8 AFTERIMAGE/January 1987

PRIVATE MONEY AND

MARITA STURKEN

There are few names in the Western world that evoke as weighty an image as the name Rockefeller. Power, prestige, philanthropy, cultural imperialism, and the old-boy network all come to mind. This name sums up the raw power of capitalism before the days of government regulation, antitrust laws, and income tax . To most ofthe U .S. public, it represents an extended, family-based power structure of phenomenal influence. The Rockefeller Foundation, while no longer a family institution, symbolizes the power invested in those who choose to use their wealth to effect change in the world. Like many private foundations, it was founded as a means of promoting change with and establishing a beneficent image for a newly amassed fortune; it was also an attempt to change the reputation of "tainted money" that had plagued the Rockefeller fortune. From its inception, it was a globally conceived organization, begun with $100 million from John D . Rockefeller Sr. i n 1913' and aimed at establishing a last- ing role for the Rockefeller fortune. The foundation was the brainchild of Rockefeller's trusted manager Frederick T. Gates. Of the foundation, Gates wrote: I trembled as I witnessed the unreasoning popularresentment at Mr. Rockefeller's riches, to the mass of people, a national menace. It was not, however, the unreasoning public prejudiceof hisvastfortunethat chiefly troubled me. Was ittobe handed on to posterityas other great fortunes have been handed down by their possessors, with scandal- ous results to their descendants and powerful tendencies to social demoralization? Media Arts Center Conference Steering I saw no other course but for Mr. Rockefeller and his Committee meets at Minnewaska in 1979, with (from left to right) Alan Jacobs, Howard Klein, Robert son to form a series of great corporate philanthropies for forwarding Sitton, and Robert Haller. Photo by Amy Greenfield . civilization in all its elements in this land and in all lands: philan- thropies, if possible, limitless in time and amount, broad in scope, and self-perpetuating .2

This fervor and sense of mission (Gates was a former Baptist minister) instigated what would soon become one of the most powerful philanthropies of this century, now with assets of Howard Klein and the over $1 .3 billion. The foundation was set up in part as an extension of the ideas behind the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), where scientists were conduct- Rockefeller Foundation's ing research that would provide the expertise behind public health programs throughout the world. The foundation's reputation stems from its massive programs to combat malaria and yellow fever and to promote the "green revolu- funding of the media arts tion" of cultivating high-yield wheat, corn, and rice in the third world. It was in this context-of an institution that could almost progress of a field from its infancy to a more established com- single-handedly eradicate diseases in certain areas and or- munity, but also the approach and philosophy of one man to chestrate huge agricultural programs-that an arts program the field as a whole. Klein left the foundation in October 1986, was begun at the Rockefeller Foundation. The foundation and his departure marks the end not only of a particular era at had previously awarded grants in the arts to select institu- the Rockefeller Foundation, but also of an era of a specific tions, but the formalization of an arts program did not take kind of funding philosophy, in which a single individual dic- place until 1963.3 Conceived as a program in "cultural de- tates the direction and intent of the grants awarded, with a pri- velopment," it was also initiated as a response to a general mary belief in providing for the needs of the individual artist . expansion in the arts in the early 1960s, symbolized by the building of Lincoln Center in New York City (a project realized The Rockefeller Foundation is structured into six pro- grams: with the considerable involvement of and funds provided by Agricultural Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Equal John D. Rockefeller III). Opportunity, Health Sciences, International Relations, and While the sciences will always predominate at the founda- Population Sciences, as well as a Special Interests and Ex- tion, funding of the arts has had a wide-ranging impact. The plorations fund for proposals that are not covered precisely by these arts program gradually developed into a multidisciplinary pro- categories . In 1985, these programs dispensed gram that supports both institutions and individual artists in close to $43 million in grants, of which $7.4 million (14.6%) music, dance, theater, literature, video, film, and the visual was in the arts and humanities program. The foundation has a arts . Although it increasingly channels its funds through arts self-perpetuating board of trustees of some 20 members organizations and via panels, the arts program has been (until 1981 it had at least one Rockefeller family member), who elect the ideologically geared since its inception toward the funding of foundation's president, currently Richard individual artists, a doctrine that evokes the philosophy of the Lyman. two men who have directed the program, Norman Lloyd and The arts program, which was a separate program from Howard Klein, both avant-garde musicians themselves . In 1973 to 1983 and is now combined with the humanities pro- the world of arts funding, the Rockefeller name embodies gram, has dispensed an average of $3 million annually . It is not prestige as well as a certain mythology. Money from the divided into specific disciplines, although it has been Rockefeller Foundation is a ticket to other funding pos- structured (with humanities) along certain vague, yet control- ling sibilities and acts as a stamp of approval in the art world. guidelines : support forthe creative person; strengthening The Rockefeller Foundation began funding the media arts secondary school education through the arts and humanities; in the mid-1960s enhancing the American public's understanding of interna- . In a field that receives little supportfrom the Brice Howard (left) and Paul Kaufman of the National Center for Ex- art market, the role of this foundation has been incalculable . tional affairs through the arts and humanities; and forging periments in Television (NCET) in 1971 . Photo by Richard Bellak. As in other fields, when a philanthropic organization of this connections between artists, humanists, and society. Until magnitude graces a discipline with its dollars, people take recently, the arts program has been a somewhat flexible one, sion, the funding of programs intended to foster a cross- notice and are more inclined to followsuit. In the relatively tiny with its director having a substantial amount of freedom in cultural exchange of ideas, individual grants to artists, and world of video art, the interest and support of the Rockefeller choosing what monies to give to what media. Grants of up to the funding of equipment resources (specifically post- Foundation has been instrumental in shaping and guiding $50,000 (in the 1960s, the figure was $25,000, in the 1970s, production facilities) for artists. There is also a smattering of many of the directions taken by the community as a whole. $35,000) are made at the discretion of the director and do not small, somewhat unexpected grants, which indicates a de- The person responsible for that support and the directions require the approval of the board of trustees. While the arts sire to respond to the moment and a distinctly personal style. and humanities it encouraged is Howard Klein, who worked at the foundation program currently supports several fellow- Howard Klein came to the Rockefeller Foundation with a ship from 1967 to 1986, as director for arts from 1973 to 1983 and programs in which grants are often made through nomi- background as a musician and critic . He was born in 1931 in nations from the deputy director for arts and humanities from 1983 to 1986. field and panels, most ofthe grants awarded Teaneck, NJ, received a B.S. and M.S . in music at the Juil- in the The survey of the funding of video by the foundation since arts since the late 1960s have been made by Klein him- liard School as a scholarship student, and worked as a music self. In the field 1965, which accompanies this article, shows not only the of media arts, where no such fellowship pro- teacher and pianist for dancer Jose Limon. From 1962 to gram exists, Klein has been solely responsible for all but a 1967, Klein was a music reporter and critic for the New York few of the grants awarded.4 Times. He came to the foundation in 1967 as assistant direc- In tracing the history of the grants awarded in media and tor under Norman Lloyd and became the director of arts in MARITA STURKEN is an artist and critic of film and video in New television through Klein's program, a mixture of strategy and 1973 when Lloyd left. York City. This article was funded by a video writing eclecticism becomes grant from the apparent . Several trends can be traced : To understand the way in which Klein perceived his role as New York State Council on the Arts. support for artists' projects under the aegis of public televi- a funder and specifically as one of the primary and initial fund- AFTERIMAGE/January 1987 9

PERSONAL INFLUENCE

and artist-in-residencies from the foundation, including sup- port for his two large collaborative satellite broadcast proj- ects, Good Morning, Mr. Orwell (1984) and Bye, Bye Kipling (1986), and for his retrospective exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1982. Paik officially served as Klein's advisor during 1973. While he has received much publicity as an artist, Paik's role as an operator behind the scenes in the development of video art has remained largely unexamined . There is no question that Paik was a key figure in fostering video art in its infancy and assisting in its "museumization." He has been in- strumental in encouraging younger artists, among them Bill Viola, Kit Fitzgerald, and John Sanborn, and in orchestrating the founding of several organizations and programs. He often acted as liaison between Klein and the video community, in- troducing him to curators John Hanhardt, Barbara London, and David Ross (meetings that resulted in grants to the Whit- ney Museum of American Art, the Museum of Modern Art, and the Everson Museum, respectively), and provided the creative force behind several grant trends . Klein defines Paik's role: Nam June has the most extraordinary combination of self-efface- ment, in terms of giving everybody else credit, and also self-promo- tion, because he has always been very aware of his position in his- tory. In one sense, it is a manufactured position, but it isn't manufac- tured because it is in fact true. Histhinking has always been 50 years ahead of everyoneelse's. I would have a meetingwith Nam Juneand he would give me ideas, and I would say, "Nam June, I need a whole foundation just to follow up on three of your ideas."

