertory Theatre Foundation. From that point on, NRTF focused on developing, sponsoring, and consulting on projects like the Los Angeles Free Shakespeare Festival, The Company Theatre workshop, The Bilingual Foundation for the Arts, and the National Play Award.]

Almost from its inception the Arts Endowment relied on the peer-panel review system to identify the strongest applications and ensure informed decision-making in the agency. The significance of the panels in the early years is vividly illustrated by the roster of theater professionals who served on them. In 1972, for instance, the members included Harold Prince, Joseph Papp, Lloyd Richards, Zelda Fichandler, Peter Zeisler, Robert Brustein, Gordon Davidson, John Lahr, Jean-Claude van Itallie, Donald Seawell, and Earle Gister.

A Separate Program

In 1967, the Arts Endowment established theater as an independent program. Under the leadership of Ruth Mayleas, the agency’s first Theater director, the recommendations of the panels and decisions by the National Council on the Arts had a significant impact on the future of theater in America. [Musical theater came under the Opera/Music Theater Program, which was formed in 1979.] Through both the Theater Program and the Expansion Arts Program, support extended to a rapidly growing national network of theaters. The program’s commitment to new work was reflected in its support for new play festivals such as Actors Theatre of Louisville’s Humana Festival of New American Plays, and for playwriting workshops including the Eugene O’Neill Memorial Theater Center in Waterford, Connecticut. A Playwriting Fellowship category was offered in the Literature Program through the 1970s, until it was transferred to the Theater Program in 1980. Support for playwrights through institutions and fellowships was integral to the explosion of new theaters and new work throughout the decade.

The agency also worked on behind-the-scenes issues such as the payment of reasonable fees and salaries to artists. The Arts Endowment offered Challenge or Advancement Grants to help companies acquire new facilities, hire new management, and build institutional capacity. A professional theater training program was established as well as a program to help young directors through the transition from training to professional career. Earmarked support was also directed to presenting companies, touring projects, theater for youth, mimes, translators, and designers.

During its first year, the NEA Theater Program invited resident theaters to apply for matching grants of between $10,000 and $25,000 [$87,300 to $218,300 in 2023] to “be used for general artistic and organizational development, and to include any special programs or projects in line with this development.” The category targeted geographically diverse groups of performing arts organizations, and was intended to assist the growth and development of a decentralized American professional theater by helping to strengthen existing companies. By 1971, grants totaling $559,000 [$4.2 million today] were awarded to 26 theaters across the country. Recipients included:

• Front Street Theater, Memphis, Tennessee

• Cleveland Play House

• Dallas Theatre Center

• Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park

• Milwaukee Repertory Theater

• Seattle Repertory Theatre

• Olney Theatre, Maryland

The Arts Endowment continued to focus on strengthening the burgeoning, decentralized nonprofit professional theater movement. Support for services to the field, such as publications, management programs, artists services, and meetings administered by the Theatre Communications Group—a national service organization dedicated to strengthening, nurturing, and promoting nonprofit theater— ensured field-wide support to shore up administrative and organizational capacity for nonprofit theaters throughout the nation. The NEA awarded funding to new play producing groups in order to ensure a reinvigorated corpus of new works that could be made available to producing organizations and their audiences across the nation. Support also continued for the Theatre Development Fund and its visionary ticket subsidy programs. This program was dedicated to creating affordable admission for audience members from underserved and disadvantaged populations and helped to ensure broader public participation in the art form.

[The Theatre Communications Group is a nonprofit service organization established in 1961 and headquartered in New York City that promotes professional nonprofit theater in the U.S.  TCG also publishes American Theatre, a monthly magazine, and ARTSEARCH, a theatrical employment bulletin, as well as paperback editions of play texts.

[The Theatre Development Fund is a nonprofit performing arts service organization in New York City created in 1968.  In addition to the ticket subsidy program, TDF operates the popular TKTS Discount Booths in Times Square, Lincoln Center, and Downtown Brooklyn which offer tickets to Broadway and Off-Broadway musicals and plays, and dance and music productions at discounts.  (There was a TKTS Booth in the World Trade Center that was lost on 9/11.  A dance and music booth operated in Bryant Park until 2019, but it wasn’t a TDF facility.)  Other services include the TDF Accessibility Program, known as TAP, for disabled, hearing-impaired, and autistic theatergoers, and educational programs for schools and student artists and audiences.]

In 1973, the Theater Program initiated a pilot project for Regional Theater Touring. While agency support of the regional theater movement had already expanded the geographic reach of live theater in numerous metropolitan areas across the nation, this program would work to create opportunities for participation in areas that were more geographically isolated. The touring program awarded five grants totaling $209,243 [$1.4 million] to recipients including Center Stage of Baltimore for its production of Robert Sherwood’s The Petrified Forest and The Guthrie Theater for its production of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.

New Growth—New Challenges

In 1976, 45 nonprofit professional theater companies received grants from the Arts Endowment. One-third of the main stage productions mounted that season were new plays (124 out of 378). The proportion is an indication of how the Arts Endowment influenced the field in its first decade. In 1966, nearly all new plays that reached a wide audience originated on the commercial stage and then filtered down to other, non-commercial levels of the theater. Ten years later, the situation had nearly reversed, with most new work being generated by nonprofit theater institutions. Perhaps the most compelling transformation was how the movement had succeeded in becoming effectively decentralized. That year, Peter Donnelly, managing director of the Seattle Repertory Theatre, wrote, “What has been accomplished in the last decade with the assistance of the Endowment has been quite phenomenal. A theatre which for all practical purposes did not exist except in New York has been created nationally.”

Many institutions from many regions received agency support under the Professional Theater Companies category, including Actors Theatre of Louisville, the Alley Theatre in Houston, the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, the Circle in the Square in New York, the Long Wharf Theatre in New Haven, Milwaukee Repertory Theater, The Old Globe Theatre in San Diego, South Coast Repertory in Costa Mesa [California], and the Studio Arena Theatre in Buffalo. Additional funding was also made available in other categories, such as Professional Theater Companies with Short Seasons; Theater for Youth; and Developmental Theater, New Plays, New Playwrights, New Forms.

After roughly one decade of agency support, it appeared as though Margo Jones’s dream of an American civilization being enriched by theater—in every region of the nation—was beginning to come true.

The institutional growth was encouraging, but it also introduced new perils for the art form that it supported. Growing dependence on larger box office receipts, subscriptions, and other sources of income—coupled with the demands and expenses incurred from larger venues and their necessary support staff—threatened to eat away at the adventurous spirit that had launched the movement in the first place. The pressure to install cautious programming that would not put an institution at risk was always present. Arthur Ballet, Theater Program director [1978-81], recognized this concern and how the agency could respond to it when he wrote in the Arts Endowment’s 1979 Annual Report:

“The Endowment’s Theater Program stands at a crossroads. On one hand, the Program can choose safety, staying just behind the field, behind inflation, behind the sure warhorses of production and plays. Or the Program can begin to shift priorities, to try new ideas, new directions. We are taking the latter path.”

This latter path resulted in establishing new funding programs designed to encourage and support young artists with fresh concepts and new ideas:

• Director Fellowships to assist the career development of directors who have demonstrated an ability and commitment to work in professional theater 

• Artistic Advancement/Ongoing Ensembles to help existing theater companies create or strengthen relationships with their resident artists

• Professional Theater Presenters to reach underserved audiences by supporting performances by nonprofit professional touring companies in places where such work is not usually available to audiences

• Designer Fellowships to provide individual stage designers of exceptional talent, who work in the American nonprofit professional theaters, with financial support and creative opportunities

[Arthur Ballet (1924-2012) was an academic, dramaturg, and director.  He taught at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis from 1959 to 1985 and, as a Fulbright professor, taught in Denmark.  Ballet served as dramaturg at the Guthrie Theater, the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco, and the National Playwrights Conference at the O'Neill Theatre Center in Waterford, Connecticut. He was a founding member of Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas and an occasional theater and film reviewer.  Ballet was the editor of 13 volumes of the new-plays anthology Playwrights for Tomorrow.]

The structure of the Theater Program continued to evolve. By 1984, the Arts Endowment was providing funding via ten separate theater categories, including those focused on touring, training, direction, playwriting, translation, and other special projects, but by 1986 these had been consolidated into four major core categories: Support to Individuals, National Resources, Professional Theater Companies, and Artistic Advancement.

