Eastern Michigan University
DigitalCommons@EMU
"34&23:&3&3"/%0$402"-*33&24"4*0/3
"34&23:&3&3"/%0$402"-*33&24"4*0/3"/%
2"%5"4&"1340/&20+&$43
Federally funded art in the United States:
Government actions in response to controversy
Abby Lauren Kalbeisch
0--074)*3"/%"%%*4*0/"-702,3"4 )<1$0..0/3&.*$)&%54)&3&3
"240'4)& 24"/%&3*(/0..0/3
:*31&/$$&33:&3*3*3#205()440805'02'2&&"/%01&/"$$&33#84)&"34&23:&3&3"/%0$402"-*33&24"4*0/3"/%2"%5"4&"1340/&20+&$43
"4*(*4"-0..0/3!4)"3#&&/"$$&14&%'02*/$-53*0/*/"34&23:&3&3"/%0$402"-*33&24"4*0/3#8"/"54)02*9&%"%.*/*342"4020'
*(*4"-0..0/3!02.02&*/'02."4*0/1-&"3&$0/4"$4 -*#*2&.*$)&%5
&$0..&/%&%*4"4*0/
"-#;&*3$)##8"52&/&%&2"--8'5/%&%"24*/4)&!/*4&% 4"4&306&2/.&/4"$4*0/3*/2&310/3&40$0/4206&238 Master's
eses and Doctoral Dissertations
)<1$0..0/3&.*$)&%54)&3&3
Federally Funded Art in the United States: Government Actions in Response to
Controversy
by
Abby Kalbfleisch
Thesis
Submitted to the Department of Communication, Media, and Theatre Arts
Eastern Michigan University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Art Administration
Thesis Committee:
Ken Stevens, Chair
Susan Booth
Melanie Schuessler
March 2013
Ypsilanti, Michigan
ii
Abstract
This study documents controversies that have arisen from federally funded art programs
and organizations and explores the actions taken by the government and changes made to
public policy in the wake of said controversies. These actions include (1) requiring
matching funding from other entities, (2) reorganization of programs, changing names of
programs, and/or the elimination of programs, (3) oaths/pledges from artists/arts
organizations, (4) the denial of funding, (5) the delegation of responsibility/requiring
advising panels, and (6) the change or destruction of art. This paper focuses on two
federal agencies: the Federal One Program of the Works Progress Administration (1935-
1943) and the National Endowment for the Arts (1965- present). Another example is
presented from the General Service Administration’s (GSA) Art-in-Architecture
program. The intention of this study is to present federal art funding advocates and
policy-makers with information that is useful in the formulation and administration of
policy.
iii
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..1
A Brief History Of.………………………………………………………………......2
Works Progress Administration/ Federal One……………………………….2
National Endowment for the Arts……………………………………………5
Case Studies………………………………………………………………………….7
Ethiopia (Federal Theatre Project)…………………………………………...7
Floyd Bennett Airport mural (Federal Art Project)…………………………..9
Reorganization Act of 1939 (Federal One)………………………………... 13
1969 and 1970 American Literary Anthology (NEA)…………...………….14
Tilted Arc by Richard Serra (GSA)…………………………………………15
AVA-7 exhibition featuring Andres Serrano (NEA)……………………….17
The Perfect Moment retrospective of Robert Mapplethorpe (NEA)………..19
The “Obscenity Pledge,” the “Decency Pledge,” and Artist Reactions…….19
The “NEA Four” (NEA)…………………………………………………… 23
Actions………………………………………………………………………………24
(1) Requiring matching funding from other entities………………………...24
(2) Reorganization of programs/changing names of programs,
and/or the elimination of programs………………………………………….24
(3) Oaths/pledges from artists/arts organizations……………………………25
(4) The denial of funding…………………………………………………….25
(5) The delegation of responsibility through advisory panels……………….25
iv
(6) The change or destruction of art………………………………………....26
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...26
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………29
Introduction
It was not until the mid-1930s that the United States government developed an
agency responsible solely for the funding of art. The Federal Project No.1 (better known
as Federal One) of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided this funding from
1935 – 1943. The Federal Project No.1 was divided into several divisions: Federal Art
Project (FAP), Federal Writers' Project (FWP), Federal Theatre Project (FTP), Federal
Music Project (FMP), and Historical Records Survey (HRS, originally part of the FWP).
