Nat]onal Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. President: I have the honor to submit to you the Annual Report of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Council on the Arts for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1982. Respectfully, F. S. M. Hodsoll Chairman The President The White House Washington, D.C. March 1983 Contents Chairman’s Statement 3 The Agency and Its Functions 6 The National Council on the Arts 7 Programs 8 Dance 10 Design Arts 30 Expansion Arts 46 Folk Arts 70 Inter-Arts 82 International 96 Literature 98 Media Arts: Film/Radio/Television 114 Museum 132 Music 160 Opera-Musical Theater 200 Theater 210 Visual Arts 230 Policy, Planning and Research 252 Challenge Grants 254 Endowment Fellows 259 Research 261 Special Constituencies 262 Office for Partnership 264 Artists in Education 266 State Programs 272 Financial Summary 277 History of Authorizations and Appropriations 278 The descriptions of the 5,090 grants listed in this matching grants, advocacy, and information. In 1982 Annual Report represent a rich variety of terms of public funding, we are complemented at artistic creativity taking place throughout the the state and local levels by state and local arts country. These grants testify to the central impor­ agencies. tance of the arts in American life and to the TheEndowment’s1982budgetwas$143million. fundamental fact that the arts ate alive and, in State appropriations from 50 states and six special many cases, flourishing, jurisdictions aggregated $120 million--an 8.9 per­ The diversity of artistic activity in America is cent gain over state appropriations for FY 81. It is one of the great strengths of the American arts. estimated that local public bodies appropriated in Our support of this diversity includes the New FY 82 in excess of $300 million for the arts. York City Opera’s critically acclaimed, sold-out But this total pot of direct government funding is production of Candide and grants to relatively only 17 percent of total giving to cultural institu­ unknown choreographers, painters, and poets to tions. Although the 1982 numbers ate not yet collaborate on interdisciplinary work. available, the American Association of Fund Rais­ Some of our most visible grants in 1982 were the ing Counsel estimates that the private sector (indi­ National Heritage Awards in the Folk Arts--a viduals, corporations, and foundations)contributed new way of honoring 15 performing artists and in 1981 $3.35 billion--up roughly $400 million craftsmen for a lifetime ofoutstanding folk art. We from 1980. This represents a nominal increase of also support creative artists through new music 13.2 percent anda real increase of 4.3 percent. centers that provide composers with sophisticated Also, the share of culture in total giving increased equipment and through feIlowships to writers to slightly from 1981 to 1982. buy time for creative work. Recently, too, the Private sector giving to the arts can be broken Picasso retrospective caught the attention of the down as follows: 86 percent comes from individuals; nation; but perhaps justas crucial in the Iong run 9 percent from corporations; and 5 percent from were our less glamorous grants to help museums foundations. We have reason to be optimistic with bring collections out of storage, install climate regard to the future: control systems, and shift to computerized cata­ ¯ New York’s Chemical Bank, in a study con­ loguing of their holdings, ducted by its Economic Research Department, projected a 100 percent increase in private Public-Private Partnership giving to cultural activities in the 1979-84 time The arts have from the beginning flourished in our frame. country with littledirect help from thegovernment ¯ The Foundation Center, in Foundations at any level--federal, state, of local. We did not Today--1982, reports a 20 percent dollar in­ make the direct government commitment to the crease in grants for cultural activities (1981 arts that we did for, say, education, but we did from versus 1980). In 1981, 3,878 grants to culture 1913 on encourage private support, as for other aggregated $192.6 million, representing 15.3 philanthropy, through tax deductions, percent of total foundation dollars given for ali The National Endowment for the Arts was purposes; this compares with 13.5 percent in established in 1965 to give national recognition of, 1980, when foundations gave 3,291 grants to and national support to, the arts. Our purpose is to culture aggregating $160.8 million. be catalytic, to spark other sources of support for ¯ The American Association of Fund Raising excellence and access to that excellence. The mech­ Counsel estimates that overall corporate giving anisms we use to achieve this catalytic role involve increased 11.1 percent in 1981 compared to 4 Chairman’s Statement 1980. The Conference Board, in its recently The purpose of the National Endowment is: published survey, reports