In the late 1960s, as assistant and then associate director for arts, Klein began to look at public television and the role it could play in the support of artists. Certainly, this move could be seen as a response to artists such as Paik who were clamoring to get on the air waves and who had had only lim- ited opportunities to do so. It was in looking at the role played by other foundations and at the overall philosophy of the Howard Klein and Nam June Paik at the opening of Palk's 1982 retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art. Photo by Francene Rockefeller Foundation that Klein decided to concentrate on Keery. funding what could be seen essentially as research and de- velopment of television. During the 1960s, the Ford Founda- ers ofvideo art and artists' television, it is necessary to under- the Rockefeller name within U .S. culture. While the funding of tion gave many millions each year for the support of public stand how he saw his program and role within the largerfoun- media by the foundation was substantial, particularly during television. According to Klein, the 1970s, when it was almost the sole source of private dation itself . He drew his models for approaching a new, for all its in the field of media, it should be noted that it was on the Ford Foundation made the public television system, unestablished field, the wide open territory of a new art form monies weaknesses and strengths. I looked at it and, knowing Norman with no history or funders, from the overall history and philos- the average half that of the New York State Council on the Lloyd's take on support, said, "Well, we can never do that. If we are ophy of the Rockefeller Foundation . Arts (NYSCA) and significantly less than that of the National going to work in television, we really should support artists' research Endowment for the Arts (NEA) . However, in influence it was in television ." So that is what we started doing in 1967. . . . Thewhole After the founding of Rockefeller Institute, the foundation began to exceptionally important, in part because of the timeliness of question was: Can these public television stations not develop re- examine medical education, and the Flexner Report, which came out search and development arms in their own field? What industry of that, changed forever the way medicine was taught in this country. many of the grants and because of Klein's own style of grant doesn't have a research and development department? The Rockefeller Foundation has always stood for the green revolu- making. Klein was an active political figure in the media field, tion. We talk about life sciences now, but that was an experimental offering advice, providing support, and often negotiating on Klein's initial intent was to convince the foundation to give a term in the 1930s. Warren Weaverthought it would beveryimportant behalf of the organizations he funded. He was well aware of significant amount of support for public television, with "the for scientists from different disciplines to work together, so he offered grants for, say, a biologist towork with a mathematician, and the DNA the power of the Rockefeller Foundation and used it to benefit notion that if the experiment wasn't carried out at a substan- molecule was discovered because of Warren Weaver's grant pro- artists he felt were at the forefront of creativity. tial level, with major public television stations that were most gram. You come and you work at a place like this, and youthink, "Oh likely to welcome this sort of thing, that we would never know God, how am I going to measure up to those people?" Now that all It is impossible to discuss thefunding of media by Klein and what was possible." Indeed, from 1967 through 1977, the has to do with changing perceptions and attitudes. You don't need a private foundation to support the status quo. It has money that should the Rockefeller Foundation during the 1970s without foundation awarded more than $3.4 million for experimental be usedtotakerisks. Ifthe foundation challengesitselfat allto beper- elaborating on the role of Nam June Paik, who was Klein's of- works in public television . The three major projects initiated tinent, it has to think this way. What I did was come to the organiza- ficial and unofficial advisor for many years. Coming to the and funded by the foundation were the National Center for tion, get the feeling of it, thespirit and history, andsay, "Okay, howdo foundation as he did from a background as a musician and Experiments in Television (NCET) at KQED (San Francisco), you think that way in the arts?"5 music critic, Klein was not necessarily inclined to pay much the New Television Workshop at WGBH (Boston), and the Klein saw his role as a funder within the fledgling field of attentionto media. Also, while the foundation had made a few Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen (New York City). media in the mid-1960s, for instance experimental in con- media as one of both influence and response, and his role grants in the direction of Of these three, NCET was the most was in fact much more than simply thatof afoundation officer. to WNET (New York), WGBH (Boston), and KQED (San cept and the most process oriented. The genesis for NCET experimental programming, immediate predecessor, He was directly involved in the establishment of a number of Francisco) to produce some was a $150,000 grant that Klein's in to KQED influential media arts organizations and programs, and he there was no previous history of serious funding of media. assistant director Boyd Compton, initiated 1967 worked closely advising many organizations. He is often de- Klein's relationship with Paik was a keyfactor in his interest in for a television production of Paul Foster's play with Ellen scribed as an idealfunder by the fortunatewho received fund- the developing field of video art. !Heimskringla!, directed by Tom O'Horgan ing from him and who formed, in many ways, a kind of club. Paik's first encounter with Klein was far from auspicious . Stewart's La Mama Experimental Theater. The Corporation scathing review of one of funds also. In "Howard was a wonderful sort of guiding influence," says As a Times critic, Klein wrote a for Public Broadcasting (CPB) soon provided David Loxton, former director of the Television Laboratory at Paik's Fluxus performances during the Avant-Garde Festival 1967, Brice Howard, who had been executive producer of WNET/Thirteen, in New York in 1965. cultural programs at WNET, came out to run the program (which was not officially NCET until 1969). Brice Howard has in terms of keeping you focused in the right direction. At the same Mr. Paikis a rampant member ofthethe neo-Dada movement, whose the guiding force at head is John Cage. For this avant-garde segment, and it is a minor a very distinct philosophy, which was time hewas so clever about never making you feel inanywaythat he NCET through its years. He is a metaphysical thinker who was intruding orimposing what hefelt you shoulddo. Yetsomehowor one, the "happening" is the thing. You just get up and do whatever other he always seemed to be terribly pleased with whatever you comes to your head. . . . "The thing to do is keep the head alert, but maintained a strong rapport with younger artists in the radical ended up doing, as if to say, "Well, that was exactly what we thought empty." Mr. Paik seems to be succeeding . . . . Fraught with preten- environment of San Francisco in the late 1960s and was not you could have done." There are some people who simply write a sions of profundity, Mr. Palk's efforts lacked any spark of originality, products for public television. In- sensitivity ortalent.' interested in producing check and then say, "Call me at the end of the year and tell me what stead, he invited artists from different disciplines-poets, you did." But not Howard. He was enormously involved and support- ive, but at the same time it seemed to be a very hands-off thing. When Paik actually met Klein in 1967, the situation was dif- novelists, painters, sculptors, among them poets Robert ferent. "Howard wasn't anti-video," recalled Paik. "He was Creeley and Charles Olson, and sculptor Willard Rosen- That delicate balance of quiet influence is a major ingre- anti-happening . It is nice that Howard did not take that as a quist-to experiment with imaging devices at the center. dient in Klein's style. He exudes an enthusiasm for the arts bad example of my work. He is a good, straight guy. He is ab- Brice Howard said, "I wanted people who didn't care much told and artists, at the same time displaying a capacity to play ball solutely not a tricky guy. With Howard you always know about television ." When he initiallytook on the project, he .,,8 with the power brokers and assume the role of the guiding where you stand Thatyear, Paik had run out of money and KQED that "if you can accept the ideathat I might not give you father figure. For Klein, each grant, in effect, posed a ques- owed Con Edison a large sum. He had become resigned to one minute of recorded material, then I'll do it."'o tion, be it whether a public television station or a university leaving the country until Klein (newly hired at the foundation) This attitude, however heady it may appear from the per- system could foster artists' works for television or the ideal bailed him out by orchestrating a $13,750 grant to the State spective ofthe 1980s, dovetailed easily with the spirit inwhich way to support a large number of artists with essentially lim- University of New York at Stony Brook for Paik to become a the foundation, first through Compton and Lloyd and then ited funds. With hindsight, he is not reluctant to point out "consultant in communications research" (Allan Kaprow, who Klein, conceived of the possibility of television research and grants that were unsuccessful, but he stresses the initial was teaching at Stony Brook, was also responsible for initiat- development. The Rockefeller Foundation gave NCET questions posed and often answered by those grants . ing the grant) . During that time, Paik wrote the first of two re- $300,000 in 1971 to further this artists-in-residence program. There is a considerable mythology surrounding the role of ports he would write for the foundation, probably his most im- Brice Howard invited Paul Kaufman, from the University of Klein and the Rockefeller Foundation's funding of media, a portant essay, "Expanded Education for the Paper-Less So- California at Berkeley, to be resident scholar and then execu- mythology that in many ways attests to the image attached to ciety."9 Throughout the years, he received many other grants tive director of the program. NCET also sponsored interns

codirector Carol from public television stations and many artists-in-residence WGBH was actually the first of all three stations to support 1984 and, under the direction of Loxton and wide-ranging artists-in-resi- from foreign countries . experimentation, receiving funds from the Rockefeller Foun- Brandenburg, administered a Documentary Artists like Don Hallock, William Gwin, William Roarty, and dation in 1967 and, under the guidance of producer Fred Bar- dence program as well as the Independent and the NEA, and put together Robert Zagone created works at NCET . Others, like Stephen zyk, producing several early experimental shows, including Fund of the Ford Foundation of artists- Beck who developed his video synthesizer there, matured as an innovative 1967 series, "What's Happening Mr . Silver?" several series for broadcast. There was a stable TVTV, Ed Emshwiller, John Sanborn and Kit artists there . Brice Howard created a "laid-back" atmosphere and the seminal The Medium is theMedium (1969). The New Nam June Paik, Kriegman, Skip Blumberg- where these artists could experiment with image-processing Television Workshop was not formally established until 1974, Fitzgerald, Bill Viola, Mitchell many machines and audio synthesizers. Most of the works that but experimental activities under the general name "the who produced works at the lab and who came back The Rockefeller Foundation came out of the NCET were processed, abstract explora- Workshop" were thriving throughout the 1960s. The early times as artists-in-residence. in 1971 and pro- tions, often concerned with issues of surface and formal im- days at WGBH were marked by a truly innovative and un- gave the lab $150,000 to get established .1 million, agemaking . In fact, to many other videomakers in the San usual approach to producing and broadcasting. In 1972, the vided core support from 1972 to 1976 to atotal of $1 grants. Francisco area, there was a specific NCET style, which was workshop produced a '/z-inch video festival for broadcast, in addition to smaller artist-in-residence behind providing those kinds of seen by some as elitist and heavily concerned with image and and in 1969 sponsored Nam June Paik and Shuya Abe in The central philosophy television is one that re- sound over content. Certainly central to the philosophy of the building their well-known Paik/Abe Video Synthesizer, which funds to support artists producing produce the place was the concern that artists, in being given direct ac- was initiated with a four-hour New Year's Eve broadcast set flects Klein's desire to have arts program funding funding atthe Rocke- cess to the tools for creating television, would create a new, to Beatles' music. Over the years, WGBH sponsored a long equivalent impact of the other program The intent, therefore, was not simply to humanistic kind of television ." Also key to this philosophy list of artists, such as video artists Paik, Peter Campus, and feller Foundation. the institution of televi- was the importance of allowing artists time and space in Stan VanDerBeek, dancers Karole Armitage and Trisha fund artists but to attempt to change Nam June Paik which to experiment without thinking of products, in an unpres- Brown, and composer John Cage. Through the interests of sion and hence have a broad cultural impact. not been atthe Rockefeller Foun- sured atmosphere . According. to Howard, "we tried very seri- individual producers such as Barzyk, Nancy Mason Hauser, emphasizes that had Klein daring and convincing ously not to make it too heavy and profound, so we invited Rick Hauser, Susan Dowling, Ron Hays, and others, the dation in the early 1970s and not been unprecedented amounts of money for the people essentially to come play ." WGBH project was primarily concerned with meshing video enough to ask for facilities, they would never In 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation gave NCET $300,000 with other media and producing hybrids with music, dance, experimental public television this scope. "Howard is a mover, a social to develop a program working with students. Paul Kaufman and theater. have happened on a gambler's sense," said Paik. "He noted: The workshop has undergone many changes and now enterpriser with much of

Both pages: Snapshots taken at the WNET Television Laboratory. (Photos courtesy John Godfrey .)