The projects of Federal One focused on supplying artists, art teachers, and art
administration professionals with jobs. By the beginning of the 1940s, the WPA’s
programs were winding down as focus shifted from jobs to war efforts. It was not until
the mid-sixties that a new federal art agency to support the arts was created. The National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) aimed to create a cultural identity for America, to
preserve the arts, and to expand creativity in the arts. While other federal agencies have
established projects that resulted in the creation of art, the WPA and the NEA are the
most noteworthy. Surprising similarities can be found between the two federal agencies
and their programs/grants. Although they were created for different reasons, the WPA
and NEA endured controversies throughout their existence and experienced similar
government actions in response to these controversies. These actions include (1)
requiring matching funding from other entities, (2) reorganization of programs, changing
names of programs, and/or the elimination of programs, (3) oaths/pledges from
artists/arts organizations, (4) the denial of funding, (5) the delegation of
responsibility/requiring advising panels, and (6) the change or destruction of art.
2
These actions will be illustrated through specific case studies. While the focus of
this paper is on the actions taken by the government in the wake of controversy, we will
also briefly examine (in some cases) the reaction of the artists/arts organizations to these
actions.
To begin, a brief history of the WPA/ Federal One and the NEA will be presented.
By establishing the histories of these federal funding agencies, art advocates and policy-
makers will understand the long and often complex past of these agencies and will be
able to make more informed decisions when presenting an argument or policy for the
arts. Then case studies (in chronological order) will be given that demonstrate one or
more of the above-mentioned actions. Finally, a review of the actions and how they relate
to the case studies will be shown.
A Brief History Of:
The Works Progress Administration / Federal One
To combat the Great Depression, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of
1935 created the Works Progress Administration on May 6, 1935. The national director
was Harry Hopkins; Hopkins was a close friend of President Roosevelt and a critical part
of the development of Federal One. As a national work program, the Works Progress
Administration’s goal was “to put the unemployed back to work in jobs which would
serve the public good and conserve the skills and self-esteem of workers throughout the
U.S.”
1
The WPA was appropriated $4,880,000,000 for its programs and projects. About
eighty-five percent of the funds went to the wages and salaries of the workers. The WPA
1
Adams, “New Deal Cultural Programs”
3
consisted of a variety of programs that helped construct buildings and highways,
eliminated slums, reforested areas, and even rehabilitated rural communities.
2
As part of the WPA’s programming, Federal One was created. Federal One aimed
to provide artists with jobs during the hard economic times. Through the Federal One
program, administrators and government officials hoped to create a sense of American art
and culture. While artists were not told exactly what to create, the outcomes of their work
established an aesthetic that was unique to American Art. Art would be for the
mainstream public and not just the culturally elite. The five divisions each had a national
and a state director to oversee the projects.
The Federal Art Project (FAP) consisted of a variety of components including an
arts service division, an art teaching division, an easel painting division, a graphic arts
division, the Index of American Design Project, a mural project, a photography project, a
poster division, a scenic design division, a sculpture division, and a stained glass division.
The Federal Music Project consisted of performing ensembles, documenting and
recording expeditions, and classes. The ensembles of the FMP included chamber groups,
chord units, concert groups, dance bands, military bands, opera units, orchestra groups,
and theatre orchestras. The Federal Theatre Project (FTP) employed actors and actresses
as well as those who worked behind the scenes (stagehands, technicians, and other theatre
crew workers) and musicians. The FTP gave more than 1,000 performances monthly. The
Federal Writers Project (FWP) produced the American Guide Series; there was a guide
2
“The WPA in Indiana,” Indiana University.
4
for every state
3
and many major cities. The Federal Writers Project also produced
archives of oral histories and folklore, life histories, and slave narratives. They composed
studies in American Indian cultures, architecture, and science. FWP employees also
contributed a significant amount of “research, editing, and text for other government
agencies.”
4
The Historical Records Survey (HRS) employed workers to survey and
archive historical records in the United States.
For all the benefits and grand outcomes of the Federal One programs (and other
New Deal programs), the projects were also criticized. Some artists and government
officials were concerned that with government funded art, censorship would be a
problem. By the 1940s there was a general concern over the use of government funds for
the arts, and some demanded that all programs should focus on war efforts. The president
of the New York Board of Trade John A. Sellers stated, “The time has come when
Government [sic] expenditures must be directed primarily to national defense. There is
not sufficient wealth in the world to adequately arm the United States and at the same
time carry on the ordinary peacetime pursuits. The defense programs should be paid for
in part out of the savings in nonessential WPA activities.”
5
Indeed, many of the Federal
One programs shifted their focus to war aid, although they were not creating weaponry.