During this time, various economic and cultural shifts and pressures in the country fed a burgeoning solo performance scene whose artists reflected a wide variety of tastes and influences. These artists had minimal production costs and demands, and were able to create unconventional, highly individualistic pieces that could be performed practically anywhere. The flexible nature of this new arena provided a platform for a wide variety of artists to present—or confront—an audience with all manner of ideas, performance styles, and individual perspectives. The influence that these artists carried with them was as broad as any that had been exhibited from the American stage and included not only classical and modern theater, but popular dance and downtown art scenes as well.

[O’Brien’s description above is clearly a reference to performance artists like those named below, but it also applies to monologists like Spalding Gray (1941-2004) and Garrison Keillor (b. 1942), and new vaudevillians like Bill Irwin (b. 1950) and David Shiner (b. 1953). 

[It also describes the solo character work of Whoopi Goldberg (b. 1955) in her early career, Danitra Vance (1954-94) before Saturday Night Live, and Lily Tomlin (b. 1939) after Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In.  There are performance reports on Vance (“Short Takes: Some Unique Performances”) on 28 July 2018 and Irwin and Shiner together (Old Hats) on 22 March 2013.]

In May of 1990, Chairman John Frohnmayer, acting on recommendation of the National Council on the Arts, rejected grants to performance artists Karen Finley, Tim Miller, John Fleck, and Holly Hughes (who collectively became known as The NEA Four [see Chap. 6 (20 November 2023) and elsewhere in the report; also my ROT post on “Performance Art,” 7 and 10 November 2013]. The four artists sued the agency for the amounts of the grants resulting in a public controversy that led to pressure from Congress to eventually discontinue NEA support for individual artists and to make drastic cuts in its budget and staffing. As the NEA’s grant process shifted away from discipline-based applications toward four new agency-wide categories—Creation and Presentation, Education and Access, Heritage and Preservation, Planning and Stabilization—the agency was pressed to demonstrate more directly the public benefits of its grants. The Theater Program turned directly toward its service organizations to sustain the infrastructure of the field, with the Theatre Communications Group (TCG) being the most prominent. Since then, the NEA has collaborated with TCG in a number of ways. For instance, the NEA/TCG Theater Residency Program for Playwrights was created in 1996 at the initiation of Chairman Jane Alexander [Chap. 7 (30 November 2023)] and Theater Director Gigi Bolt [1995-2006], and support for early-career directors and designers was reshaped into the NEA/TCG Career Development Programs for Directors and Designers.

Shakespeare On Military Bases

In 2004, in an effort to make good on its commitment to bring the arts to all Americans, the Arts Endowment created the first program in its history dedicated to reaching military personnel and their families. As part of the agency’s Shakespeare in American Communities program [see Chap. 10 (13 December 2023)], professional Shakespeare productions were presented at bases in 14 states. Supported by $1 million [$1.5 million] from the Department of Defense (DOD), the military tour was an unprecedented partnership at the time.

Through this initiative, Alabama Shakespeare Festival brought its production of Macbeth to 13 military installations, with additional bases visited by the Aquila Theatre Company, The Acting Company, and Artists Repertory Theatre. Performances were accompanied by educational workshops for base youth whenever possible. Most bases did not have a conventional theater, therefore performances were presented in movie theaters, auditoriums, and in one case, an airplane hangar shared with fighter jets.

Conclusion

From its inception, the Arts Endowment’s Theater Program focused on solidifying the artistic gains that had taken root in the field. The NEA was uniquely suited to enter into this struggling but potentially fertile environment, and to enable the best theater artists to pursue their best art and to broaden their exposure and impact.

The Arts Endowment is the largest funder of nonprofit theater in the United States, and can lay claim to playing a primary role in the expansion of nonprofit professional theater over the last 40 years. In 1965 there were a limited number of professional theater companies operating outside of New York. Since the Arts Endowment’s creation, American theater has grown exponentially. According to IRS records, by 1990, there were 991 nonprofit theaters throughout the country that reported annual budgets of $75,000 [$151,000] or more. Today [2008] there are more than 2,000.

[On 7 February 2023, TCG published its Theatre Facts for 2021.  It estimated that there were 1,852 professional nonprofit theaters operating in the U.S.  That was an increase of more than 30% from an estimated 1,422 nonprofits in 2020.] 

The quality of theater that has been produced through the Arts Endowment’s support is remarkable. Of the 35 Pulitzer Prizes awarded in drama since 1965, 30 have gone to works that originated in an NEA-supported nonprofit theater, including August: Osage County by Tracy Letts [Pulitzer in 2008], developed at Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago; Anna in the Tropics by Nilo Cruz [2003], developed by Florida’s New Theater and New Jersey’s McCarter Theatre; Suzan-Lori Parks’s Top Dog/Underdog [2002], developed at the Public Theater in New York; and Doug Wright’s I Am My Own Wife [2004], developed through workshops at Chicago’s About Face Theatre and California’s La Jolla Playhouse.

The economic and cultural impact that American theater now has on the nation is substantial. According to TCG’s “Theatre Facts 2005,” the 1,490 documented professional theaters in America during that year alone contributed $1.53 billion [$2.26 billion] to the U.S. economy in the form of payments for goods, services, and salaries (not including related induced spending for eating out, parking, babysitters, artists’ living expenses, and other goods and services). The positive impact that these activities have had on the cultural health of the nation is no less compelling, if harder to quantify.

These numbers indicate a strong level of interest and participation among the American public in live theater. The field continues to face new challenges, however, in ensuring its ongoing health and vitality. Production costs and ticket prices continue to rise. As we move into the twenty-first century, entertainment and cultural programming available to the public via cable and satellite programming as well as through the on-demand convenience of TiVo, Netflix, and pay-per-view, provide the public with a wealth of cheap and convenient choices for their limited time and dollars.

[This report was written before the rise of streaming services and computer conferencing sites such as Zoom (founded in 2012).  During the COVID shut-down, these increased in popularity as means of presenting and viewing both live and recorded performances and may remain part of the theater universe as theaters have returned to in-person performances.  See posts on ROT “Theater Online – A Preliminary Report” by Kirk Woodward and Rick (19 May 2020) and “The Diary of Anne Frank Online” (29 May 2020).]

The challenges facing the field of American theater today are substantial, but history has shown us that our greatest theatrical achievements of our past transpired in response to its greatest challenges. As Hallie Flanagan asserted in 1935 and Margo Jones and her many influential colleagues understood in the decades that followed, in order to thrive, the future of our American theater must be guided by deeply committed and authentic artistic ambitions. It must continue to engage our public in meaningful and transformative experiences that inform our understanding of ourselves and each other. Throughout its existence, the National Endowment for the Arts has sought out, celebrated, and supported the best of those efforts and has helped spur an enormous growth in the number of nonprofit theaters across the nation. Their combined civic impact, via the production of excellent plays, along with the delivery of arts education, outreach, and other civic-minded programs, has been one of the most encouraging cultural evolutions of our time.

[Bill O'Brien (b. 1967?) was the NEA Deputy Chairman for Grants and Awards, appointed by President Barack Obama (b. 1961; 44th President of the United States: 2009-17).  Until his appointment, O’Brien had served as the Arts Endowment’s Theater/Musical Theater Director since 2006.  Prior to joining the NEA, he was Managing and Producing Director of Los Angeles’s Deaf West Theater for seven years. He’s enjoyed a career as a theatrical director and a performer for stage, television, and film.

[This concludes my serialization of “National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1965-2008” by Mark Bauerlein and Ellen Grantham.  If I’m successful at piecing together an outline of the NEA’s history from 2008, when Bauerlein and Grantham left off, to 2023. I’ll try to post it on 19 December, finishing out “A History of the National Endowment for the Arts.”]


13 December 2023

A History of the National Endowment for the Arts: Chapter 10 & Epilogue

 

A Supplement to the Regional Theater Series

[Welcome back to the concluding installments of “A History of the National Endowment for the Arts” after a pause on 8 December for Kirk Woodward’s discussion of the Beatles’ release of “Now and Then.”  This installment is the final chapter and the epilogue of Part 1, “The History of the NEA,” of “National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1965-2008” by Mark Bauerlein and Ellen Grantham. 

[Chapter 10, “Building a New Consensus,” covers the Arts Endowment chairmanship (2003-2009) of Dana Gioia (b. 1950), a poet, literary critic, literary translator, and essayist.  The Epilogue, “A Great Nation Deserves Great Art,” is a short summation of the results, benefits, efforts, and successes of the first three-quarters of the Arts Endowment’s existence.