This be- The time had come to try to see if you could do something about exists as a much smaller entity, as a cosponsor with the Insti- far outstripped his predecessors at the foundation ." changing the moribund characteristics ofteaching about television in tute of Contemporary Art of the Contemporary Art Television lief in the power of private monies to help change institutions the Universities . . . . We began a project that lasted for three years (CAT) Fund . Barzyk saw the handwriting on the wall in terms is an important component of the way Klein approached the which initially had people from the Center going out and visiting a lot of the direction of funding, as institutions like the NEA were funding of the arts. of campuses, bringing tapes along, going to art departments . . . . its problems . As the Well, out of this group of initial visits, about 5 or 6 places kind of sur- leaning toward funding media arts centers, not public televi- The TV lab was, of course, not without workshop sites and eventually these became more the management of video community expanded and opportunities for artists grew faced as possible 12 sion workshops . In 1978, he convinced or less mini-centers in themselves. WGBH not only to give the equipment from the workshop to more numerous, they were less willing to accept theterms of- the newly-founded Boston Film/Video Foundation, but also fered by the lab (which in the early years meant complete Eventually satellite programs were set up at three univer- initially to underwrite its rent . rights over tapes, and in later years a high percentage of partial fund- sities: Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Southern The overall intent of the Television Laboratory at WNET/ rights for many projects for which it provided only Methodist University in Dallas, and the Rhode Island School Thirteen had a great deal to do with the attitude of its director, ing). Access to the facility became an issue, and there were of Design, where Howard and others from NCET conducted David Loxton . Despite the stipulation by Klein and Lloyd that charges that the lab artists formed an elite and closed club. TV lab as workshops with students and encouraged similar kinds of fa- the lab was not required to produce broadcastable material, (Loxton characterizes the selection process at the cilities to develop. Howard left NCET in late 1974, and soon Loxton thought it was essential to the longevity of the pro- one that developedfrom a "totally autocratic to atotally demo- afterwards, underthe guidance of the CPB, NCET moved out gram, as well as to its mandate of producing artists' program- cratic" one, adding that in the earliest days, with Rockefeller of the KQED offices to Berkeley. The organization began to ming for broadcast television, that it actually produce pro- providing the bulk of the funds, he alone chose the artists .) after the fall apart in 1975 . Klein recounts: grams for broadcast and that they be aired. The Rockefeller However, many of these charges came to the fore Foundation had given money to WNET in 1966 for a series of foundation pulled out of the lab, when they were raised by I always regretted them moving the center, because it pulled it out of media panel (which stipulated broadcasting, just like I wanted programs on Shakespearian drama (in which Norman Lloyd NYSCA's access-conscious broadcasting . I always wanted it in to the artists within its playwrights in theaters . . . . When I first went there, here was the sta- had encouraged the producers to concentrate on the process certain conditions more favorable tion and here was a little room, and Stephen Beck had incense burn- of producing Shakespeare rather than the actual production) . grants) . To the non-panel-dictated Rockefeller Foundation that to me was ing and an Indian cloth hanging over a light bulb, and In 1970, the New York State Council on the Arts gave WNET (and, it should be noted, to many artists in the early 1970s), interesting . What wasn't interesting was to see them set up their own not as important as artists getting access that KQED, in clos- funds to set up an experimental project, which artist Jackie these issues were office in Berkeley . . . . In fact what happened was . ing out the accounts, demanded the return of an encoder, which was Cassen headed . This project faltered when Cassen and the to equipment and broadcast the basis of Stephen Beck's inventions, and he had to return it to other artists had problems meshing with the TV people at It is an unwritten rule of the Rockefeller Foundation that it KQED. We ended up giving him a grantfor $4,000 in 1976 to replace WNET . A buffer system was needed, and, at that point, amid cannot fund any one program with core support for more than it. That just tells you how bad things were between them. It was a de- in order to prevent stagnation in programs and with many discussions with artists and producers about the need several years, structive situation . They weren't able to continue a relationship of recipients . When the time the station as it went through changes and problems . for a center in New York, the foundation decided it was timeto to allow for a broad spectrum establish a TV lab at WNET. Klein recalls that came to pull out of theTV lab (after six years of core support), John Knowles, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation Ultimately, the question raised by the demise of NCET is and WNET kept coming to us with more proposals for Shakespeare, and a prime supporter of the funding of video, called a meet- whether any institution would support that kind of process- said, "It's much more important that artistshave an en- Norman Lloyd ing designed to help facilitate new funding for the lab . "It in- oriented milieu for very long. Brice Howard says that, of all of vironment where they can do creative work," and we talked about had been made . So we volved PBS, CPB, WGBH, and WNET," says Klein, "and the experimental television centers, "we were the least likely WGBH and KQED, because those grants said to them, "If you would think of making a place where artists can John Knowles said 'We cannot continue to fund this forever . to survive . . . . TV is a great sprawling institution outside of the work, we would be interested. . . ." Nam June, Russell Connor, Fred We think it is a very important thing to do, but as we make the commercial world. It is an abstraction in the non-profit world others were very involved with the development of this Barzyk, and announcement that our grants are going to diminish, we want unless it is veiled as a product." The question of who NCET project . Jay Iselin (president of WNET) wanted to put Bob Kotlowitz, publishing world, in charge . to tell you people so that you will be able to do something ."' actually served and its relationship to the video community in who was just at WNET from out of the The artists kicked up their heels and said, "What is this? This man in Even when put on the spot, CPB offered only a few grants to San Francisco is also one to be considered, and one that all his years has never done one thing forvideo artists in publishing . the lab and then refused to take up the role the Rockefeller would be raised again in the aftermath of its closing . this now?" I heard that and I said to Jay, "I'm Why should he be given Foundation had relinquished . The lab officially closed in In comparison to NCET, the New Television Workshop at sorry, but this man has created such probiems with the artists who 1984 . The demise of the TV lab and scaling down ofthe New WGBH and the Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen would be working there, that I think itwould be a mistake. We need to find somebody the artists would welcome ." So, Nam June asked Bar- Television Workshop were also the result of policy decisions, were less overtly experimental and closer to the model of zyk if he knew anyone, and Barzyk suggested David Loxton . . . . The broadcast structures, and changing times. As the community television production in which artists-in-residence produced were NYSCA money softened the ground, but WGBH and NCET diversified and artists gained other opportunities to produce works intended for broadcast TV. These programs were run much more important in paving the way . That made it possible for us work, the central importance these programs had held in the by innovative television producers (most of whom are still to make a $150,000 grant, and then larger amounts after that. earlyyears simply diminished . And public television itself was wvo"king ir} public televisior today) instead of scholars and i- s becoming increasingly tight and stodgy. Loxton states, tl?eomsts . While t he NC-"T program could represent the free- In many ways, the Tele Laboratory at WNE 7hir- to,r, style of the 1960s, the WGBH and WNET projects were teen was the flagship pro)i :,r efell^rFcurzdl;^n's Probably one of the most important statements to make about the an ~ forays into funding artists' hs .~!,,.br ... . From. .ar^ .,-, 2f_. _o roteofr"I:e Rockefe .s4r Foundation is that publ,,"~sievision has largely

AFTERIMAGE/January 1987 1 1

ship with public television and in lobbying these people," says Reilly . "He understood the influence of the Rockefeller Foun- dation, and he tried to make a difference . It is his political in- volvement that distinguishes him from other funders."' 3 In the 1970s, public television evoked a promise that today seems no longer possible . In the early days ofvideo art, itwas the one mainstream manifestation of video that could be ap- proached with the aim ofchanging institutions . While criticism about the limited access to many of these programs and facil- ities bears attention, these simply were not central issues in the early 1970s. Since that time, the media community has become increasingly geared toward peer panels of artists evaluating grants and more conscious of what access means. The issue of whether panels or individuals should award grants is raised in any evaluation of an individual like Klein, and indeed it did become a larger issue toward the end of his tenure at the Rockefeller Foundation.