that corporate giving ¯ To recognize the importance of the arts by to cultural activities (in 1980 versus 1979) showed conferring prestige and expressing advocacy at the greatest rate of growth--33 percent--when the highest level: compared to all other philanthropic sectors. ¯ To ensure support--as in the sciences--for ¯ A study by Yankelovitch, Skelly and White new and experimental ventures that might be for the National Council on Foundations has too risky to elicit sufficient private investment; stated that six out of ten corporations surveyed to foster a climate for the unpredictable; indicated they would increase their giving gen­ ¯ To preserve art in danger of loss of deteri­ erally; and three out of 10 indicated they would oration; remain even. ¯ To provide some cushion for the nation’s ¯ Turningto individual donors, researchers at most excellent artistic institutions so that they the American Association of Fund Raising Coun­ do not stagnate; sel estimate that individual giving to culture in ¯ To encourage the kaleidoscope of American 1980 was in the $2.4 billion range; this increased culture; and to $2.7 billion in 1981. ¯ To increase access to the arts for American There also seems to be no necessary connection citizens everywhere. between the state of the economy in a particular The Endowment laas two basic statutory goals: locality and giving to the arts. Some cities in (1) stimulation and maintenance of the creation, economic distress are doing well; others in the Sun production, and presentation of a diversity of Beltarenotdoingwell. The commoningredientfor excellence, and (2) assistance of access to that those doing well is the presence of a dedicated excellence. The techniques we use for achieving group of leaders who want the arts--who want to those goals involve grants and advocacy. More improve the quality of life for themselves and their specifically, they include short-term program of neighbors, project support, longer-term institutional support, The arts in our country have always depended on and partnership. a pluralistic system of support in which no one The majority of our funding is in short-term sector dominates. Private giving, moreover, is in an program of project support. It includes funding of important sense a partnership with government, creativity (through individual fellowships and the The tax deductions involved represent forebear­ encouragement of institutions to create, produce, ance on taxes that would otherwise have been due. and present new American work); assisting the And, unlike giving to the government through maintenance of the main body of our culture; taxes, a private donor gives to the donee of bis preservation and conservation; audience develop­ choice. In fact, when one adds the government’s ment(through education and presentingartwhere share of private contributions, the government’s it would not otherwise exist); professional training; stake in the arts could amount to more than $1.5 and services to the fields. Our discipline programs billion per year--comparable in terms of per ate involved in all of these. Longer-term institu­ capita GDP to that in the United Kingdom and tional support is provided through our Challenge Sweden where they essentially lack tax incentives and Advancement programs to established and for this purpose, emergingorganizations, respectively. Partnership is achieved through matching requirements; the A National Perspective on the Arts involvement of regional, state, and local art agen­ I have been in office a little over a year. And I think cies; and Presidential and Endowment advocacy. it fair to say that my first real job was to re-build a sense of confidence about the Endowment. We ate New Directions here to stay, and to continue to assist the arts in The 1960s and 1970s wereyearsofrapid growth in America. This Administration is firmly committed the arts. Since 1965, the number of professional to a federal presence in the arts. We are also arts organizations has grown by almost 700 per­ committed to a national role. cent. Professional orchestras have increased from The President’s 1981 Task Force on the Arts and 58 to 145; professional opera companies from 31 to the Humanities examined the work of the Endow­ 109; professional dance companies from 35 to 250; ments for the Arts and Humanities. Based on the and professional theater companies from 40 to 500. Task Force’s report, President Reagan stated his As the numbers of companies grew, so did belief that the "Endowments have served an ira­ audiences. In 1965, for example, about one million portant role in catalyzing additional private sup­ tickets were sold for dance performances, chiefly in port, assisting excellence in arts and letters, and New York City. Today there are about 16 million helping to ensure the availability of art and scho­ ticket buyers for dance performances, and 90 larship." percent of them live outside New York.