I've written before about my father, who was a Midwestern artist of some repute from the mid-'60s to the mid-'80s. For much of that time, he had his spot in the Iowa State Capitol, where one of his paintings was regularly on display, and for a time, he was president of the Eastern Iowa Arts Council. The council was not, as I recall, funded by any level of government in those days; it was a purely voluntary assembly of people who were interested in the arts, from theater to painting to photography and so forth.
Dad also never sold a painting. He had prints made of some of his smaller works and gave them away; receiving a print from Dad was a mark of some esteem. But he didn't paint for the money; he did it for the sense of accomplishment and for knowing that through the effort, he could produce beauty.
He painted until a few weeks before he died, even though you could tell his hands weren't as steady in his later years. But if anyone suggested he take a government grant or any other support, he would have refused. It wasn't about money. Now, though, inexplicably, we have a branch of the federal government — admittedly a small one, but even so — concerned with the arts. That would be the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts and would also be a great target for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to look at.
The Commission is concerned primarily with projects in the District of Columbia.
The National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs (NCACA) grant program (Public Law 99-190, as amended, 20 USC 956a) supports larger artistic and cultural institutions operating in the District of Columbia. NCACA grants are intended to provide general operating support to organizations whose primary mission is performing, exhibiting, and/or presenting the arts operating principally in Washington, DC. Recipients of past NCACA grants include such institutions as the Arena Stage, the National Building Museum, the Washington Performing Arts Society, and the Phillips Collection. The program is not intended to support organizations that receive substantial federal support.
So, they exist to provide federal support to organizations that... don't receive substantial federal support.
It is belaboring the obvious to note that there is absolutely no constitutional authority for this group to exist. The Constitution contains no enumerated power of government to be involved in the arts in any way, shape, or form; that alone, one would think, would be enough to strike this group from the list of federal government organizations. This group does nothing to preserve the liberty and property of the citizenry.
What they are supporting, financially, through grants, in the District includes:
The organization must be engaged primarily in performing, exhibiting and/or presenting the arts:
- Performing is the public presentation before a live audience of dance, theater, opera, music and related forms.
- Exhibiting is the public display to a live audience of the visual arts, including, but not limited to painting, sculpture, photography, works on paper, textiles, crafts, cultural artifacts, and media arts.
- Presenting is the programming and/or presentation of Performing or Exhibiting as defined above;
Can anyone find anything in the Constitution that authorizes this?
The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts has been in existence since 1910. Part of their purpose is reviewing designs for buildings and memorials:
The CFA reviews designs for federal and D.C. government buildings, monuments, memorials, parks, and public spaces throughout the District of Columbia, including the National Mall. The CFA also reviews designs for Arlington National Cemetery, the Pentagon, Joint Base Fort Myer-Henderson Hall, and the overseas military cemeteries of the American Battle Monuments Commission. In addition, the CFA reviews designs for all coins and medals issued by the U.S. Mint and heraldic designs by the Heraldic Branch of the U.S. Department of the Army.
Granted some issues require some input in this area; architecture of public buildings might broadly be considered art, as are such matters as design for coinage. But those things are best handled by such existing groups as the Department of the Interior and Treasury, respectively; and the commission is not, according to their website, concerned with those matters in any case outside of the District.
There's no reason for a completely separate organization, albeit a small one, to handle all this. In fact, government at any level tends to make a hash of matters of art, in any case, and as an example, I could cite the City of Denver, which will award an art contract to any lunatic with a pile of scrap iron and a welder; just look at any of that city's parks for examples.
Previously on RedState: Targets for the DOGE: Do We Need the Department of Energy?
Targets for the DOGE: Do We Need the Department of Commerce?
The commission's budget is not a blockbuster, as these things go, but it remains substantial — especially for a government that is $36 trillion in debt.
When the DOGE commences operations, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts needs to come up on their radar. It has no constitutional authorization to exist; a government that is, frankly, broke has no business subsidizing art, fine or otherwise. Shut it down, Elon and Vivek!