Klein not only saw television as a monolithic institution in need of change, he also saw the role of the artist as one with the potential to effect cultural change. The first project to ad- dress this issue was the Visa series, which the foundation funded through the TV lab and Cable Arts Foundation, an or- ganization set up by Russell Connor in 1973 to getwork about art on cable television in New York.'° Cable Arts Foundation produced a series for several years on a New York City-owned cable channel (Channel A, hence the series title "A For Art") of work about art, much of which was older programming dug up from the archives of WNET. In 1975, the Rockefeller Foundation gave a grant to fund a 10-city project (not related to the Global Village Ten-Cities Project), in which Cable Arts staff member Curtis Davis toured the country exploring the potential of arts program- ming on cable in 10 model cities. From 1976 through 1978, Cable Arts received substantial support from the foundation to coproduce the Visa series and to set up an editing facility (installed by artists Bill Viola and John Sanborn) . The impetus behind the Visa series came from Nam June Paik, who had conceived of producing a series by artists about other cultures that could counter the crisis-oriented ap- proach of television news . The notion was to fund artists to take the porta-pak approach of documentation to produce non-crisis-oriented works. "Nam June wanted to call it'Peace Correspondent,"' Klein recalls . "Now isn't that a better title? You don't tamper with originality . I hated it when the market- ing people at WNET said 'Well, we really can't do anything with Peace Correspondent .' What is Visa? It's a credit card!" Klein called a meeting to try out the idea on potential partici- pants and then put together a group of grants to fund the series jointly through the TV lab and the International Televi- sion Workshop, a subdivision of Cable Arts Foundation. Ulti- mately about $200,000 went into the project, divided into smaller grants . Thus, fellowships to Viola and Connor in 1977 actually went into Cable Arts to fund Visa projects . The intent was also to build up a smaller institution like Cable Arts as a kind of international center for cross-cultural projects (it ceased functioning not long after this project) . Other grants included $3,000 to the Ministry of Education and become, in its absence, the perfect example of what happens when air . The question that I was asking Cultural Af- was, Can a university be a major fairs in the Solomon Islands and $850 for Bill committees make decisions. The decision-making process in public programming center for public television? If not, why not? And we Viola in 1976, television is now a committee process, which means that by defini- learned . You see, there is no intrinsic which were grants arranged through Nam June Paik. Paik tion, reason why not, but there are the more people you get involved in a decision the less innova- political reasons . had been taping in the Solomons for his piece Guadacanal tive the result is going to be. You get fouror five different funders, with all of Requiem (1977) . He needed more material after his return, their vested interests, coming together to fund a program, and Klein was also involved in supporting you also end up with the lowest common denominator an extensive univer- so he sent Bill Viola (who could fly for free since his father of program- sity-based program of visiting ming. You don't have a Rockefeller or a Howard Klein saying, "Here's artists, which was engineered worked for Pan Am) to collect material for him and arranged by Douglas Davis a chunk of money, you don't have to go and find anyone else to sup- initially as the Video Curriculum Develop- for the ministry to get a porta-pak. Viola produced two tapes port this. Give Nam June $30,000 and ment tell him to make something Project through the Kansas City Art Institute and then on the Solomons, one with the islanders documenting them- wonderful with it . Don't worry what CPB or some corporation wants." through Davis's It was a glorious own International Network for the Arts . The selves and one of his impressions there for Visa. luxury . project began as a response to the fact that no video courses The tapes produced forthis series are diverse and eclectic : were being offered The fostering of artists' television by the Rockefeller Foun- in art schools. While the foundation had Vietnam: Picking Up the Pieces (1978) by Downtown Com- dation was not limited to public television workshops ; it also funded NCET to go into schools and do workshops, their ap- munity Television Center (Jon Alpert and Keiko Tsuno), You proach was primarily included several projects under the auspices ofother kinds of image-processing oriented . The Video Can't Lick Stamps in China (1978) by Nam June Paik and Curriculum Development cultural organizations. In 1976, the foundation gave a grant to Project was designed to teach Gregory Battcock, To Siena With Love (1978) by Connor and video as an art the State University of New York (SUNY) to undertake a form, and it arranged workshops with visiting Viola, Running with the Bulls (1977) by Bill and Esti Galili Mar- artists in study of the possibility ofthe university system producing arts a broad range of schools in the U.S . and (later, as the pet, Paris a la Carte (1978) by Don Foresta, Kit Fitzgerald, International Network programming for television. Through the Albany-based office for the Arts) in foreign countries . Much and John Sanborn, and a tape on India by Ingrid and Bob emphasis of Programs in Arts, which produces arts events and pro- was placed on getting tapes broadcast and cable- Wiegand, among others . Despite Paik's initial intention, this cast in these programs, grams for the SUNY university system, the Rockefeller Foun- which beyond university contri- was not a coherent group of tapes ; they were stylistically butions dation initiated the SUNY/The Arts on Television project . Pro- were solely funded by Rockefeller for a total of quite different, with variable degrees of success. This series $274,000 between 1976 duced by Patricia Kerr Ross, director of Programs in the Arts, and 1981 . By the early 1980s, ac- also arrived at a time when the rules of the game in getting art- cording to Davis, it was clear this project received over $600,000 from the foundation from that many more schools were ists'work on public television were beginning to change, and beginning to set 1979 to 1983 to produce a broad range of programs for public up video courses, and the program ended it represents Klein et al.'s last attempt to claim a niche for art- when the television . foundation ceased providing funds. ists on public television (in the year following the end of The initiation of the SUNY program is a good example of Rockefeller's core support of the TV lab). David Loxton re- Throughout Klein's quiet influence on the direction of a program . When the 1970s, Klein functioned in many ways as a calls that spokesperson for Ross came to see Klein about her program, he suggested and supporter of artists in the face of the Visa was the series that finished me at PBS for quite that she explore the media arts . The question posed by Klein obstacles of public and commercial television systems, often some time. I had getting involved in gone out on a limb, screaming for a decent weekly slot, but we lost was, Since SUNY, like many universities, has both artists and fierce letter exchanges with PBS when it that battle, and they only wanted rejected to take the Vietnam tape . The reality television studios, would it be possible for the university to Rockefeller-supported independent projects . In is that they were a very mixed bag. I think that PBS was furious that I think of itself as a producer of television programming for the 1976, he was one of the funders for the Ten Cities Project of had convinced them that they should run it as a series, and the tapes Global were so different in their quality, everything arts? After initially funding a study of the equipment situation Village, a five-year project consisting of meetings from this hard-hitting Viet- around the country designed nam documentary to some slight works. It was an idea that was too at SUNY, the foundation supported the production of a large to inform independent produc- abstract . There was an ers about the ambiguity in the purpose of Visa, between number of works, including a film of a new Samuel Beckett opportunities and problems of public television. being simply a way to continue to get money to artists to make tapes John play, Rockaby (1981) by D .A . Pennebaker and Chris Reilly, director of Global Village, notes that while Klein and increasing the broadcast presence of video artists on public tele- was not one vision via a series . The endless problem Hegedus, Re: Soundings (1981) by Kit Fitzgerald and John of the primary funders of this and other projects with independent work and dealing with public television, video art is how you provide a regular broadcast presence for works Sanborn, The West (1984) by Steina Vasulka, and otherfilms he was one of the most influen- whose strength tial and supportive lies not in their similarity but in their diversity . and tapes on artists who were involved with SUNY, many of participants, going to several meetings and talking to many people . In which were shown on public television in New York State and 1979, Klein organized with The Visa series also marks the end of the period when Reilly a conference several on national broadcast . The SUNY program produced of independent producers and public tele- Klein was looking to public television as the direction for the vision representatives to a group of interesting artistic works for television . Ultimately, address the issues of independents funding of video artists . However, the intention behind the and public television, however, it did not utilize the base of the university in the way entitled "Independent Television Mak- series was a major part of Klein's, as well as Paik's, philoso- ers and Public Communications Klein had hoped. He explains : Policy ." Klein had also or- phy, both of whom conceive of artists as cultural emissaries. chestrated an earlier meeting at the foundation with repre- When the idea of Visa petered out, Klein was already in- A number of the programs that they produced were university perfor- sentatives from commercial television mances, for and independents, volved in the formation of an organization that would foster an example a wonderful documentary on Elliot Carter with a giving independents musical group in Buffalo, which was the kind of unprecedented access to TV execu- exchange of ideas between producers from around the world . project thatI was won- tives, because he dering if it would be possible for them to do. . . . They went outside for knew, according to Reilly, that they would It became the International Public Television Screening Con- the technical people and ultimately they went outside forthe artists as not refuse an invitation to the Rockefeller Foundation . "How- ference (INPUT) . well. They had a lot of trouble developing a series and getting on the ard was deeply involved and concerned about the relation- INPUT began in part as a response to the growing need for

more communication between European and American pro- the foundation and Klein's role in ducers media. The foundation provided initial funds for smaller organiza- . As Russell Connor tells it: Klein's overall approach to funding can be seen as a deli- tions such as Global Village, helped to initiate video exhibi- I cate balance between initiation and had gotten involved with an organization called CIRCOM (Interna- response : tions at Anthology Film Archives, and provided ongoing sup- tional Cooperative for Action and Research in Communications) . It You start with a philosophy port to the Downtown Community Television Center. In the was a mixed group of renegades from various European television about philanthropy, that a foundation does not exist to support the status quo, and realm of exhibition, this policy of funding equipment helped stations who met as a kind of sidebar to the Prix Italia every year and then you contact people talked theory and tell them the way you think and invite them to be part ofthat think- establish programs of video exhibitions at the about television and screened each other's experimen- ing. You Museum of tal works. I talked about the Rockefeller challenge them to come up with ideas that will challenge the Modern Art (MoMA) and the Whitney Foundation's interest in inter- foundation. So you have an entrepreneurial Museum of American national television to Sergio Borelli, and we decided that it would be attitude, but not an en- Art, as well as the post-production good to have trepreneurial office in the sense of calling people up and telling them facility of the Long Beach an international conference if we could convince the Museum of Art . For Rockefeller Foundation to sponsor it. what to do. these museums, the actual initial money Then I went back to Howard provided by the Klein, who liked the idea . There was a very charming moment . 1 re- foundation was minimal-$13,900 for the member thinking that it would be in New York and sponsored Klein was always trying to get a handle on the general Whitney, $20,000 for MoMA, and $30,900 for Long Beach- Cable by Arts and the Rockefeller Foundation, but Howard said, "Come trends of the video community and the most interesting work, but remarkably influential . It was the seed moneythat pushed over here ." In his office he had these paintings on the wall by hiswife and he would call He . periodic meetings with artists to explore those programs into existence and gave them the ability to pointed to a little one of a villa overlooking Lake Como and said, new directions "Let's have it here ."' 5 . By the mid-1970s, it was becoming obvious seek out other funding sources. It provided the Whitney with that the video community was expanding rapidly, and that it its first exhibition equipment and allowed Barbara London at simply was The Bellagio Conference was held in May 1977 at the not possible for the foundation to fund adequately MoMA to work full time on her program, begin a lecture a large Rockefeller Foundation's conference center in Bellagio, Italy, number of artists in a field in which new advances in series, and begin acquiring tapes. If the power of a little bit of technology and included Chloe Aaron of PBS, Eugene Kaft of CPB, Fred were always necessitating equipment upgrading . Rockefeller money can be seen anywhere in the field of A Barzyk, Sergio Borelli, Russell Connor, James Day, produc- certain number of the funding decisions Klein made can be video, it is with these small yet timely grants to what are now seen as posing ers from French, Belgian, German, Danish, and Italian televi- the question of how to fund a large number of the primary exhibition programs of video in this country. artists with sion, and artists Nam June Paik and Bill Viola (then a young essentially limited funds. Issues of access, whom the foundation money would and upstart who was invited should serve, and how best to to attend when there was an open I was beset from all angles : give us this, "be the most help to the most space and he was give us that. I talked very number of artists" all came already in the country) . It resulted in a re- closely to people like Nam June, Russell Connor, Fred Barzyk, and a tothe fore with the foundation's in- port and a plan for the first INPUT conference . Klein reiter- whole cast of characters that I was in pretty frequent contact with . In volvement in the San Francisco Bay Area . After the demise of 1975, for instance, I ated in his introduction to the conference report his belief that decided that I needed to have a panel meeting, NCET in 1975, Klein decided that the foundation must con- so I brought in a group with Steina Vasulka, "television is uniquely capable of increasing understanding Douglas Davis, and tinue to support artists in the Bay Area, and he went about try- others, and I asked them, "What are the common denominators? among the peoples of the world, bringing viewers the arts and ing to establish how they could do it best. entertainments of other lands and documenting daily life abroad . . . . Yet the international exchange of material that is, in the broadest sense, `cultural' remains quite limited .,,16 The belief that the dominance of world screens by commercial U.S. programming needed to be replaced by a more equal exchange, with more work by independents and artists, per- vaded the Bellagio conference report, and the politics of the formative years of INPUT displayed the need for Americans to look more closely at the European television community. Klein recalls :

One of the difficulties that we had in the early struggles of keeping INPUT together was the international relations from our side . We were the bad guys. The reason they made me president, I am con- vinced, was because Rockefeller was neutral. They could not allow CPB or PBS to be head of it ; they had to get the one person in the room who didn't belong to an organization and that was me.