The Federal Art Program created posters and the Federal Writer’s Program created
brochures in relation to the war efforts.
3
The state of California was divided into two guides: North and South California.
4
Kennedy, When Art Worked, 210.
5
William H. Stringer, “Mural dispute stirs demand WPA work only on defense.”
5
There were also concerns of Communist or Nazi ties within some of the Federal
One divisions. Chairman Die organized the House Committee to Investigate Un-
American Activities to explore these alleged political ties. The Reorganization Act of
1939 was a result of this committee. With the Act came several changes to the programs,
and the Federal Theatre Project was eliminated. By 1943, the remaining Federal One
programs were dissolved. There was not another federal agency that provided funding to
the arts until the National Endowment for the Arts was established in 1965.
The National Endowment for the Arts
On September 29, 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was created
under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act
6
signed by President
Lyndon B. Johnson. Unlike Federal One and other New Deal programs, the NEA was not
created to provide jobs. Although the Federal One programs and the NEA differ, they do
share similar goals; for example, they both attempt to provide exposure to the arts and
culture through interaction with the mass public, educate about the arts and cultures, and
create a sense of place through the arts. When created, the NEA focused mainly on
supporting and cultivating the arts. According to the National Endowment for the Arts: A
History, the “NEA was established to nurture American creativity, to elevate the nation’s
culture, and to sustain and preserve the country’s many artistic traditions.”
7
The NEA
received two and a half million dollars from the federal government in its first
appropriation.
6
The National Endowment for the Humanities was also created under this Act.
7
Bauerlien, National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 1.
6
Early NEA fellowship grants were given for dance, literature, and the visual arts.
8
The Endowment used an advisory panel in their grant reviewing process. Early on the
NEA provided grants to organizations as well as individuals. In addition to supporting
dance, literature, and the visual arts, the National Endowment for the Arts also supported
film and television and created the American Film Institute (AFI). The NEA also gave
educational grants, which helped to fund research and provide training and classes.
In 1968 a Congressional review of the National Endowment for the Arts programs
sparked criticism. Some members of Congress debated whether the government should
play a role in supporting the arts and if so, how should they be involved? Many worried
that the government’s role may lead to censorship. Others worried that censorship (or
rather a lack of funding) would befall traditional artists. Some members of Congress
worried that a lack of funding would affect traditional artists negatively, because of
funding more avant-garde art forms. In 1968, an amendment was passed by the House of
Representatives which tried to put an end to grants for individual artists. However, the
Senate rejected this amendment. Although the debate over individual grants would
continue, for the time being, individual artists would continue to receive grants.
In 1995 the NEA came under a serious threat of elimination due to legislation
introduced by Representatives William Goodling (R-PA) and Randy “Duke”
Cunningham (R-CA). The House rejected the bill. Similar bills soon followed yet also
failed to pass. Due to budget cuts (from $162 million to $99 million) the NEA’s staff was
cut in half in 1996, and several changes were made to the Endowment’s structure. Due to
8
Early grants were also given for architecture, design, and planning.
7
a Congressional mandate, all individual artist grants were eliminated in 1996; since then
there have not been any federally funded individual artist grant programs. In 1997 the
NEA once again faced multiple proposals that attempted to eliminate the organization
completely. Legislation threatened to leave the NEA without funding for the fiscal year
1998. In the end, however, a budget of $98 million was allotted to the NEA.
Case Studies
Ethiopia
One of the earliest examples of controversy can be found in the Federal Theatre
Project. This case study exemplifies the changes in priorities from artistic to mainstream
popular standards and the destruction/change of art. On January 24, 1936, a press
showing
9
of the play Ethiopia (slated to be the first FTP production in New York) was
performed at the Biltmore Theatre by the Living Newspapers unit.
10
The Newspaper
Guild of New York co-sponsored the Living Newspapers’ productions. Among the press
was the Assistant Federal Administrator of the WPA, Jacob Baker; Baker was
“accidentally”
11
in attendance. In Ethiopia foreign dignitaries Haile Selassie, Mussolini,
Pierre Laval, Sir Samuel Hoare, and others were portrayed. It was because of this
portrayal that Baker called for changes to be made to the production relating to Baker’s
“fear of international complications.”
12
Elmer Rice, Regional Director of the FTP and
Pulitzer Prize Winner for Drama (1929), felt that Baker’s concerns were a cover-up “to
9
The performance was a rehearsal done with costumes but no scenery. Ethiopia was the first part of the
play.