[As I’ve recommended since the start of this series, visitors to ROT who are just encountering the NEA history should go back to the beginning and read Chapters 1 through 8/9, published on 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 30 November, and 3 December, respectively.  The NEA’s report is report organized chronologically, so it won’t make much sense if you jump in at the end.] 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS: A HISTORY, 1965-2008
edited by Mark Bauerlein with Ellen Grantham
(National Endowment for the Arts, 2009) 

p a r t  I 

The HISTORY of the NEA

 

chapter 10

Building a New Consensus

The ninth chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, poet Dana Gioia, was nominated by President George W. Bush to succeed Michael Hammond on October 23, 2002. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed the nomination on January 29, 2003.

Chairman Gioia, 52 at the time of his confirmation, was an intellectual figure of national importance. He had published three collections of poetry, including Interrogations at Noon [2001], which won the 2002 American Book Award. His 1991 essay “Can Poetry Matter?” [Atlantic Monthly, April 1991] stimulated a major debate in the literary world, and a subsequent book, Can Poetry Matter?: Essays on Poetry and American Culture [1992], was short-listed for the National Book Critics Circle Award in criticism. He co-edited several best-selling literary textbooks with the poet X. J. Kennedy, and he had attained further distinction as a translator from Latin, Italian, and German. Also trained in music, Gioia had worked as a music critic and composed two opera libretti, Nosferatu [2001; jointly premiered by Rimrock Opera (Billings, Montana) and Opera Idaho (Boise), 2004] and Tony Caruso’s Final Broadcast [2005; premiered in Los Angeles, 2008; co-production by the Los Angeles Opera, OperaWorks, CSU-Northridge, and the Southern California Opera Guild].

Born to a working-class family of Italian and Mexican descent in Los Angeles and the first member of his family to attend college, Gioia graduated from Stanford University and received a master’s degree in comparative literature from Harvard, where he studied under the poets Robert Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Bishop. He returned to Stanford to attend business school and earned an MBA. Beginning in the late 1970s, he spent 15 years in New York working for General Foods while writing in the evenings. He eventually became a vice-president before leaving business in 1992 to write full-time.

Gioia’s Vision

Gioia inherited an Arts Endowment that showed some progress in increasing its budget and devising promising new programs. Still, the impact of the 1990s culture wars hung heavily over the NEA, and the severe cuts in funding and staffing remained a burdensome legacy. In spite of more than 100,000 grants given in every state and U.S. territory, the Arts Endowment remained best known for a few controversial grants given nearly a decade prior. Many members of Congress continued to criticize the agency, and anti-NEA legislation was regularly introduced. The media remained alert for potentially contentious grants, artists and arts organizations were bitter over the cutbacks, and public perception was mixed at best.

Gioia approached his new position with the aim of first changing the national conversation about the rationale for federal funding for the arts. In a speech delivered to the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2003, he asked, “Can the National Endowment for the Arts matter?” The speech was a sober statement of philosophy, and a sharp overview of the public standing of the agency. He began by observing that, “If the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts had spoken to this forum ten years ago, the topic might well have been ‘Should the NEA Exist?’ At that time a serious cultural and political debate existed in Washington about whether the agency served a legitimate public function.” Gioia observed that this question had become moot, at least as a policy matter. Congress had saved the agency. The Arts Endowment had undergone severe budget cuts and a reduction in staff, but its continuing existence was assured. The question, to Gioia, was not should the NEA exist, but how could the NEA best serve the nation?

Gioia outlined his goal for the agency succinctly as “bringing the best in the arts and arts education to the broadest audience possible.” His vision stressed, first, that the agency needed to serve all Americans, including tens of millions in rural areas, inner cities, and military bases who had historically been ignored by the NEA. Second, the agency must enhance culture and enrich community life, especially by connecting “America with the best of its creative spirit.” To meet those goals, and do so in a way that would win over critics and change public perception, Gioia realized, would require more than funding strong applicants. It demanded a radical change in the still largely negative public perception of the agency, and these changes needed to be embodied in visible, national programs.

A New Approach Is Needed

The controversies of the previous decade showed that, in the media and political spheres, a single questionable grant could outweigh a thousand meritorious ones. Historically, the Arts Endowment’s successes tended to be seen merely at a local level. Only when a grant became controversial did it and the NEA receive national attention. Likewise, most arts organizations mounted programs that had only local impact, even though the larger issues they faced such as sustainability, funding, media coverage, and audience development transcended their local reach. Gioia concluded that the American arts might benefit from a different model than the NEA’s traditional piecemeal approach of awarding single grants to individual organizations for specific projects. Stronger national leadership was needed. Properly designed and executed, an expanded funding model could link local arts organizations to broader networks and partnerships in fruitful ways.

And so the Arts Endowment developed an ambitious new method of supporting the arts that would have unprecedented impact. In addition to continuing its numerous direct grants, the Arts Endowment created large initiatives designed to incorporate local organizations into broader national partnerships. These national initiatives improved both the efficiency and effectiveness of arts programs. By creating large national partnerships, these programs could achieve enormous economies of scale while also gaining publicity no individual organization could generate independently. Arts organizations were invited to apply for the opportunity to deliver a program to communities around the country, especially those in which opportunities to experience the arts were limited. These national initiatives served both artists’ need for employment and arts organizations’ need for funding, educational outreach, and affordable programming. In addition to reaching an unprecedentedly large and diverse public, the new initiatives provided the public—including the media and government officials—with tangible examples of the Arts Endowment’s achievements.

National Initiatives

Shakespeare in American Communities

In April 2003, Chairman Gioia announced the launch of the first national initiative, Shakespeare in American Communities, a project designed to bring Shakespeare to audiences and schools all across the U.S. and unite players in the arts and arts education systems. It also focused on reviving theatrical touring of serious drama, a once thriving practice that had become unaffordable for most companies. In its initial phase, the program organized regional tours of Shakespeare plays by six distinguished theater companies. First Lady Laura Bush and Motion Picture Association of America President Jack Valenti served as honorary chairs and Arts Midwest as partner.

[In a June 2008 NEA document entitled “National Initiatives: Shakespeare in American Communities: About Shakespeare in American Communities,” the agency named seven theater companies which participated in the touring program in 2003-04: The Acting Company (New York, NY) – Richard III; Alabama Shakespeare Festival (Montgomery, AL) – Macbeth; The Aquila Theatre Company (New York, NY) – Othello; Arkansas Repertory Theatre (Little Rock, AR) – Romeo and Juliet; Artists Repertory Theatre (Portland, OR) – A Midsummer Night’s Dream; Chicago Shakespeare Theater (Chicago, IL) – Romeo and Juliet; The Guthrie Theater (Minneapolis, MN) – Othello.]

The first phase of the program began in autumn 2003 and ran to November 2004. In that year, six companies visited 172 communities—mostly small and midsized towns—and 500 schools across all 50 states. As the initial phase gained momentum, an unexpected new dimension of the program began as the Department of Defense supported the NEA to expand the Shakespeare program to visit military bases and neighboring schools. It was the first time the National Endowment for the Arts had received funding from the Defense Department, and the first significant program that the Arts Endowment had ever offered to the millions of Americans in the military or their families. This surprising partnership signaled to the arts world, the press, and the general public that something new was happening at the agency.

Over the next four school years, Shakespeare in American Communities grew into the largest Shakespeare tour in history. Focusing increasingly on providing students with the opportunity to see a professional production of Shakespeare, the program eventually sponsored performances and tours by 77 theater companies, reaching more than 2,300 municipalities in all 50 states. The program also provided free education materials for teachers, including an audio CD and two award-winning films that featured Tom Hanks, William Shatner, Martin Sheen, Harold Bloom, Julie Taymor, Mel Gibson, and James Earl Jones, among other talented artists. By late 2008, the Shakespeare kits had been distributed to teachers and librarians across the country and reached more than 24 million students. In addition to its vast educational impact, the program gave 2,000 actors paying work performing classic theater—a great boon to professionals so often underemployed.

[The two videos noted above are Shakespeare In Our Time: Shakespeare in American Communities and Why Shakespeare? (both 2005).  The CD featuring literary scholar Bloom (1930-2019), among others, is An Introduction to Shakespeare (2003).]

Through its vast reach and broad appeal the Shakespeare program soon became the Arts Endowment’s signature initiative. Widely covered by the press, it signaled a resolve at the NEA to bring the best of art and arts education to communities that had previously been overlooked. It also demonstrated a new concern for improving arts education in U.S. high schools. As more theater companies, actors, presenters, teachers, and students participated, the program developed a large constituency of supporters, including many members of Congress, who appreciated major theater companies visiting their districts. The Shakespeare program also represented a substantial new investment in American theater since the Arts Endowment was able to create this historical tour without cutting existing grant support for the theater field, continuing to support a huge variety of other projects including approximately 135 new works each year.

Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience

As the events of 9/11 plunged the United States into a new era of geopolitics, the Arts Endowment leadership envisioned another, entirely new national initiative. In 2003, Connecticut Poet Laureate Marilyn Nelson and Chairman Gioia discussed a class on poetry Nelson had recently taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. “The cadets had really eaten up the experience of writing and reading poetry,” Nelson said. “Now some of them are e-mailing me from the war. I wish we could do something more—something tangible—for them.”

The conversation became the seed of Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience, which began in 2004. Under the direction of NEA Counselor to the Chairman Jon Parrish Peede, the Arts Endowment sponsored a series of writing workshops at military installations led by a group of distinguished and diverse writers, including Mark Bowden (Black Hawk Down), Tobias Wolff (In Pharaoh’s Army), Jeff Shaara (Gods and Generals), Tom Clancy (The Hunt for Red October), Bobbie Ann Mason (In Country), Stephen Lang (Beyond Glory), and Joe Haldeman (Forever War). As with the Shakespeare program, the Department of Defense and the military services became valuable partners, and The Boeing Company [the aerospace company] agreed to support it.

The response to the program was massive. Phone calls, letters, faxes, and e-mails poured into the NEA as military personnel and their families asked to participate, some calling from Baghdad and Kabul. Vietnam War veterans also sent emotional letters of support, stating that they wished they had been offered a similar opportunity decades earlier. During the next two years, teams of writers led workshops at 25 military bases in the U.S. and overseas for 6,000 service members and their spouses. Participation was so enthusiastic that the Arts Endowment decided to compile their best work in an anthology edited by Andrew Carroll. By the end, more than 12,000 pages of poems, memoirs, short stories, and letters were submitted by military personnel and their families and evaluated by an independent editorial panel of writers. As Gioia assured in the preface to the volume, “The Arts Endowment gave the visiting writers total freedom in conducting their workshops. They were not told what to teach, and they in turn gave the participants complete freedom on how and what to write.”

Essays written by service members and their families were published in The New Yorker in June 2006. In September 2006, the release of the anthology, Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front, in the Words of U.S. Troops and Their Families, published by Random House, was celebrated at the Library of Congress. The project also inspired two documentary films: Muse of Fire, directed by Lawrence Bridges, and Operation Homecoming, directed by Richard Robbins. Muse of Fire premiered at the National Archives in Washington, DC in March 2007. Operation Homecoming was broadcast on PBS in April 2007, eventually winning two Emmys in 2008, as well as becoming a finalist for a 2008 Academy Award.

NEA Jazz Masters Initiative

In 2004, Chairman Gioia took a small but venerable NEA program of fellowships to jazz musicians and expanded it to become the largest jazz program in the agency’s history. Renamed the NEA Jazz Masters Initiative, it stood at the center of an ambitious effort to recognize the distinctive American musical form and expand the audience for jazz in the United States. Gioia increased the number of fellowship winners and the dollar amount for the award. A category for “jazz advocate”—eventually named after A. B. Spellman—was added.

All components—including the NEA Jazz Masters on Tour, a series of presentations featuring performances, educational activities, and speaking engagements by NEA Jazz Masters in all 50 states—were united into the new initiative in partnership with Arts Midwest. With the expansion came NEA Jazz in the Schools, an educational program for high school teachers that combined a Web-based curriculum produced in partnership with Jazz at Lincoln Center. The Verizon Foundation provided early support for the school initiative, and the Verizon Corporation along with The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation donated funds to support NEA Jazz Masters on Tour. Meanwhile, the Arts Endowment worked with XM Satellite Radio to feature the NEA Jazz Masters on a daily radio segment across 13 news, talk, and music stations. Donating their radio time, XM broadcasted these popular jazz features as often as 120 times a day.

American Masterpieces

In January 2004, First Lady Laura Bush made an historic appearance at the Old Post Office Pavilion. At a news conference there, she announced the Arts Endowment’s new national initiative, American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius, along with a Presidential request to Congress for an $18 million [$26.6 million in 2023] budget increase for FY 2005.

American Masterpieces brought exhibitions, concerts, dance performances, and broadcasts of great American art to large and small communities in all 50 states. Each grant was accompanied by an educational component that involved seminars, learning projects, and curricular materials, a feature that led Mrs. Bush to say, “I’m especially pleased at the program’s focus on arts education, as it is crucial that the knowledge and appreciation of our cultural legacy begins in our schools. The Endowment would support touring, local presentations, and arts education in order to acquaint Americans, especially students with the best of the nation’s artistic achievements.” By the end of 2005, Congress appropriated $10 million [$14.8 million today] for American Masterpieces, and support was firmly in place for the Visual Arts Touring, Musical Theater, Dance, Choral Music, and Literature components of the program. The art forms were remixed slightly each year. In 2006 Choral Music was added to the program, and in 2008 the chamber music and presenting fields received funding.

American Masterpieces has sustained an enormous number of tours, exhibitions, and festivals. Over 50 dance grants were awarded in the first three years of the program enabling companies like Alvin Ailey, Martha Graham, Luna Negra, Pilobolus, Trisha Brown, and José Limón to tour the nation. Meanwhile, over the past four years, 47 visual arts exhibitions from institutions such as the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, Phillips Collection, George Eastman House, American Folk Art Museum, and Olana Partnership toured 200 venues across 39 states.

Research about Reading

Gioia placed great importance on careful research as a means to determine the public agenda for arts and arts education. In the early months of his chairmanship, the Arts Endowment’s Office of Research and Analysis began to analyze the results of the latest Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. As with previous surveys administered in 1982 and 1992, the Arts Endowment designed the 2002 questionnaire in consultation with survey experts and arts professionals, then commissioned the U.S. Bureau of the Census to collect a sample and conduct the survey.

The 1992 Arts Participation survey had offered reasons for optimism, with access to the arts and audiences on the rise in most art forms. In 2002, however, the trends reversed, with audience participation in the arts going down. Broken down by age groups, the findings proved even more troubling. The youngest group (18 to 24-year-olds) showed the steepest declines of all in numerous art forms. The percentage of young adults who listen to jazz on radio dropped by 11 points, while young listeners of classical music dropped by nine points. A major problem had clearly emerged in the American arts that would deeply influence NEA planning and programming—the decline of audiences in almost every art form, a decline steepest among the young.

One art form, however, underwent an especially daunting decline—literature. The rate of adults who read any fiction, poetry, or drama in the preceding 12 months—any imaginative writing of any length or quality in any medium—slid from 54 percent in 1992 to 46.7 percent in 2002. In addition, during this period, access to books and the arts expanded, with more libraries, museums, historic sites, performing arts spaces, and after-school programs in the United States every year. For literature, the portion of young adults who engaged in literary reading was 9.5 percentage points lower than ten years before—an astonishing drop in such a fundamental activity.

The reading declines called for further study, and Gioia commissioned an expanded analysis of the literary reading segment of the survey. The result was Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America, which turned out to be one of the most discussed and debated cultural stories of 2004. Created under then-Research Director Mark Bauerlein [the editor of this report], Reading at Risk showed literary reading rates falling precipitously in every demographic group—all ages, incomes, education levels, races, regions, and genders. Librarians, publishers, editors, writers, and educators weighed in on what Gioia termed “a national crisis,” and more than 600 stories and commentaries appeared in the first few weeks after its release. A serious national debate about the causes and extent of the reading decline had begun and would continue for years with the Arts Endowment taking the lead.

In 2007, the Arts Endowment’s research division, headed by Sunil Iyengar, issued an influential follow-up study, To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence. The report compiled reading data from other government agencies, private foundations, and university research centers, all of which reached a consistent finding. This comprehensive report reinforced and expanded the earlier conclusions. All Americans, especially young people, read less and read less well, and these declines had serious educational, economic, and civic consequences. These reports have remained the definitive reference point for treatments of the field of literary culture and publishing in America.

Re-Investing in Reading: The Big Read

Gioia acknowledged that no single program or government agency by itself could reverse the decline in reading. As the leading arts agency in the United States, however, the Arts Endowment assumed the task of developing a national initiative to encourage literary reading.