James Day, former president of KQED and WNET and a pro- fessor at Brooklyn College, comments that Klein was a "kind of guiding spirit in his approach to INPUT. He needed a lot of patience . These were hard gatherings because ofthe cultural variety ."" INPUT was one of Klein's favorite projects . He was presi- dent of its board from 1978 and 1981 and funded it for five years. The conference was set up in many ways to promote discussion between producers . He says of it: Stills from the 1967 series "What's Happening Mr. Silver?" Courtesy of WGBH . It is a producers' conference . The value of it is that producers usually never get to talk to other producers about the decisions that they make. "When you made this documentary on nuclear disarmament, why didn't you interview so-and-so?" This is what the Europeans say. What can the foundation do that will be the most help to the most I wentto San Francisco and invited awhole bunch The Americans all talk about money. number of artists?" of people to the li- And they said, "Well, everybody needs a time- brary, because I needed a neutral, non-television space. I didn't want base corrector ." So we gave a few $10,000 equipment grants for to go to KQED orAnt Farm or Open Eyeor Marin As it has expanded and been attended time-base Community Videoor by a larger spec- correctors . any of the TV projects because they all wanted money for them- trum of producers and stations (attendance rose from 200 in selves, and I knew that the foundation would The most visible way in which Klein pursued not be willing to fund 1978 to 700 in 1986) with annual conferences in different this philoso- eight or nine organizations. So I presented them with the figures, that phy was in helping to establish major over the countries, INPUT has necessarily become less non-profit post-produc- past number of years we had made over $600,000 in grants discussion tion facilities around the country. Significant to that area, and I said, "That is a considerable oriented, but Klein emphasizes that slowly the amounts of fund- investment. What can effects of the ing were given by the we do that will benefit all of you in some way? There is every likeli- conference can be seen in the Rockefeller Foundation during the changing attitudes of the 1970s specifically to hood thatthe foundation will continue tofund atthat level if there is an Americans to both INPUT and support the purchase of video equip- organization that benefits a number of foreign programming : ment, either to artists in some way . Will you establish exhibition programs or to initiate or people please find a way." And they were very uncomfortable . Each In the evolution of INPUT, the American participation was minimal . It revamp editing facilities . Even as late as 1981, Klein gave a one wanted to come up privately and say, °WeH, that's all very well was the Rockefeller Foundation and mostly the work of indepen- total of $300,000 across the board to eight media and good, but all you really need to do is give us the money." It was dents. Then, four years arts centers wonderful . Itwas my ago, SCETV (South Carolina Educational throughout the country . This money San Francisco period where I learned aboutSan Television) got involved, and we began to have an American was significant enough Francisco democracy. I thought I was a liberal ; I had contin- to lead many artists to think that the no idea ofthe re- gent on the board that would counterbalance the Europeans and Rockefeller Foundation sidual prejudices I had about the democratic process, but they told Canadians . But for a long time, the lack of curiosity on the part of the had become interested in funding only equipment and not art- me. It was a great learning experience . I was playing the roleof funder Americans in the profession was appalling . ists. The fact is, though, that this bulk of funding and organizer, the patrone, if you will . I would meet with them and was respon- challenge them sible for giving the independent video and be nice and try and get people to cooperate . It Day comments community a boost in was difficult, but it never would have happened that, "the greatest influence of INPUT is the terms of establishing it firmly on without all that. way it stirred atechnical basis. Withoutthe the imaginations of producers, the cross-fertili- money provided by the foundation, the equipment used by One can imagine the intense response to this kind of pro- zation process, which is hard to measure . It has given visibil- artists throughout the country would have been of signifi- posal-asking a diverse community of video artists and ity to programs that would have been lost in major markets." cantly less advanced quality, and the fact that no foundation documentarians to coalesce and form a proposal for one The Rockefeller Foundation gave INPUT over $250,000 or- has followed in this policy has led to an equipment crisis in the ganization to be financed by the foundation between 1978 and 1982 primarily to fund the transportation (especially in the field of independent media. wake of funding an organization like costs of producers from the non-host countries . As the foun- NCET, which had not A look at the grant list shows the fallacy of the notion that been designed to serve the needs of the Bay Area dation ceased funding, these costs were picked up by the video com- the foundation funded individual artists until the mid-1970s munity) . San Francisco has an active and United States Information Agency (USIA) and CPB, highly varied video with the and then began funding only equipment . Not only were very community to this day. For host country underwriting each conference. While a variety of reasons, the media INPUTcan few individual artists grants awarded before the mid-1970s, arts centers in the be seen to have continued the Bay Area seem to alternate between re- cross-cultural exchange con- but a large number of such grants were distributed in garding ceived by Klein and Paik the late each other with competitive suspicion and coopera- with Visa, it is more oriented to 1970s, afterthe foundation ceased giving the documentaries than bulk of its fund- tive spirit. Certainly Klein's dilemma of how to mesh the con- to video art, which plays only a minor role ing to public television projects, at the including grants to such di- trolling criteria of the foundation board of trustees and the var- conference. In the late 1970s, Klein saw the funding of verse individuals as Ros Barron, Bill and Louise Etra, Her- ied community of San Francisco was no simple task . How- video artists in different terms. mine Freed, Ron Hays, Shigeko Kubota, Alan and Susan ever, the act of dangling this financial carrot before the com- Raymond, Wendy Clarke, and Amy Greenfield . However, the munity inevitably heightened its competitive spirit. Periodically throughout his tenure, Klein stepped back and arbitrary nature of many of these grants could explain why it By all accounts, the resulting dynamic was reevaluated the way in which the foundation supported a par- highly emo- was difficult to see a logical program of individual artist sup- tional and complicated, with each organization ticular field. In 1976, for instance, he funded Johanna Gill, attempting to port at the foundation . Certainly in reviewing this list of grants, prevent any other from gaining who had just completed a Ph.D. on video art at Brown control . A decision was made Univer- it is easy to question whetherthe foundation really did support to have the foundation sity . to write a report for the foundation called fund a $30,000 study in 1976 by three Video: State of the doctrine of serving the needs of individual artists, since a relatively the Art, for which she travelled around non-affiliated participants : Daniel Del Solar, Brooks the country and inter- significant amount of this funding went into building viewed artists and people institu- Johnson, and Judith Williams. Some members of the com- involved with media arts centers. tions and post-production programs . The report, There, of course, lies munity thought funding a study instead of giving the moneyto written in a casual, conversational style, was felt Klein's dilemma . In a growing field, by many how does a foundation artists was just another example of misguided bureaucracy . in the video community to evoke the Rockefeller's with limited funds best spend its dollars? How can a founda- However, the study, which summarized the needs of the Bay stand on who and what was interesting and fundable in the tion give only individual grants to artists if there is no support Area through circulating questionnaires to 500 artists and field . Indeed, it concentrated heavily on several Rockefeller- structure in the field? Says Klein, producers, effectively provided the basis for the formation funded programs, including NCET, the New Television Work- of . . . We made grants to individuals to buy the Bay Area Video Coalition (BAVC) . shop n f . - .= r;

However, for media, all of these policy changes meant, by and large, the suspension of a substantial amountof funding. Grants that were made in the early 1980s by the foundation stemmed from previous commitments made to certain institu- tions and individuals . Klein recalls, It became more and moredifficult to do more in video because the ad- ministration wasn't interested. They didn't think it was important. It's the same university bias (many of the trustees are academics) against television that made universities forfeit the opportunity they had in the beginnings of public television when they owned the stations .