10
New York’s FTP was divided into five units: the Living Newspapers, the Popular Price Theatre, the
Experimental Theatre, the Negro Theatre, and the Tryout Theatre.
11
“WPA to Give Play on Farm Problem,” New York Times, Jan 28 1936.
12
“Politics Charged to the WPA by Rice,” New York Times , Jan 25 1936.
8
conceal the real issue”
13
; Rice felt that the “real issue” was governmental censorship and
the suppression of the freedom of creative expression. Elmer Rice went on to say that
Baker did not call for changes to be made until after Rice had briefed him on other
production themes. These themes included a play about unemployment and the issues of
relief and another play concerning “conditions in the Southern States.”
14
Elmer Rice
declared that the FTP was being censored and therefore resigned from his position as
Regional Director of the FTP in protest. Morris Watson, the production’s
manager/producer, stated that he intended to continue the production as it had been
planned and would stay with the production (at least through the second show). He
continued on to say that “If, then, [after the second show] any government official
decides that truthful representations of news events is [sic] embarrassing, I shall have to
follow Elmer Rice in what I consider his splendid stand against censorship.”
15
In the
aftermath of the Ethiopia controversy, the new acting regional director of the FTP Philip
W. Barber and the National Director of the FTP Hallie Flanagan maintained that Baker
was only concerned with the “impersonation of heads of foreign governments in shows
financed by federal funds” and that “no instructions [had] been issued…concerning the
impersonation of the President and other officials of this [the United States]
government.”
16
The executive secretary of the Writers Union, Ivan Black, sent a telegram
to Harry Hopkins asking that Hopkins “rescind [the] un-American order stopping The
Living Newspaper production of ‘Ethiopia’” and to support “Elmer Rice’s stand for
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid..
16
“WPA to Give Play on Farm Problem.” New York Times, Jan 28 1936.
9
constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights.”
17
Ultimately, Ethiopia was
replaced with Triple-A Plowed Under
18
, a play concerning the hardships of the dust bowl
farmers and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Floyd Bennett Airport mural
The length of this next example illustrates its complexity and importance. It deals
with several of the actions including oaths/pledges from artists/arts organizations, the
delegation of responsibility through advisory panels, and the destruction of art. On July 8,
1940, three of the four murals that had been installed
19
at the administration building at
the Floyd Bennett Airport in Brooklyn were removed and destroyed by burning. The
murals were part of the Federal Art Project and were created by artist August Henkel.
The reason for the removal of the murals was twofold: 1) Henkel never signed the
required loyalty oath (which was put into effect after he had already begun the mural) and
2) there were several images in the murals that were considered to be Communist
propaganda. The loyalty oath was part of the Relief Bill of 1940. By signing the affidavit,
WPA employees declared that they were neither Communist nor Nazi. Henkel was a self-
proclaimed Communist. In 1934 he was arrested and found guilty of distributing
Communist literature; however, his sentence was suspended upon his promise to not
distribute any more Communist materials. In 1935 Henkel ran as the Communist
candidate for Congress (for the First District of Queens). In 1936 and 1937 he was the
Communist candidate for the Fifth Assembly District of Queens. He withdrew his 1937
17
Ibid.
18
This play came under criticism as well but was allowed to be performed.
19
These murals had not yet been permanently adhered to the walls.
10
nomination in order to support the American Labor Party candidate. Because he refused
to sign the loyalty oath, Henkel was dismissed from the WPA. Although admittedly a
Communist, Henkel insisted that the murals did not contain Communist propaganda.
The painting of the mural began in 1937. Each mural was six feet by thirty feet.
Among the alleged Communist images were a portrait resembling Joseph Stalin, a red
star on a United States Navy hanger, a Soviet polar plane, a shield with an image
resembling a swastika, and President Roosevelt in a warlike setting before a microphone.
Henkel said the image alleged to be Joseph Stalin was based on a photo given to him by
the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of Franz Reichelt.
20
Henkel explained the Soviet
polar plane was actually a Vultee, which is an American-made plane. The mural that
included President Roosevelt also included aircraft carriers, student pilots, anti-aircraft
guns, “an ancient warrior facing a modern mechanized solider with German helmet, gas
mask and flame thrower,” mass debris and column ruins, a child being rescued by a man,
Red Cross nurses, and a Madonna and Child.
21
Of the mural including President
Roosevelt, Henkel said that it was meant to symbolize “President Roosevelt as a
champion of the forces of democracy against the aggressors.” WPA officials felt that the
subject matter of that particular mural was “out of place at a field devoted to civil
aviation.”