On May 9, 2006, the agency unveiled a new program, The Big Read. Building on ideas from existing “City Reads” programs, the National Endowment for the Arts created a partnership of public, private, nonprofit, and corporate entities—Arts Midwest, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, The Boeing Company, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation—to support and administer an ambitious national reading program. The Big Read offers citizens the opportunity to read and discuss a single book within their communities, as well as provides comprehensive resources for discussing the work, including readers guides, teachers guides, CDs, and publicity material as well as a national public service campaign and an extensive Web site with comprehensive information on authors and their works.

For a pilot program, the Arts Endowment selected ten municipalities from across the country to receive grants to conduct and promote four- to six-week community-based programs aimed at both teens and adults. From January through June 2006, these diverse communities—ranging from rural Enterprise, Oregon (population 1,895) to metropolitan Miami-Dade, Florida (population 3,900,000)—took part in the pilot phase. Each community created unique events, activities, and literary programs around one of four classic novels: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.

To introduce public officials to the program, the NEA held a celebration of The Big Read on July 20, 2006, at the Library of Congress. Ray Bradbury participated vivaciously, greeting the capacity audience via a video recording. Members of Congress, including Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), and Representative Charles Taylor (R-NC) read passages from their favorite books. Mrs. Laura Bush, who enthusiastically joined The Big Read as its Honorary Chair, remarked, “In ten cities and towns across the United States, thousands of Americans are being introduced—or reintroduced—to the joys of reading literature. They’re learning how characters in our favorite stories become close friends that we can visit, just by reopening dog-eared volumes. They’re discovering how we can escape to another world by losing ourselves in a good book—only to find truths about humanity that lead us right back to our own lives.”

In its third year, The Big Read reached all 50 states as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. By 2009, more than 400 towns and cities will have hosted a Big Read program, with over 21,000 local and national organizations supporting the initiative. Indeed, The Big Read has become the largest federal literature program since the World War II Armed Services Editions project. Organizers choose from 27 books, ranging from classic novels such as Willa Cather’s My Ántonia and Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer to contemporary works such as Tobias Wolff’s Old School and Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried. The Arts Endowment also helped produce a weekday show on XM Satellite Radio focusing on The Big Read books. Broadcast three times daily, each book was read in half-hour segments. (All of the broadcast time was donated by XM Radio.) Among the many celebrated figures who volunteered their time and talents were Robert Duvall, Ed Harris, Robert Redford, Ray Bradbury, Nadine Gordimer, Edward Albee, Alice Walker, and Sandra Day O’Connor. The Arts Endowment, with Lawrence Bridges [director of the 2007 documentary film Muse of Fire; see above], also developed special introductory films presenting interviews and commentary by the living authors of The Big Read.

In late 2007, the Arts Endowment added an international component to The Big Read that included exchange programs with Egypt, Russia, and Mexico. In Egypt, partnerships were created in Cairo and Alexandria to bring American novels to readers (including the first Arabic translation of Fahrenheit 451). Meanwhile, American audiences read The Thief and the Dogs by Egyptian Nobel Laureate [1988] Naguib Mahfouz. Russia featured To Kill a Mockingbird in the Ivanovo and Saratov regions while selected American cities read Leo Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich. For the U.S./Mexico Big Read the NEA and the Fondo de Cultura Económica jointly produced an anthology of classic Mexican short stories, Sun, Stone, and Shadows, published in both Spanish and English editions to be read in both U.S. and Mexican cities. Each of these international titles became permanent selections for the U.S. Big Read.

Cleaning up the Old Post Office

Not all of Dana Gioia’s initiatives were national. Some of them were downright homey and domestic. When Gioia visited the Old Post Office in November of 2002, he was surprised and dismayed by the Arts Endowment’s cluttered corridors. The stately marble hallways had long served as storage for excess files, old books, office furniture, and an assortment of supplies and materials, for the agency was short on space. Although Gioia’s own desk sets no high standard for neatness—always piled high with books, documents, journals, and CDs—he felt a need for the NEA public spaces to portray the agency’s accomplishments. Laurence Baden, deputy chairman for Management and Budget, gradually secured more office and storage space in the Old Post Office. This expansion not only improved working conditions; it also allowed staff that had been dispersed around the building to enjoy a common working space with their colleagues.

[The Old Post Office building is discussed in Chapter 3 (11 November 2023) of this series; see also “Saving the Old Post Office,” a sidebar on p. 43 of the published NEA report.]

Today the corridors of the Old Post Office are clear of clutter. Those who visit the NEA enjoy viewing framed portraits of NEA Jazz Masters and stylish caricatures of American authors featured in The Big Read program. The staff also rescued its 1984 Oscar from storage to display as one more symbol of the agency’s achievements. Portraits of former chairmen now greet visitors to the chairman’s office, and striking paintings loaned by living American artists decorate the office walls.

[The Arts Endowment won an Honorary Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at the 57th Academy Awards in 1984 “in recognition of its 20th anniversary and its dedicated commitment to fostering artistic and creative activity and excellence in every area of the arts.”  See Chapter 5 (17 November 2023).]

The Conversation Changes

By January 2004, the public conversation about the Arts Endowment had changed markedly. Discussing the proposed budget increase, Roger Kimball, conservative intellectual and previous critic of the NEA, now found the Arts Endowment “a vibrant force for the preservation and transmission of artistic culture.” Indeed, he added, “the NEA has become a clear-sighted, robust institution intent on bringing important art to the American people.” Kimball’s summary appeared in National Review Online, which had taken a different attitude toward the agency only a few years earlier. Meanwhile, veteran columnist William Safire of The New York Times likewise commended on the new programs, citing their bipartisan spirit. “The NEA has raised a banner of education and accessibility to which liberal and conservative can repair,” he said. The Wall Street Journal joined in the praise, too. In response to the new NEA Jazz Masters initiative, Nat Hentoff wrote, “No one with government funds to dispense has done more to bring jazz to American audiences than Dana Gioia.”

In a long piece in The New York Times, Bruce Weber [national arts correspondent and theater reviewer] wrote that the NEA under Chairman Gioia “has won the Congressional approbation that eluded his predecessors. And [Gioia] has done so without alienating artists, who tend to resist all restraints on their independence.” Michael Slenske’s [freelance writer] 2,700-word profile of Operation Homecoming, published in 2005 in The Boston Globe, referred to the program as an “innovative” model that not only serves an important historical purpose, but “promises to be helpful” in the recovery of war veterans.

Growing public support for Arts Endowment programs extended to Capitol Hill. In September 2004, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who had previously been highly critical of the NEA, wrote to the Montgomery Advertiser to praise the Shakespeare initiative. “In my view,” he said, “these are the kinds of programs the National Endowment for the Arts should be sponsoring—taking the best of American art and culture and making it available, in this case, to our service men and women and their families. . . . I’m proud that the Alabama Shakespeare Festival was chosen to participate in the program.” In floor debates in the House of Representatives on May 18, 2006, Rush Holt (D-NJ) argued that an increase in NEA funding “will build programs that use the strength of the arts and our nation’s cultural life to enhance communities in every state and every county around America.” One month later, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) told his colleagues, “Funding for the arts is one of the best investments our government makes. In purely economic terms, it generates a return that would make any Wall Street investor jealous.”

Fortieth Anniversary

On March 10, 2005, when Chairman Gioia appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, he summarized the situation of the Arts Endowment: “As the National Endowment for the Arts approaches the fortieth anniversary of its founding legislation, the agency enjoys a renewed sense of confidence in its public mission, reputation, and record of service.” Chairman Gioia also noted that the “Arts Endowment now reaches both large and small communities as well as rural areas, inner cities, and military bases—successfully combining artistic excellence with public outreach.”

At public events throughout 2005 and 2006, the 40-year history of the Arts Endowment was noted and celebrated. [On 28-29 October 2005], the Lyndon B. Johnson Library and Museum at the University of Texas at Austin convened [The NEA at 40: Cultural Policy and American Democracy,] a three-day conference to commemorate the signing of the legislation establishing the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities [the NEH conference occurred on 27 October]. At panel discussions and receptions, the founding and evolution of the Arts Endowment were remembered. Among the many notable speakers was former Congressman John Brademas [D-IN], who discussed the original legislation creating the Arts Endowment [National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, 29 September 1965 (Public Law 89-209); see Chapter 2 (8 November 2023)]. 

In November 2005, President and Mrs. Bush hosted a black-tie dinner at the White House to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the NEA and NEH. Artists, scholars, and patrons attended, as did Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, daughter of President Johnson. President Bush paid tribute to NEA Chairman Gioia and the agency’s “support for music and dance, theater and the arts across our great country.” The NEA, he said, “has helped improve public access to education in the arts, offered workshops in writing, and brought artistic masterpieces to underserved communities.”

