War in the Worlds of Art: David Vs. Political Goliath : NEA: As the atmosphere around grant-giving grows politically charged, artists must become aware of what they can do to defend their work.

Federal funding of the arts or, more accurately, the threat of withholding that funding, is being used to intimidate artists and arts organizations into producing “politically correct” art. Here, in America. This is embarrassing.

Well, artists never believed the cultural propaganda that Art is above politics. We know that Truth and Beauty aren’t above politics--Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and Roy Cohn made up truth as they went along; Richard M. Nixon denied it. Does anyone believe Oliver L. North “didn’t know it was illegal to lie to Congress”? Beauty? Our Miss America, after the Vanessa Williams brouhaha, was blonde and blue-eyed. Sexism is certainly political. So nothing is beneath politics. Why would anyone think that Art floats above the fray--our hot-line to the sublime?

Maybe part of the problem is that we’ve been taking our artistic license for granted. Take a look at who’s been doling out those grants lately and who’s got the power to revoke that license. Look what happens when art runs a stop sign: Our license is history, right? We’re only a roll of the dice away from: “Go Directly to Jail! Do Not Collect $200.”

If we’re surprised by the conservative cultural agenda, or by how much political hay Sen. Jesse A. Helms (R-N.C.), has harvested by cutting an old fashioned flattop out of the long hairs at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington’s Corcoran Gallery and the Art Establishment in general--then we haven’t been paying attention for the last eight years and 11 months. Whether Helms or Gov. George Deukmejian or art critic Hilton Kramer, these people and their constituencies are dangerous to the health of the First Amendment, the arts and arts organizations and rock ‘n’ roll.

For Helms, attacking the NEA is a no-lose tactic. Gay-bashing always garners campaign contributions from his power base. Religious sanctimony is good for votes in ugly political elections. Conservatives have easy targets.

We better get hip to the politics of art--its role in the political economy of American culture. The culture industry is big business. Arts organizations, museums, artists’ spaces, art schools, university art and art history departments have always been financially beholden to various combinations of federal, state, city, corporate and philanthropic institutions. Cultural cachet and currency are products of a sophisticated manufacturing and distribution network that conflates patronage, commodification, public relations and advertising--often disguised as “criticism.” All to tickle the ideological desires of the powerful while perpetuating the status quo. And to make money.

Don’t get me wrong, artists need this pipeline--it’s the only game in town. But we can’t afford to have any illusions about how it works. When we receive funding, it’s our job to know the location of all strings attached. When some agency tries to jerk strings, we have to know how to string along jerks. Artists must learn to play political hardball. Art has always had the capacity to be politically powerful--it has been used as a potent cultural weapon--and many artists have been effective politicians.

Take, for example, the controversy over Michelangelo’s David--the greatest sculpture of a full male nude figure in Western art. When the Medicis were expelled from the Republic of Florence in 1494, they repaired to Rome, plotting and maneuvering to regain control of the little city-state with their allies, Cesare Borgia and his father, Pope Alexander VI. The Medici-Borgia campaign reached crisis proportions in 1501, when the Republic decided to commission Michelangelo to make a large sculpture that would deliver a message of defiance: The David (Florence) would do battle with Goliath (the Medicis and the Pope in big bad Rome). Even as Michelangelo was working on the sculpture, it was so inflammatory that Florence had a shed built around it to maintain secrecy.

Before the statue was completed, a meeting was held in Florence on Jan. 25, 1504, to settle on its placement. Leonardo da Vinci attended. Sandro Botticelli was there. Piero di Cosimo and Filippino Lippi sat in. The minutes of this extraordinary gathering still exist at the duomo in Florence. Tensions were high--the sculpture’s location had enormous symbolic significance. Nine different sites were suggested, but the battle came down to either the front of the Palazzo Vecchio or the Loggia dei Lanzi. If the David were in front of the Palazzo, with his terribilita scowl facing south--at Rome--it would be an obvious challenge to the despotic Medicis. If placed in a niche at the Loggia, its political implications would be neutralized. The group ultimately opted to go for the jugular: The statue was to be placed in front of the Palazzo.

This situation was so combustible that, on May 14, 1504, when the sculpture was ready, the leaders of Florence decided it should be moved at night. During its journey from its shed to the Palazzo, the David was stoned by Medici supporters.

Of course, Michelangelo wouldn’t get along with the U.S. arts agencies today. David would have his problems, too, with Goliath’s lieutenant over at the NEA, John E. Frohnmayer--basically a conscientious civil servant trying to administer arts funding in the true spirit of the 1990 appropriations bill. The problem is that the true spirit of that bill is repressive. Frohnmayer, an attorney who had specialized in First Amendment issues, failed to notice this fact. His first act was to rescind a $10,000 grant for an art show focusing on AIDs at a New York gallery. He offered three contradictory explanations why he axed the grant.

Faced with an arts community revolt that reached into the upper levels of his own agency, Frohnmayer changed his mind and gave back the money. The show was going on in any case and perhaps he has learned his lesson. We’ve learned ours. Artists must fight for their rights on all fronts. Along with developing our own politically effective arts lobby, alliances should be formed among all the arts.

Make no mistake, the conservative arts agenda is a declaration of cultural civil war. Artists should use their media savvy and connections. If a huge statue of a naked David showed up on Capitol Hill, scowling directly at Helms’ office, do you think he’d be upset? If squads of artists mounted guerrilla poster attacks on conservative cultural positions, do you think they would get any press coverage? Would anyone be interested in a TV movie? Let’s deliver our message to the mainstream through the mainstream.

This is sexy stuff. It could sell a lot of Reeboks.

What if a confederation of artists, graphic designers and printers pooled talents and resources to provide pro-bono promotional services to arts organizations? In Los Angeles alone we have movies, music, TV, print media facilities and artists galore. And money. All we really need is consciousness. When the Corcoran Gallery yielded to conservative pressure and pulled out the exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe photographs, it took artists about two minutes to figure out they could boycott that institution and it would have nothing to show. Artists do have power.