22
Other offensive or questionable images included portraits of radical aviator
Jimmy Collins and of Joseph Rosmarin, once an aviator for the Spanish Loyalists. Henkel
explained his inclusion of the portraits stating that “Collins was a Navy test pilot who
20
Franz Reichelt was a pioneer of parachuting. He accidently died by jumping from the Eiffel Tower while
testing a design in 1912.
21
“'Red' airfield murals torn down” New York Times, 9 July 1940.
22
Ibid.
11
died testing a Navy bomber and Rosmarin is now a pilot at Bennett Field and [is]
generally respected.”
23
Henkel also stated that Rosmarin was “willing to pose”
24
for the
mural. According to the New York Times
25
, Henkel had an explanation for all images
considered to be Communist expect for one. He believes that the “red star” painted on the
U.S. Navy hanger was a mistake made by an assistant. He suggested that perhaps an
assistant painted it red instead of white.
26
The one mural that remained intact at the Floyd
Bennett Airport “was an allegorical presentation of flying and was found to be without
propaganda taint.”
27
Several associations made complaints about the murals’ content, including the
Women’s International Aeronautic Association, the Flatbush Chamber of Commerce, and
the Floyd Bennett Post of the American Legion. Upon these complaints Lieut. Col.
Brehon B. Somervell (a local WPA administrator), Dock Commissioner John McKenzie,
and Mrs. Audrey McMahon (New York State Director of the Federal Arts Project)
investigated these complaints by examining the content of the murals. Colonel Somervell
issued the orders to have three of the murals removed by workmen. The murals were then
“torn down, rolled up into bundles and taken to WPA headquarters…[in] Manhattan.”
28
23
“Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell,” New York Times,10 July 1940.
24
William H. Stringer, “Mural dispute stirs demand WPA work only on defense,” The Christian Science
Monitor, 1940.
25
“Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell,” New York Times,10 July 1940.
26
William H. Stringer, “Mural dispute stirs demand WPA work only on defense,” The Christian Science
Monitor, 1940.
27
“'Red' airfield murals torn down” New York Times, 9 July 1940.
28
Ibid.
12
According to Henkel, his sketches had been approved by “the proper authorities
and the work was under constant supervision.”
29
Colonel Somervell explained that while
members of the Municipal Art Commission had “examined and approved [the murals]
some time ago,”
30
he suspected that Henkel made changes “after he had learned that he
was to be discharged from the WPA for refusing to sign the affidavit...”
31
While Henkel
received the blame for the alleged Communist propaganda within the mural, he was not
the only artist working on the murals. Artist Eugene Chodorow, as well as assistants, also
worked on the murals. Colonel Somervell exonerated Eugene Chodorow of any
responsibility for the Communist propaganda. Colonel Somervell, however, did
investigate to determine if “any higher-ups had been guilty of negligence in allowing the
murals to be hung.”
32
After the murals had been removed, Henkel announced his intent to sue Colonel
Somervell for defamation of character. Henkel asked for $100,000 in damages. He
believed that Colonel Somervell was “raising a ‘red scare’ in order to attack the WPA art
project and undermine public confidence in it.”
33
He even equated the burning of the
murals to the Nazis burning books. The United American Artists
34
(local 60) also thought
that the removal of the murals was an attempt to destroy the integrity of the art project,
stating that it was “part of a smearing campaign of falsehood and innuendo being
29
“Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell,” New York Times,10 July 1940.
30
While the murals had been approved they had yet to be formally accepted through the Municipal Art
Commission.
31
“Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell,” New York Times,10 July 1940.
32
William H. Stringer, “Mural dispute stirs demand WPA work only on defense,” The Christian Science
Monitor, 1940.
33
“Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell,” New York Times,10 July 1940.
34
The United American Artists was an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
13
developed for the purpose of wrecking the art project.”
35
The executive secretary of the
union
36
, Rita Murphy, stated that the accusations were “sheer fabrication.”
37
The
American Artists Congress called the removal of the murals “fuehere-like”
38
and stated
that it showed “contempt for culture and freedom of expression.” With their statement the
American Artists Congress also called for the dismissal of Colonel Somervell.
The controversy over the Floyd Bennett airport mural led to a larger debate over
the type of projects the WPA funded. Some felt that the WPA should focus only on
defense projects. As stated earlier, President of the New York Board of Trade John A.
Sellers felt that the Federal One projects were nonessential. WPA officials replied that the
skills of those employed under the Federal One programs are “not along mechanical lines
and therefore would not fit into the industrial defense mobilization.”