The capstone anniversary event was a symposium on arts and culture held at American University’s striking, new Katzen Arts Center [Washington, D.C.] in May 2006 [Visual Politics: The Art of Engagement, 17-19 May 2006]. It was an educational symposium for graduate students and young professionals to learn about the Arts Endowment and the dramatic growth of the arts during the last 40 years.

Highlights of the two-day [Washington Post reported three days] conference were the individual sessions convened by every discipline director to discuss the impact of the Arts Endowment on his or her field. Other events included a plenary session on international cultural exchange and a panel discussing public funding and private giving. Finally, graduate students from colleges and universities throughout the country presented papers on diverse topics relative to the arts in the public sector. The NEA’s fortieth anniversary celebrations, including this symposium on arts and culture, provided ample opportunities for gleaning lessons from the past to shape the next 40 years.

Gioia’s Second Term

On December 9, 2006, Dana Gioia was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate for his second term as NEA chairman. During his second term, Chairman Gioia expanded the international activities of the NEA. Under the leadership of Pennie Ojeda, the agency created literary exchanges with Russia, Pakistan, Egypt, Northern Ireland, and Mexico. The Arts Endowment also streamlined its grants process and simplified its application categories. In its fortieth year, the NEA staff handled more applications (a 30 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2000 to 2004) and more grants (a 12 percent increase in the same period) without an increase in staff. While operating on a reduced administrative budget, the Arts Endowment also managed the substantial workload of Challenge America grants in order to reach every congressional district consistently each year.

Gioia continued to spend considerable time refining and expanding national initiatives. Believing that consistency of support and excellence of execution were essential to their success, he urged the NEA staff to look for ways to improve the programs with each new grants cycle. Application procedures were adjusted, teaching materials updated, Web sites revised and redesigned, and partnerships expanded.

Gioia also observed that arts organizations benefitted from being able to repeat programs. A theater company whose first tour was challenging gained the necessary experience to make subsequent tours go more smoothly. A school district modestly involved in one year’s jazz, poetry, or Shakespeare programs would greatly expand its participation the next time around. In a second Big Read program, a municipality coordinated its many partners more easily than in its first effort. Consistent NEA investment not only sustained the specific initiatives; it also helped build the expertise, confidence, and credibility of all the organizations involved. As the number of partners involved in these initiatives reached into the thousands, the widespread impact of this long-term planning and support became visible.

Historic Budget Increase

Congress noted the NEA’s progress with growing enthusiasm. In December of 2007, the NEA received a $20.1 million [$28.5 million] budget increase—the Arts Endowment’s largest increase in 29 years. The NEA’s $144.7 million [$200.2 million] budget for 2008 marked a 16 percent increase over 2007. This dramatic budget increase was not only a testament to Congress’s confidence in Gioia’s leadership, but a concrete example of the impact of the work of the NEA staff, including Senior Deputy Chairman Eileen Mason, Government Affairs Director Ann Guthrie Hingston, Communications Director Felicia Knight, and Congressional Liaison Shana Chase, in rebuilding the agency’s relationship with Capitol Hill and the media.

The NEA also helped secure historical legislative changes in the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. The new legislation authorized a substantial increase, with the international indemnity ceiling reaching $10 billion [$13.8 billion, based on the valye of the dollar in 2008, the year of the changes in the indemnity program] along with an additional $5 billion [$6.9 billion] to support the creation of a domestic component to the program. In a period of skyrocketing art values and high insurance rates, it would be hard to exaggerate the importance of this legislation, which made major museum shows financially possible across the nation. As John E. Buchanan, Jr., director of museums with Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco noted, “It is one of the greatest things that the government can do for American art museums.”

The same legislation also created the NEA Opera Honors, the first new class of federal arts awards in 26 years. Like the Arts Endowment’s Jazz Masters awards, the NEA Opera Honors are lifetime achievement awards celebrating artists and advocates who have earned the highest distinction and made irreplaceable contributions to their field. The new program reflected Gioia’s conviction that the U.S. government needed to do more to recognize and celebrate the contributions of its artists. The first NEA Opera Honors recipients were soprano Leontyne Price, conductor James Levine, composer Carlisle Floyd, and director Richard Gaddes. Administered by OPERA America, the awards were greeted with enormous enthusiasm by the American classical music world.

Serving All Americans

In September 2008, Gioia announced his intention to resign the following January—two years before the end of his term—to return to writing. “I have given up six years of my creative life,” he remarked. “I want to return to poetry while I have the stamina and spirit to pursue the art seriously.” This announcement caused regret on both sides of the aisle. Congressman Patrick Tiberi (R-OH) wrote that Gioia “had successfully worked across party lines to bring broad support and enthusiasm to the arts and arts education.” Meanwhile Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN) praised Gioia’s democratization of the Arts Endowment, which “brought the arts to many new communities and demonstrated to Congress how the NEA’s work touches every corner of the country.”

As he prepared to leave office in late 2008, Gioia received what he termed “the best farewell gift imaginable.” American literary reading had risen for the first time in 26 years. After the universal declines charted in earlier NEA surveys, reading trends reversed among virtually every group measured. Best of all, young adults (age 18-24), who had shown the most drastic declines over the previous decades, now registered the largest increase of any group (+21 percent). Although the survey did not establish cause and effect, it seemed no coincidence that these young adults had been in high school when the NEA launched the national literary initiatives (Shakespeare in American Communities, Poetry Out Loud, and The Big Read) that had reached millions of teenagers during the previous six years. Likewise the NEA’s influential reading surveys had helped ignite national concern about the decline of reading and its effects. While these new positive trends reflected the work of countless teachers, librarians, writers, and parents, the NEA had played a catalytic role—demonstrating that well-focused federal investment could make a difference in American society.

*  *  *  *

epilogue

A Great Nation Deserves Great Art

Over the past four decades, the National Endowment for the Arts has established itself as a unique institution in American culture. As the official arts agency of the U.S. government, supported by yearly appropriations from Congress, the NEA has not only become the nation’s largest supporter of arts and arts education, but also, by its special position as the nexus between the public and private sectors, an irreplaceable institution. In addition to distributing thousands of grants each year, including critical funding to the state arts agencies, the Endowment also convenes panels that set standards of artistic quality, publishes research reports that guide informed discussions of cultural trends and policies, and creates institutional partnerships that now reach every community in the nation. The NEA’s direct financial influence has been enormous. To date, it has awarded more than 126,000 grants totaling over four billion dollars [$5.5 billion in 2023, based on the value of a dollar on 2008], a sum that has generated matching funds many times larger than the initial investment. As a result, American culture has been enlivened, enlarged, and democratized.

Such impressive results were surely in the minds of the legislators who first called the agency into existence in 1965 at a moment of cultural optimism in which the government’s vision of a great nation included a commensurably great artistic culture. Although these legislators might have been surprised by some of the subsequent debates involving the agency, they understood that the NEA represented a bold innovation in federal policy. How could such great innovation occur without incident? In retrospect, it seems inevitable that the growth of federal arts policy would involve debate, challenge, and change as the nation defined the new agency’s proper role. Guided by nine chairmen with diverse outlooks and leadership styles, the Arts Endowment has lived through an often turbulent period of cultural transformation. The agency has not merely survived these challenges; its work has been strengthened and clarified by them.

Today, the National Endowment for the Arts enjoys high regard for its commitment to bring the best of arts and arts education to all Americans. Supporting excellence in the arts—both new and traditional—across all of the disciplines, it fosters the nation’s creativity and brings the transformative power of the imagination into millions of lives, reaching many who would have no easy access to the arts without government funding. Having created a new national consensus for federal support of the arts, with strong bipartisan support from Congress and wide public approval, the agency has moved decisively into a positive new era. As a new Administration arrives in Washington, led by President-elect Barack Obama, who has voiced his belief in the federal cultural agencies, the Arts Endowment seems poised for continued growth. Under future chairmen, the agency will surely pursue new ideas and opportunities, but one thing will remain constant, the Endowment’s commitment to serve all Americans by bringing the arts into their lives, schools, and communities.

[Chapter 10 and the Epilogue concludes Part I, “The History of the NEA,” of “National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1965-2008.”  After the final section of the serialization of Mark Bauerlein and Ellen Grantham’s Arts Endowment report, I will try to post the update of the NEA history from 2008 and 2023 (if I can find enough information to compile one).