If anything, Klein himself displayed a pro-television bias throughout his tenure at the foundation . He notes that when Robert Ashley came to him about a film project on compos- ers, he was the one who suggested Ashley do it on video (which he did) . Klein made a decision early in the 1970s to fund video instead of film . "For all of those years I felt that the foundation should concentrate only on video because no- body else did ." This became an issue in San Francisco with the initiation of BAVC, because the local filmmaking commu- nity was angry that the coalition was designated as specifi- cally for video . By the early 1980s, however, Klein felt video was sufficiently established, and he was one of the ini- Sundance Institute for Ron Hayes working with the Paik-Abe synthesizer . Courtesy of WGBH. tial funders and board members ofthe Film and Television, an organization begun by Robert Bed- 1974), are chosen by panels and through ford designed to help independent filmmakers, and he sup- zation was conceived, clearly not everyone could be satisfied in place since and ally artists with institutions that ported the Black Filmmaker Foundation when it was begin- the final product, but as it celebrates its tenth anniversary nominating committees with Klein, ning operations. it is seen increasingly as an organization that pro- can facilitate their work . Says this year, He was also one of the initial funders and supporters of the for the Bay Area media community . things : they give vides a base All of the programs that I put together try to do two Alliance of Media Arts Centers (NAMAC), along with as a financially healthy organization link the artist to an organization that does National Waldron set up BAVC money to artists, and they director of the media program at the NEA. expanding its wide range of funding their work-playwrights/theaters, composers/symphonies -be- Brian O'Doherty, and was instrumental in money, and I as a means of creating a national at BAVC alienated cause I don't believe that it's enough justto give people NAMAC was conceived support, despite the fact that her tenure to give institutions money. The film and video. He was the marked by certainly don't think it's enough just presence for centers dealing with certain factions of the media community and was grantmaking that we need in our country now is good money conferences in 1979 in founda- kind of that initial funder for NAMAC's first two battles over the use of some funds. Realizing that the for artists linking them to the institutions, giving them the key to CO, and of- that the playwrights know that Lake Minnewaska, NY, and in 1980 in Boulder, tion would not fund the coalition forever and that BAVC was door . We carefully word the grant so Haller, to writea word for that theater and the theater doesn't fered the organization advice and services. Robert too grant dependent, Waldron set up a two-tiered system of they don't have have to produce anything bythat playwright . They are not required to one of the founders of NAMAC, says, "He never gave too payment where the facility would be used by commercial who are serious, the produce anything . If you are dealing with people much money, but enough so that we could go somewhere to earn income to subsidize the non-profit projects . work, so why must you insist they do work? clients whole point is to do with it. 2° While it is still supported by grants, BAVC has a high earned- had also In 1986, Klein brought in John Hanhardt, curator of film and income percentage, which, in a sense, offsets the money it Klein was aware that the video community video at the Whitney Museum, as a consultant to the arts and received from Rockefeller . Klein was instrumental in ad- changed and that the foundation's role in video funding would once humanities program . His task was to design a program within throughout the years he funded it and in helping necessarily have to change . Not only had the funding of pro- vising BAVC to fund video and film and inform the depart- itself of the foundation. Waldron was duction centers become less popular at the foundation, but it the foundation the organization wean the scope of his work . Hanhardt conducted a has an entrepreneurial and active was time to rethink how to fund artists . In 1979, Klein began to ment about aware of his role : "Howard for the program staff, which in addition to uncommon . BAVC would the idea of establishing a fellowship program in series of seminars approach to grant-making that is explore associate director Steven Lavine 1a its rocky be- queried the field with this idea and in 1981 ar- Arthurs and Klein included never have happened without him . Despite media. He Buchwalter and Lynn Szwaja . arts cen- choose seven artists for fellowships in and program associates Ellen ginnings, BAVC has emerged as a significant media ranged for a panel to fellowship program, through institutions but did not He wrote a report recommending a ter, with an annual budget of over $500,000, through which a video. The grants were made December . with the institution . which was pending before the board of trustees in very large number of independent projects have been pro- require the artists to spend the money fellow- Gary Hill, Dan If this program is approved, it could mean a $300,000 duced. In many ways, it can be seen as fulfilling Klein's intent Grants were made to Joan Jonas, Bill Viola, are ship program with an international focus for film and provide a base from which to fund as many artists as possi- Sandin, Juan Downey, and Frank Gillette . (These grants to video artists . at the same time demonstrating the difficulty of fa- listed under 1979 on the accompanying list because the ble, while However, other policy changes have transpired that make of philosophy . money was allocated in 1979, butthey were not awarded until cilitating that kind funding of media and the arts in general sub- 1981). Nam June Paik, who maneuvered in the selection pro- the foundation's larger changes . In the summer of 1986, a deci- so that he was not on the panel in order to be eligible for ject to much The 1970s can certainly be seen as the heyday of media cess change the guidelines for the arts and fellowship, defined Klein's philosophy as "combining broad- sion was made to funding at the Rockefeller Foundation . During those years, a it is quite possible that a policy of art world" in order to produce the kind of result humanities program . Thus, media often comprised 20% of the arts budget, with an aver- cast and the , .h part of the arts and trustees would respona to. international exchange will become $500,000 annually,' 9 and the funding oftelevision was that the board of will probably eventually age of wanted to make sure that I got a humanities mandate, a change that category in the foundation's annual re- "from the beginning Howard they now listed as a separate and he knew that I would mean reevaluating the fellowship programs as foundation, there was significant support for grant because I needed the money . AI- port . Within the to have a result ." stand. Decisions on this will be finalized in spring 1987 several trustees, key among them get results . He said that to continue we had the funding of media from philosophic berta Arthurs stresses that the foundation will continue to CBS, and John Knowles, But Paik was not among the recipients. Klein is Frank Stanton, former president of his support artists and will most likely increase its funding to his death in 1979 . about the difference between the panel's choices and president of the foundation from 1971 until media artists . She qualifies this change to an international role of the foundation was own. Within the media community, the focus as being a response to the fact that much interesting, timeliness of the remarkably influential because of the I was very pleases: because I would not have had Gary Hill Joan recent work deals with international and cross-cultural is- Rockefeli° -on-, anti ha^au"e tl~-re were (and still are) so Jonas or Frank Gillette . A panel can do it oneway or an individual can 2i -, the media grants awarded by the faunr?a- fc ' n a ~ ~- tI-: Sues t%Prtai-~!t v n , l , th.,;z routeroi. . of funding. J, the, d) .L, and, ;hey n 3. .;Dni ": up w , th~~ G, :-ne people- C'! . . . .,.. tion i , I 98...r3 ,s c^,, t' s pproac , esp Jangers o' -3einc a f iel If. t t~~a;, frzur,c . -' - . p,);:us on the third wor!c; . -There- 12ver, mar': ~_ 1 4 AFTERIMAGE/January 1987

crepancy between Klein's philosophy of funding the arts, in to defend it and nurture its growth . While one can question the 7. Howard Klein, "Music : 'A Happening' Opens a Festival," New which "support for the creative person" is paramount, andthat ways in which much of this money was disbursed, the fact re- York Times, Aug. 26, 1965 . of the foundation, in which 8. Nam June Paik, interview with author, New York City, October a mandate of content will most mains that Klein alone was responsible for vast growth in the 1985. All quotes from Paik are from this interview. likely be the key issue. Klein chose to take early retirement field of video art, and it would be markedly different today had 9. Published in the exhibition catalogue Nam June Paik: Videa 'n' from the foundation in October 1986 . it not been given his interest and support. Videology 1959-1973, ed . Judson Rosebush (Syracuse, NY : While Klein's role in the arts is farfrom complete, his legacy Everson Museum of Art, 1975) . of almost 20 years at the foundation will be that of one of the Brice Howard, telephone interview with author, June 1986 . All quotes from Howard are from this interview. most influential individuals in arts funding during that time . NOTES Brice Howard published a book through NCET in 1972 called While his influence in media was substantial, his impact on Videospace and Image Experience, a dense rumination on im- other art forms, especially the performing arts, has been 1 . John D . Rockefeller Sr. tried first to obtain a corporate charter agemaking and patterns of thought and a highly esoteric view of from equally if not more important. Klein was a primaryfunder of in- Congress for the foundation, for which a bill was introduced the possibility of artists working in television that is indicative of in the Senate in 1910 . Despite numerous compromises and the stitutions like the Eliot Feld Ballet, the Next Wave Festival of intellectual atmosphere at NCET. amendments, which would have given Congress the power to Paul Kaufman, quoted in Video: Stateof theArt, byJohannaGill the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the American Center in regulate the foundation, three years of heated debate ensued . (New York : Rockefeller Foundation, 1976) p. 15 . Paris, the Center for Music Experiments at the University of Rockefeller eventually gave up and had thefoundation chartered 13. John Reilly, telephone interview with author, November 1986 . California in San Diego, and the La Mama Experimental The- in New York State with no controlling amendments . See Robert 14. Connor was the director of the newly-founded TV/Media Pro- Shaplen, Toward the Well-Being of Mankind: ater . He was deeply involved in advising and negotiating for Fifty Years of the gram at NYSCAwhen he began to work on the idea of CableArts Rockefeller Foundation (Garden City, NY : Doubleday & Co., Foundation, in response to the general feeling at the time that those organizations as well . Klein was the originator of the In- 1964), and Raymond Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller there was promise in the wide-open field of cable. Connor gotthe ternational American Music Competition, a program de- Foundation (New York : Harper and Bros ., 1952). initial NYSCA grantfor Cable Arts Foundation the same year he signed to encourage the performance of the work of Ameri- 2. Frederick Gates from his unpublished autobiography, quoted in left the council to run it . The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, by can composers, and was the founder of New World Records, Peter Collier and Russell Connor, interview with author, New York City, March David Horowitz (New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), 1986. All quotes from Connor are from this interview. a "bicentennial" project begun in 1976, which produced and p. 59 . Howard Klein, introduction to Television : InternationalExchange distributed a collection of 100 records tracing 3. The the social and Rockefeller Brothers Fund published a study, begun in the of Cultural Programming (New York : Rockefeller Foundation, cultural history of the U.S . through music. It received more early 1960s and published in 1965, called The Performing Arts: 1978), p. 1 . Problems and than $3 .6 million of foundation money. Artists like Philip Prospects, and the 20th Century Fund published James Day, telephone interview with author, March 1986. All Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma, both of which, accord- quotes from Day are from this interview. Glass, Robert Wilson, Steve Reich, and Robert Ashley rank ing to Klein, "set the agenda for arts discussions and support for 18 . Gail Waldron, telephone interview with author, March 1986. along with Paik among those whom Klein supported the substan- next 20 years." 19 . In comparison to the New York State Council on the Arts, which tially throughout his tenure at the Rockefeller Foundation. 4. Grants made in media from 1965 to 1967 (as seen on the accom- awarded an average of $900,000 for TV/media (and an average panying list) were initiated by assistant In evaluating this kind of career, it becomes clear that a cer- director Boyd Compton of $2 .3 million for film, TV/media, and literature) annually during and director Norman Lloyd. Thefirst grant forwhich Klein was di- the 1970s, and the National tain mystique and mythology pervade images of an institution Endowment for the Arts, whose rectly responsible was in 1967 to the State University of New funding increased from an average of $2 million in the early like the Rockefeller Foundation and its power figures. Look- York at Stony Brook for an artist-in-residency for Nam June Paik . 1970s to more than $8 .6 million in 1979 for film, television, video ing at history, it is easy to forget that it is not the institution that 5. Howard Klein, interviews with author, New York City, March and production, and radio. effects change, rather individuals within those institutions . A June 1986 . Unless otherwise noted, all quotes from Howard 20. Robert Haller, telephone interview with author, November 1986 . Klein are from these interviews . 21 . Alberta Arthurs, telephone field as small as the media field has survived only because interview with author, November 6. David Loxton, interview with author, New York City, April 1986 . 1986 . powerful individuals like Klein took an interest in it and chose All quotes from Loxton are from this interview. ©1987 Marita Sturken

ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION Regional Plan Association, New York City . Toward the costs of Raindance Foundation, New York City . Toward the costs of crea- planning ARTS GRANTS IN and initiating the proposed television town meetings, tive programming and for Volume III of Radical Software . $7,400 "Choices For'76 ." $25,000 TELEVISION/VIDEO/FILM 1976 New School for Social Research, New York City. Toward the costs of establishing, in conjunction with Global Village, an experimental Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . Toward video 1965 workshop . $14,500 the costs of further development of the Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen. $200,000 Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . 1972 Toward WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . Toward the further de- the costs of further developing its programs . $500,000 Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . For use by velopment of the WGBH New Television Workshop . $182,000 Opera Group, Boston . Toward the creative costs of television pro- WNET,'Thirteen toward the costs of the second phase of develop- WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . To enable video artists to duction of an opera, in collaboration with WGBH and National Educa- ment of its Experimental Television Laboratory, fortwo years. collaborate on the project "Collisions." $35,000 tional Television . $15,000 $400,000 Don Foresta, video artist, Kenmore, NY . To enable him to develop University of Florida. Toward the completion of Radha, a film of 1966 cultural programming on foreign cultures forthe Visa series. Ruth St . Denis's dance work . $15,000 $35,000 Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . Toward International Film Seminars, Vermont. To enable Willard Van Dyke the cost of producing an educational Daniel Del Solar, Brooks Johnson, Judith Williams, San Fran- series of television programs on to research and prepare for publication of a book on the history of Shakespearian drama. cisco. Toward the costsof afeasibility study of Bay Area video needs. $172,000 documentary film . $4,000 $30,000 Stan VanDerBeek, filmmaker, Colorado . $14,500 1973 West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority, Charleston, Stan Brakhage, filmmaker, Colorado . $14,400 WV . To be used by WMUL toward the development of apilotprogram Global Village Resource Video Research Center, New York City . on the musical culture of the upper southeastern and mountain Tony Conrad, filmmaker, New York City . $14,400 Toward a training program to develop methods of using portable tele- states . $25,000 vision as a communications resource fordeveloping countries Sheldon Renan, New York City . To enable him to complete a study . Kansas City Art Institute, Missouri . To support a video curriculum of the independent American filmmaker. $2,270 $25,000 development project. $24,500 Film Art Fund, New York City . Toward the costs of a film research 1967 program and activities of a national committee on mediaservices . Global Village Video Resource Center, Inc., New York City . To- $25,000 ward the costs of the Ten Cities Public Television Workshop in vid- WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . Toward the costs of an eocassette systems. $20,000 experimental workshop on television program concepts and produc- Electronic Arts Intermix, New York City. Toward the costs of the in- Educational tion techniques for cultural programming. $275,000 ternational seminar/conference, "Open Circuits," to explore the cul- Broadcasting Corporation, New York City. To enable tural potential of television . $10,000 Ed Emshwiller to be an artist-in-residence at the Television Labora- BayArea Educational Television Association, San Francisco. To- tory. $18,000 ward the costs of an experimental workshop on cultural program- 1974 Educational Broadcasting ming . $150,000 Corporation, New York City. To enable Nam June Paik to be an artist-in-residence at the Television Labora- Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City. For use by State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York . To enable tory . $17,000 WNET/Thirteentoward the costs of the Television Nam June Paik to serve as a consultant in communications research Laboratory . in the Instructional Resources Center of the university . $13,750 $340,000 Film Art Fund, New York City . Toward the support of the video pro- gram of Anthology Film Archives . $16,000 WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . Toward the costs of the 1968 WGBH New Television Workshop . $250,000 David Dowe, Jerry Hunt, Dallas . Toward the costs of developing a Texas Experimental Television Network. $14,000 National Educational Television and Radio Center, New York KQED, San Francisco. For use by the National Center for Experi- City . Toward the costs of producing a series of programs on regional ments in Television toward the costs of further development of work- Whitney Museum of American Art, New York City . Toward the theater in the United States . $200,000 shops in experimental television at selected university centers. costs of expanding its film exhibition program to include the works of $100,000 video artists. $13,900 1969 Bay Area EducationalTelevision Association, San Francisco. For Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Al- use by the National Center for Experiments in Television for the re- bany, NY . To undertake a University of Alaska . To enable Dr . Charles Northrip to continue his feasibility study of the potential of the state search phase of a humanities television project. university work on behalf of the Alaska Educational/ Public Broadcasting Com- $51,000 system to produce creative programming for television in the arts . $11,500 mission toward the development of educational television in Alaska . Connecticut College, New London, CT. For the American Dance $24,645 Festival's Dance Television Workshop . $10,000 Cunningham Dance Foundation, New York City . Toward the costs of a video dance project. $10,000 1970 Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY . Toward the costs of "Video and the Museum," conference and exhibition . $5,000 Southern Methodist University, Dallas. Toward the costs of de- WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . Toward the costs of art- veloping a Texas Experimental Television Network. $6,000 ists-in-residence at the Project for New Television . $300,000 1975 Stephen Beck, video artist, Berkeley, CA . To enable him to acquire Duke University, Durham, NC . Toward the costs of filming a series, Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . Toward equipment to continue his work in video. $4,000 "Dance as an Art Form," by the Murray Louis Dance Company. the costs of further development of the Television Laboratory at Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, Solomon Islands. For $25,000 WNET/Thirteen. $162,000 the documentation of the Cultural Workshop of Melanasia. $3,000 Connecticut College, New London, CT . To enable Ward Cannel to WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . Toward the further de- Bill Viola, video artist. For the recording and documentation continue exploration of the possibility of creating video essays on the velopment of the WGBH New Television of the Workshop . $140,000 Cultural Workshop of Melanasia. nature and image of man. $15,000 $850 KQED, San Francisco. For use by the National Center for Experi- Film Society of Lincoln Center, New York City . Toward the costs of ments in Television for the second phase of a humanities television 1977 experimental programs in film education in the schools and forthe en- project (jointly with the Humanities program) . $45,000 couragement of cooperative programs in all aspects of film on the Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . For use by part of various municipal film programs . $15,000 Cable Arts Foundation, New York City . Toward the costs of a 10- the Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen toward the costs of two city test project leading to a demonstration of ways in which arts pro- programs for the Visa series . Richard Schickel, New York $65,900 City . To work on a biography of Ameri- gramming can be developed forcable television audiences. $32,826 can film pioneer D.W . Griffith . $7,215 Russell Connor, New York City . For the development of two video Long Beach Museum of Art, Long Beach, CA. To improve and projects for the Visa series . $35,000 1971 further develop an editing and post-production studio to serve video Bill and television artists in the Los Angeles area . $30,900 Viola, video artist, New York City . For the developmentof avideo project for the Visa Bay Area Educational Television Association, San Francisco. For series . $35,000 Electronic Arts Intermix, New York City . Toward the use by the National Center for Experiments in Television toward the development of the Artists' Videotape Resource Project. Bay Area Video Coalition, San Francisco. Toward the costs of a costs of developing a program to train professionally $14,165 oriented stu- pilot program for independent video artists/producers in the San dents in the creative and artistic uses of television at selective univer- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. To en- Francisco Bay Area . $35,000 sity experimental centers, for a four-year period . $300,000 able video artist Ron Hays to be a fellow of the Center for Advanced Visual Studies. Cable Arts Foundation, New York City . Toward the costs of de- Educational Broadcasting Corporation, $12,500 New York City . For use by veloping an editing and post-production facility . the National Educational $34,000 Television (NET) and WNET/Thirteen to- Electronic Arts Intermix, NewYork City . Toward the costs of further ward the costs of establishing an experimental television laboratory developing its post-production editing facility and for otherassistance Nam June Paik, video artist, New York City . $27,000 workshop . $150,000 to video artists. $10,000 AFTERIMAGE/January 1987 15