[The next installment of “A History of the National Endowment for the Arts” will be from Part II of the NEA report, “The Impact of the NEA.”  That section is divided into six topics—"Dance,” “Literature,” “Media Arts,” “Museums and Visual Arts,” “Music and Opera,” and “Theater”—but I’m only going to post the theater segment.  It will run on 16 December and I hope you will all return for that.]


08 December 2023

"Now and Then"

by Kirk Woodward 

[As veteran ROTters know by now, Kirk Woodward’s been a generous contributor to this blog since it began over 14½ years ago.  That’s probably largely because I started Rick On Theater at Kirk’s suggestion, so spiritually at least, he’s a part-owner. 

[Even if you’ve only read an occasional post on ROT, you probably know that one of Kirk’s most frequent topics is the Beatles—because he’s been an avid fan of that British rock foursome since they first appeared on the U.S. rock ’n’ roll scene almost 60 years ago. 

[(To be fair, I was, too, but I was in high school in Europe [see my post “Going to a Swiss International School,” 29 April-14 May 2021], so I started listening in mid-1963 on such radio stations as Radio Luxembourg and pirate stations aboard ships in the Atlantic.  Kirk, however, has a strong music background that I lacked, so I may have heard them earlier, but he understood what they were doing.)

[In any case, when I heard a report on WCBS-TV news on the evening of Thursday, 26 October, about the “new” Beatles song about to be released, I immediately e-mailed Kirk with the news (even though I was pretty sure he’d have picked up on it before I did) and urged him to try to hear the record ASAP and write about it for the blog.  Ultimately, that’s what he did—and the outcome is below. 

[(He actually sent his copy to me on 14 November, but after editing (minimal), I held it to space out Kirk’s contributions a bit—he’d sent me “Great Directors at Work” just before and I was posting it on 25 November—so they wouldn’t all come at once.)

[Kirk’s past Beatles posts on Rick On Theater include: “The Beatles and Me,” 7 October 2010; “The Beatles Box,” 30 September 2012; “The Beatles Diary” by Kirk Woodward & Pat Woodward, 8 January 2013; “The Beatles’ Influence,” 13 July 2015; “Now, Live, the Non-Beatles,” 27 September 2016; “Bob and Ringo,” 1 December 2017; “Help!,” 17 September 2020; and “Reviewing the Beatles,” 19 December 2021.]

The Beatles have been so central to my life that I don’t even think about how important they are to me anymore until something happens to remind me, like the recent release of “the last Beatles song,” a John Lennon song called “Now and Then.” [See Kirk’s earlier Rick On Theater posts “The Beatles and Me” (7 October 2010) and “The Beatles’ Influence” (13 July 2015), among his other Fab Four contributions to this blog.]

Lennon (1940-1980) recorded a “demo tape” on a cassette tape recorder in the late 1970’s. When the three remaining Beatles were working on the Anthology project in the 1990’s, Yoko Ono (b. 1933), Lennon’s widow, offered some of Lennon’s demo tapes to the remaining Beatles for the project.

[Sometimes referred to as the Anthology project, The Beatles Anthology is a multimedia retrospective consisting of a TV documentary, a three-volume set of double albums, and a book on the history of the group. Beatles members Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr participated in the making of the works, while Lennon appears in archival interviews.

[The television documentary was first broadcast in November 1995. The Anthology book was released in 2000; Anthology 1 of the album set was released the same week of the documentary’s broadcast and Anthology 2 and Anthology 3 were released in 1996.]

Two of the songs she provided, “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love,” were completed and released (in 1995 and 1996 respectively) by the remaining Beatles, and they began work on a third, “Now and Then,” but abandoned it, with George Harrison (1943-2001) in particular losing interest, partly because of technical issues – Lennon’s voice was combined with his piano playing in a way that couldn’t be separated, and apparently there was an unfortunate hum on the tape as well.

Paul McCartney (b. 1942) occasionally mentioned in interviews that he’d like to finish working on the song, and he became more vocal on the subject in 2021.

While the film director Peter Jackson (b. 1961) was doing superlative work on the Beatles documentary Get Back (2021), he and his team developed software for separating and remixing monophonic sound (for example, on a cassette recording) that far exceeded the capability of previously existing software.

Apparently in 2022, McCartney and Ringo Starr (b. 1940) finished work on the song, adding additional instrumental and vocal parts, including an orchestral score. Producing the recording were Jeff Lynne (b. 1947); McCartney; and the brilliant Giles Martin (b. 1969), the son of the Beatles’ famous original producer George Martin (1926-2016). Giles Martin also co-wrote the orchestral scoring for the release with McCartney and composer Ben Foster (b. 1977). The result was publicly released on 2 November 2023.

For a band that made its last recordings in early 1970, the Beatles have been hot in recent years. Paul McCartney recently played on a track on the new album by the Rolling Stones, Hackney Diamonds (released on 20 October 2023). And “Now and Then” has done well on the US music sales charts and was #1 on its release in England.

[According to Wikipedia, “Now and Then” débuted at #42 in the U.K. on 3 November and reached #1 the following week. In the U.S., the song was #1 on the Billboard Digital Song Sales chart for the week ending 11 November and hit between #5 and #7 on other Billboard charts, making “Now and Then” the Beatles’ 35th top ten single on the magazine’s tallies. Wikipedia records, however, that two weeks later, it “fell off the chart.”]

Then there’s the Get Back documentary, in three parts and about eight hours long, an astonishing look at the creative process in action – we literally see the first moments of the composition of the song “Get Back” (originally released as a single on 11 April 1969) as McCartney improvises.

The Get Back documentary (footage originally shot in January 1969) also shattered a long-held belief about the Beatles, that their experiences making the Let It Be album (1970) that features “Get Back” were, not to mince words, a living hell. The documentary shows that there certainly are difficult moments, plenty of them, among the Beatles, but even more there are moments of cooperation, fun, and productivity, as well as a great deal of just messing around.

The Beatles did go on to break up over financial and management issues, but the Get Back film removed a huge cloud of gloom from over their last years, and I suspect that the film had much to do with the anticipation that greeted the announcement of the release of “Now and Then.”

We may ask, what is it about the Beatles, anyway? Why are they important to many of us (certainly to me) more than fifty years after they finished being a band? I have chewed over this question many times, and my answers never completely satisfy me.

Part of it is simply that they did their work so well. Song after song, recording after recording, the work is well thought out, clearly presented, full of energy, humor, and imagination. The Beatles are among the few rock bands capable of being funny; they are astonishingly poised; they almost never repeat themselves, even though many of their songs would make a career for most artists.

There’s got to be more to the story, though, and I think one can follow a thread that begins with the earliest songs they wrote and recorded. Typically those were “love songs,” and popular music is mostly made up of them.

The singer and songwriter Barry Manilow (b. 1943), who should know, said recently that in popular music, “You can either write, ‘I love you’ or ‘I miss you.’ You go any further than that, you’re writing a Broadway song.” (Barry Manilow’s first Broadway musical, Harmony, opened at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre on 13 November 2023.)

Actually Lennon and McCartney stated, in their earlier days, that they hoped one day to write a musical. Their songs have been presented on Broadway, notably in the musical Beatlemania in 1979. An early feature of their song list was “Till There Was You” from the 1957 musical The Music Man (released by the Beatles in 1963).

[Kirk has written about the distinctions between “popular songs” and “theater songs” in “Theatrical and Popular Songs,” posted on ROT on 2 October 2011.]

The Beatles did not write for Broadway, but they wrote popular songs of an extraordinarily broad range.  In general the earlier songs the Beatles – almost always Lennon and McCartney – wrote were about romantic relations, but from the start the angles from which they observed romance were unusual – but frequently presented so smoothly that one might not notice.

The famous “I Want to Hold Your Hand” (1963), for example, is about the simplest possible “romantic” idea, expressed completely in its title, but even so, “holding hands” isn’t exactly a staple of rock music.

About the same time, though, “She Loves You” (also 1963), another enormous success, takes a different approach – the singer isn’t the person in love but is talking to another person about his relationship to still another, and offering advice on behavior:

So it’s up to you – I think it’s only fair;
Pride can hurt you too – apologize to her!


The song sounds so effortless that it’s easy to overlook how unusual the story within the song really is as an example of (extremely successful) popular music.

Then, still in the early period of their success, the Beatles met Bob Dylan (b. 1941) and listened to his songs, and learned that the focus of songs could range almost anywhere – toward society, toward people, toward one’s inmost thoughts and feelings.

With a little practice the Beatles mastered this insight and for the last several years of their career they wrote songs that didn’t convey meanings so much as they suggested the possibility of meanings, pointing to the existence of worlds of experience beyond the words of the songs themselves.

The master of this approach was John Lennon. A prime example is his song “I Am the Walrus” (1967), in which the lyrics don’t make literal sense. It’s a waste of time trying to parse them. But they point furiously at a swirl of meanings that the song only indicates. What does the song mean? It “means” that there is meaning somewhere.

Practically this meant that in their later years together the Beatles seldom wrote “love songs”; when they did, the songs were often complex and were full of implications beyond themselves. Frequently, their songs made one feel they were openings to a much wider world.

For a while it looked like the Beatles were leading the way in the march of popular songwriting. Today it’s clear that the Beatles basically were an end rather than a beginning. The following statement is a generalization by a fogey (which I am), but basically big selling recordings today are once again personal relationship songs, when they’re not simply music to exercise by.

On, then, to the song “Now and Then.” When I first heard it, I wasn’t thrilled. It’s a moody, sadly dreamy number. John’s voice definitely is clearer than in the first two posthumous Beatle songs, “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love,” but I still felt it sounded a little unnatural. I was not impressed by Paul McCartney’s solo on electric guitar.

In general I was a bit let down. By contrast I had found “Free as a Bird” worthwhile, and I loved “Real Love.”

However, times have changed, and a feature of popular music for the last several decades has been the “music video.” Visual presentations of musicians playing songs go back to 1894, according to Wikipedia, and once “talking films” became prominent, they were often made.

The Beatles, however – who else? – pioneered the music video for our time, deciding in 1965-66, around the time they quit touring, that they could introduce their songs without having to do so in person. They used first-rate directors who brought imagination to their videos.

Following that hint, the music network MTV filled its programming with videos for years. Music videos turned into a competition of creative approaches. Today every song with a major release has one.

The video for “Now and Then” was directed by Peter Jackson. He had access to the “Get Back” footage, since he had spent years preparing that documentary. He was also able to use video of Beatles performances and recording sessions, including the ones for “Now and Then.” Pete Best (b. 1941), the drummer who famously was fired by the Beatles as they began to become famous, provided a very early film clip (although he is not seen in the video itself).

Jackson, whose Lord of the Rings films certainly tell a story, took his storytelling skills and fashioned a narrative for the video of “Now and Then.” It begins with quick cuts of guitars being tuned, a cassette tape being inserted in a console and then played, and two musicians playing guitar. We quickly see that they are George and Paul, and that they are working on “Now and Then.”

As they get going, the view shifts – John, identifiable by his “granny glasses,” is looking over the ocean, an appropriate choice since he wrote the song. The Beatles themselves, in old-fashioned bathing outfits, appear and disappear. Paul and Ringo, in the studio, continue to record the song, then Paul, Ringo, and George together, cross-cut with images of John and George, the two departed Beatles.

Then Ringo and Paul are standing next to each other, recording vocals for the song – except they’re not actually next to each other, it’s a trick of photography discernable because they’re using two different kinds of microphones. Still, in the image there they are . . . and at the line “I want you to be there with me,” there are the four Beatles, from left to right George, today’s Ringo and Paul, and John, mugging for the camera.

It’s a stunning moment, all four apparently together today over a span of half a century. It comes on unexpectedly, and for the rest of the video Jackson plays variations on the tune, so to speak, with different combinations of Beatles in different places – young and old, “now and then.” At the very end we see all four bow as they always did after a song (a moment taken from the wonderful 1964 film A Hard Day’s Night), and then their images dissolve, leaving only the word BEATLES.

Jackson does something else of great interest – the images he selects of John Lennon show not the John of the melancholy song, but John at his most relaxed, funniest, most giddy. John mugs, briefly imitates Elvis, does the Twist. He appears to stand in front of the orchestra that’s recording the score for the song, joyfully imitating the violins and mock-conducting them. The other Beatles, both younger and older versions, appear to be responding to his antics, bemused.

Art thrives on opposites. Jackson could have chosen melancholy images of John to match the melancholy tone of the song. Instead he does the opposite – he shows John at his most charming and amusing. The result, for me at least, is deeply satisfying. It gives me the John I want to think about – the best John – and the Beatles together, timelessly, working in harmony.

And now I love the song! That’s what music videos are supposed to achieve, but I can’t recall any that had that result for me before. I’m not surprised, however – the Beatles are nearly always a cut above everything else.

A question: did Lennon write “Now and Then” about Paul McCartney? It’s certainly a song about a difficult, perhaps ruptured relationship, filled with an unspecific hope that the break might in some way be repaired “if we start again.” Was it Paul that John was writing about?

Or Yoko Ono? Or someone else? Many writers will say that questions of inspiration are beside the point, that the finished work is an object of its own, not bound by its antecedents.

It’s hard not to speculate, though. McCartney has said that one of the last things Lennon said to him was to think of him “now and then, old friend.” Even more to the point, John’s song – to my ears at least – sounds like a “Paul song.” It could easily have been written by McCartney in his post-Beatle years. It wasn’t, but if it had been, it wouldn’t have sounded out of place in Paul’s work.

Most of all, both the song, the work of the surviving Beatles and their team, and the video, are filled with gratitude for the very existence of the Beatles. So, I probably don’t have to add, am I.

[I find it coincidental that both “She Loves You” and “I Want to Hold Your Hand” come up together in Kirk’s article.  I happen to have a 45 of those two songs . . . in the German versions the Four recorded in ‘64 (“Sie liebt dich” and “Komm, gib mir deine Hand”; released in March 1964).  I bought Die Beatles in Koblenz, the town where my dad was stationed as a Foreign Service Officer (see “An American Teen in Germany,” 9 and 12 March 2013), as a curiosity/souvenir, and I still have it.

[I observed in my introduction to this report that, though I never got to see the Beatles in person when they were appearing on the Continent before their American stardom exploded, I heard their recordings in mid-1963 or so, and I started buying their recordings pretty soon afterwards.  My copy of With the Beatles—t​heir second album in the U.K. but their first in Germany, where I lived then—i​s the German pressing which I bought in Koblenz.  Released in Germany on 12 November 1963, it has 14 songs, seven on each side, rather than the usual 12 for U.S. releases.  (The U.S. version was entitled Meet the Beatles, released on 20 January 1964, the Beatles’ début album in this country.)

[(It’s not really relevant, but my Rubber Soul is the British release [3 December 1965], purchased in France by my friend Marc Humilien as a gift when I was in Villefranche-de-Lauragais, the Humiliens’ tiny hometown in southwestern France, for a visit.  Like my German With the Beatles, it also has two songs that aren’t on the American release.) 

[Two other curiosities are in my record collection, too: a pair of 45 rpm extended-play disks from Odeon, something that was rare in the U.S.  The Beatles’ Hits has “From Me To You” and “Thank You Girl” on the A side with “Please Please Me” and “Love Me Do” on the B; The Beatles contains “She Loves You” and “Do You Want To Know a Secret” on one side and “Twist and Shout” and “A Taste of Honey” on the other.  

[All sung in English, of course, three of the songs on The Beatles were listed on the disk’s jacket with their French titles in parentheses: “J’ai un secret à te dire,” “Twiste et chante,” and “Un homme est venue” (literally, “I have a secret to tell you,” “Twist and sing,” and “A man has come”).  Oddly, that last is “A Taste of Honey,” but don’t ask me how come.

[I must have bought at least that last record in Geneva, where I was in school—I don’t know why else it’d have French titles and not German. Die Beatles was a souvenir, a keepsake; the other four I bought because I wanted the songs to play in the dorm. (Neither of these records is dated, but I’d guess I got all of the EP’s in 1964 and 1965, during my senior year in high school.)

[One last comment on these songs: Kirk asserts that “‘holding hands’ isn’t exactly a staple of rock music,” and I thought about that a bit.  The only other pop song of which I can think in which holding hands as used as a romantic gesture—I’m sure there are others, but I can’t think of any off hand (no pun intended!)—is Elvis’s “Can’t Help Falling in Love” (1961, from Blue Hawaii).  He sings “Take my hand / Take my whole life too / For I can’t help falling in love with you.”  Hand-holding’s not the main idea of the song, and it’s only one passing mention, of course.

[Now, for ROTters who are reading the serialization of “National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1965-2008,” which I’ve interrupted a second time to post Kirk’s discussion of “Now and Then”: I’ll be publishing the next installment, Chapter 10 & Epilogue, “Building a New Consensus” and “A Great Nation Deserves Great Art,” on Wednesday, 13 December.  I hope that you’ll all come back to ROT when I return to that serial post.]