Kansas City Art Institute, Missouri . To support a Video Curriculum Stephen Beck, video artist, Berkeley, CA. $19,000 Larry Littlebird, filmmaker, Albuquerque, NM . To continue making a Development Project. $25,000 film based on Pueblo Indian life in the 1930s. $25,000 Foundation for Independent Video and Film, New York City. To- Electronic Arts Intermix, New York City . Toward thecosts of further ward the costs of a conference involving the directors of media cen- Kit Fitzgerald, John Sanborn, videoartists, New York City . developing its post-production and editing facility . $23,000 ters (Minnewaska conference) . $15,000 $25,000 Museum of Modern Art, New York City . Toward the costs of ex- Kineholistics Foundation, New York City. For use by video artist Fund for Arts and Science Films, New York City . To produce a pilot panding its video program. $20,000 Wendy Clarke to enable her to devote time to her project "Love for aproposed television series on the history of American artentitled Tapes." $10,000 "Visions of America" (co-sponsoredby the Humanities Program) . Washington Community Video Center, Washington, DC . For Tele $25,000 visions magazine . $18,000 Shigeko Kubota, video artist, New York City . $10,000 Stevenson Palfi, independent television producer, New Orleans, Cable Arts Foundation, New York City . Toward the costs of final Kit Fitzgerald, video artist, New York City. $10,000 LA. To create films documenting NewOrleansjazzmusicians. editing of Visa projects . $18,000 $20,000 John Sanborn, video artist, New York City. $10,000 Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . For use by Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Dance, New York City . Toward the Ros Barron, video artist, Boston . $9,000 the Television Laboratory for fellowship assistance for a writer-in- costs of editing films of choreographer Murray Louis. $20,000 residence. $18,000 1980 Downtown Community Television Center, New York City . For a Doug Michaes, video artist, San Francisco. Toward the documenta- series of television arts workshops and a summer video program for tion of Ant Farm's Dolphin Embassy expedition . $15,000 Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Al- young people. $20,000 bany, NY . Toward the costs of producingarts programmingfor televi- WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . To enable Charles sion . $150,000 National Alliance of Media Arts Centers, New York City . Toward Johnson to be an artist-in-residence at the New Television Work the costs of administrative and service activities. $18,000 shop . $15,000 Bay Area Video Coalition, San Francisco. Toward the costs of ex- panding its editing facilities anddeveloping television programs by in- Black Filmmaker Foundation, New York City . Toward its general filming family life and Robert and Ingrid Wiegand, video artists. For dependent producers for television . $100,000 operating expenses . $15,000 culture in India for the Visa series. $13,500 Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Washington, DC . Toward Ed Emshwiller, video artist, Valencia, CA . Toward the costs of his Mary Ellen Bute, filmmaker, New York City. To enable herto work on the costs of INPUT'80 to be held in Washington, DC, andof travel fel- video project "Resolutions ." $10,000 a film project concerned with Walt Whitman. $10,000 lowships to enable North American public television producersto par- Whitney Museum of American Art, New York City . Toward the ticipate in the 1981 International Public Television Screening Confer- Public Broadcasting Service, New York City. Toward the costs of costs of a Nam June Paik retrospective. $10,000 installing the Digital Audio for Television . $10,000 ence (INPUT). $95,000 CA . Toward the further Bill Etra, video artist, New York City . $9,000 Long Beach Museum of Art, Long Beach, 1983 development of its Video Resource Center . $50,000 Louise Etra, video artist, New York City . $9,000 Sundance Institutefor Film and Television, Salt Lake City, UT. To KQED, San Francisco. Toward the creative costs of the series establish a Production Assistance Program Fund for American inde- Tony Ramos, video artist, New York City . $8,000 "Media Probes ." $25,000 pendent filmmakers . $250,000 Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NewYork City . To enable Eugene O'Neill Memorial Theater Center, Waterford, CT . Toward Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Al- Nam June Paik to be an artist-in-residence at the Television Labora- the costsof aprojectto develop original dramafortelevision. bany, NY . Toward the costs of producing arts programming for televi- tory . $7,500 $25,000 sion . $150,000 Judith Williams, video artist, San Francisco. $1,000 Black Filmmaker Foundation, New York City . Toward itsoperating Women's Interart Center, New York City . Toward the costs of a film expenses. $25,000 about workers at a New Hampshire textile plant. $35,000 1978 Global Village Resource Center, New York City . Toward the costs Sundance Institute for Film and Television, Salt Lake City, UT . To of a documentary entitled Our Children. $17,000 To selected institutions and individuals in the San Francisco Bay continue its program of script and scene development workshops for Area to encourage the development and broadcastof independently Stevenson Palfi, independent television producer, New Orleans, independent filmmakers . $25,000 produced cultural programming. $175,000 LA. $15,000 Bay Area Video Coalition, $60,000 Victor Nunez, filmmaker, Tallahassee, FL . $25,000 for 90-minute program called "Screening Room," ashow- Boston Fiim/Video Foundation, Boston . Toward the costs of im- KQED, a Film Arts Foundation, San Francisco. Toward the costs of a film on case for independent video and filmmakers, $35,000 proving its editing facility . $15,000 quilting and the women of nineteenth-century America. $25,000 Paperback Television, a pilot program for a series of indepen- Susan and Alan Raymond, documentarians, New York City . To- dently produced magazine format shows, $80,000 National Alliance of Media Arts Centers, New York City . Toward ward the production costs of a documentary film on television news the costs of its administrative and service activities . $15,000 Kansas City Art Institute, Missouri . Toward the development of a gathering. $15,000 consortium of educational institutions concerned with video art and Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City . For useby University of Colorado, Boulder, CO . Toward the costs of a confer- video-related issues in contemporary art. $130,000 the WNET Television Laboratory for the production of "Good Morn- ence of the National Association of Media Arts Centers (NAMAC). ing, Mr. Orwell ." $10,000 Ron Hays, video artist, California. $35,000 $11,000 Kenneth Robins, theater/television artist, New York City . $10,000 Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Washington, DC . Toward KineholisticsFoundation, New York City . For use by WendyClarke the costs of an international public television screening conference to enable her to continue to devote her time to her project "Love Performance Artists Nucleus (Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center), (INPUT) for 1978 to be held in Milan, Italy. $25,000 Tapes." $10,000 San Antonio, TX . In support of the San Antonio Cine Festival of His- panic film and video. $10,000 Michael Tilson Thomas, conductor, Buffalo, NY. To enable him to Chicago Editing Center, Chicago. Toward the costs of upgrading its do preliminary research for and development of an American music video facility. $10,000 WGBH Education Foundation, Boston . To explore formats for a project for television . $25,000 series of television programs on philosophy . $5,500 Martha Stuart, independent producer, New York City . $10,000 Cable Arts Foundation, New York City. Toward the costs of promo- In of her creative work in 1984 tion and publicity for Visa . $24,000 Amy Greenfield, New York City . support holography and video. $8,000 Nam June Paik, video artist, New York City. $18,000 Robert Ashley, New York City . Toward the development of a new 1981 opera fortelevision . $50,000 Global Village Video Resource Center, New York City . Toward the Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ . Toward the costs of a costs of a series of regional public television workshops in videocas- To selected regional media arts centers for expansion of post-pro- documentary film on women state legislators (also funded from Spe- sette systems. $10,000 duction and editing facilities and related activities . $300,000 Explorations for a total of $100,000). $50,000 Bay Area Video Coalition, San Francisco, $80,000 cial Interests and Robert Ashley, composer, San Francisco. To enable him to devote time to the development of a work for television . $10,000 Center for New Television, Chicago, $40,000 Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, MN . For research and develop- Boston FilmNideo Foundation, Boston, $40,000. ment of "Alive From Off Center," a series on national broadcast of art- Cable Arts Foundation, New York City . To document the 1978 John Young Filmmakers Foundation, New York City, $40,000 ists' video and the performing arts . $50,000 F. Kennedy Center RockefellerFoundation International Piano Com- Long Beach Museum of Art, California, $35,000 petition for Excellence in the Performance of American Music. Electronic Arts Intermix, New York City, $22,000 ETV Endowment of South Carolina, Spartanburg, SC . Toward the $10,000 University Community Video, Minneapolis, $21,500 costs of its International TV Revue. $45,000 Southwest Alternative Media Project, Houston, $21,500 Ros Barron, video artist, Boston . $9,000 Hudson River Film and Video, Garrison, NY . To research funding Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Al- sources and develop presentation materials for its new project Hermine Freed, video artist, New York City . $9,000 bany, NY . Toward the costs of producing arts programming for televi- "Henry Hudson's River-Part II ." $10,000 sion . $150,000 Cable Arts Foundation, New York City . Toward the costs of a pro- Performing Artists Nucleus (Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center), gram for television, "Group Portrait : Six Video Artists." $5,000 International Network for the Arts, New York City . For the further San Antonio, TX . For administrative costs associated with the San Antonio Cine Festival . $10,000 Solaris Dance-Theater, New York City . Toward the costs of a video development of a program of workshops by artists in the uses of tele- expression . $100,000 dance project. $5,000 vision as a means of artistic 1985 Broadcasting, Washington, DC . Toward Ed Bowes, video artist, New York City . $1,400 Corporation for Public the costs of travel to enable non-North American public television Learning in Focus, New York City . To develop a series of feature- producers to participate in the 1982 International Public Television length films for television and to incorporate training opportunities for 1979 Conference (INPUT) in Canada . $60,000 younger artists at the film sites. $250,000 Sundance Institute for Film and Television, Salt Lake City, UT .To- To establish a pilot program of fellowships for video artists: $36,750 ward the costs of a pilot program forindependentfilmmakers . 1986* to each institution; $21,500 for the foundation to administer program $25,000 (grants awarded in 1981). $242,000 KTCA, St . Paul, MN . For"Alive From Off Center," aseries on national Raindance Foundation, New York City-Juan Downey Media Arts Centers, New York City . Toward National Alliance of broadcast of artists' video and the performing arts . $150,000 Whitney Museum of American Art, New York City- the costs of its administrative and service activities . $25,000 Frank Gillette Civil Rights Project, Boston . For a documentary film on the history York City . For by the School of the Center For New Television, Chicago-Dan Sandin Columbia University, New use of the civil rights movement called "Eyes on the Prize" (joint grantwith Experimental Television Center, Owego, NY-Gary Hill Arts and its Film Dwision toward the costs of expanding its program Equal Opportunity for a total of $100,000) . $50,000 Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen, New York City- for young filmmakers . $25,000 Joan Jonas WNET/Thirteen, New York City . Toward program acquisition for Metropolitan Pittsburgh Public Broadcasting (WOED), Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen, New York City- "Channel Crossings," a television. series of dramas and documen- Pittsburgh, PA . Toward the creative costs of the series "Media Bill Viola taries produced abroad and toward the costsof developing a consor- $25,000 Probes ." tium of presentors of such work on American television . $50,000 Bay Area Video Coalition, San Francisco. Toward the costs of ex- Kitchen), New York City . Toward the furtherdevelop- panding its editing facilities and developing pilot television programs Haleakala (The Educational Broadcasting Corporation, New York City. Toward ment of the production "Perfect Lives." $20,000 by independent producers for public television . $200,000 the costs of "Bye, Bye Kipling," a satellite broadcast project in New Museum of Modern Art, New York City . Toward the costs of ex- York, Tokyo, and Seoul, Korea. $50,000 Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Al- panding its video program. $20,000 bany, NY. Toward the costs of producing arts programming for televi- The Press & the Public Project, New York City . Toward the costs of sion . $156,000 Mary Ellen Bute, filmmaker, New York City . Toward the completion developing a one-hour documentary for PBS to be shown in the fall of film Walt Whitman. $10,000 1986, titled Africa: The Untold Story. $50,000 WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . For use by the New Tele- costs of a on Center, New York City . For vision Workshop toward the costs of projects by independent artists Ron Hays, video artist, Los Angeles. To enable him to explore the Downtown Community Television and producers. $120,000 feasibility of a traveling music/video concert. $10,000 stabilization of its activities through the acquisition of a permanent facility . $50,000 Toward the costs of a seminar conference to promote telecommuni- 1982 cations diversity for the 1980s : "Independent Television Makers and WNYC/TV, New York City . Toward the costs of "Windows on the Public Communications Policy ." $28,600 World," a series of foreign television programming presented to U.S . Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto. Toward the costs of Canadian viewers. $40,000 Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Washington, DC . Toward enabling public television producers to participate in the 1983 and the costs of an international public television screening conference 1984 International Public Television Screening Conferences WNET/Thirteen, New York City . Toward the costs of the "New Tele- (INPUT) for 1979 to be held in Milan, Italy. $25,000 (INPUT). $110,000 vision" series of experimental works by video artists. $25,000 WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . Toward the costs of the Bay Area Video Coalition, San Francisco. To improve its post- WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston . Toward the costs of the film project "Pilgrim, Farewell ." $200,000 production and editing facilities and provide services to artists. "New Television" series of experimental works by video artists. $50,000 $20,000 Downtown Conrsmunity Television Center, New York City . Toward 'he':osts of improving ,'.s editing facility . $20,000 Sundance Institutefor Film and Television, Salt Lake City, LlT. To- ETV Endowment of South Carolina, Spartanburg, SC . In supportof ward the costs of a program for independent filmmakers . $30,000 Barbara Van Dyke Joing research in Africa for the 1987 INPUT con- i-taleakala (The itilchen), New York City. Toward the production of ference . $13,400 Liv,--3, a m us ; _ n a vidtoo environment by Robert Ashley, Kenneth Robins, theater/tdevision artist, New York City . For the de- $20,000 veloprron' of made-for-television theater nieces $28,000 "Figures for 1986 -cf!;ect grants made only through October.