39
One of the benefits
of the WPA was its Federal One programs, which specifically gave artists employment in
their field. By the 1940s, however, many of the Federal One projects shifted their focus to
war efforts by creating pamphlets, manuals, and poster art in support of the war.
Reorganization Act of 1939
The Reorganization Act of 1939 illustrates requiring matching funding from other
entities and the reorganization of programs/changing names of programs, and/or the
elimination of programs. Representative Martian Die, Jr. (D-TX) suspected Communists
35
“'Red' airfield murals torn down” New York Times, 9 July 1940.
36
From the article “Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell” it is unclear exactly which union Rita Murphy is
executive secretary of. There is no mention of a union before her quote; the paragraph merely starts with
her name, title, and then her quote. The article goes on to quote the American Artists Congress.
37
“Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell,” New York Times,10 July 1940.
38
Ibid.
39
William H. Stringer, “Mural dispute stirs demand WPA work only on defense,” The Christian Science
Monitor, 1940.
14
or Nazis within the Federal Art Project, Federal Writers Project, and the Federal Theatre
Project. Because of these suspensions, controversy arose and the House Un-American
Activities Committee (HUAC) was established. The HUAC held hearings and as a result
of these hearings, the Reorganization Act of 1939 was created.
With the Reorganization Act of 1939, many structural changes were made to
Federal One and the WPA. The Works Progress Administration was renamed the Works
Project Administration. The act required the Federal One divisions to secure 25% of local
funding
40
before federal funding was released.
41
The Federal Theatre Project was
dissolved in 1939 through the Act and because of the FTP’s controversies; Representative
Die suspected Communist activities within the FTP. The Federal Music Project was now
called the WPA Music Program. The Federal Writers Project lost its federal funding but
continued on with only state sponsorship. By the end of these programs, the majority of
the projects focused on war efforts. By 1943, the Federal Art Project, the Federal Writers
Project, the WPA Music Program and the Historic Records Survey were all dissolved.
1969 and 1970 American Literary Anthology
In this example, one can see how controversy over the worth/content of an
artwork
42
can lead to a loss of funding. One of the earliest NEA grant controversies was
over the 1969 issue of American Literary Anthology, which had awarded $750 to all the
authors included in the Anthology. The issue contained a one word “concrete poem” by
40
The projects were given two months to secure this funding.
41
Bing, “A Brief Overview of the WPA.”
42
The poem described in this example is a literary work, yet more suitably called an artwork due to its
visual presence.
15
minimalist poet Aram Saroyan; the poem read “lighght.”
43
The poem is meant to be seen
rather than read aloud. Saroyan explains, “Part of the aim [of the poem] seems to have
been to make this ineffable (light) into a thing, as it were -- to change it from a verb (the
agency of illumination) to a noun that yet radiates as light does. The double ghgh seems
to work in that way."
44
Some members of Congress (as well as some member of the
public) felt that a one-word “misspelled” poem was not worthy of funding. Funding for
the 1969 issue was not revoked despite the controversy. However, the last straw came the
following year. The 1970 issue of the American Literary Anthology contained an
“obscene” work by poet and singer Ed Sanders. After enduring controversy over
Saroyan’s poem in the 1969 issue and Sanders’s poem the following year, the NEA
withdrew their support of the 1970 issue of the American Literary Anthology.
Tilted Arc by Richard Serra
Yet another complex example involving several of the actions is that of Richard
Serra’s public art sculpture Tilted Arc. This example demonstrates delegation of
responsibility through advisory panels and the destruction of art. In 1979 the General
Service Administration (GSA) appointed the NEA to select an advisory panel.
45
This
panel was responsible for choosing an artwork as part of the GSA’s Art-in-Architecture
program. Artist Richard Serra was selected and his design approved. In July 1981 Tilted
Arc was installed in the plaza in front of the Jacob K. Javits federal office building. The
sculpture was 120 feet long, 12 feet high, and 2 ½ inches wide. It was made of cor-ten
43
This poem had been previously published in the Chicago Review.
44
“Poetry of Light by Aram Saroyan,” The Lancaster Literary Guild.
45
The panel consisted of Patricia Fuller, Joseph Colt, Suzanne Delehanty, Ira Licht, and Robert Pincus-
Witten.
16
steel and weighted 72 tons. Serra was paid $175,000 and claimed he did not profit from
creating the artwork because of the building and installation costs. The director of the
Art-in-Architecture program supported his claim.
Numerous complaints about the artwork were received by the GSA. Many who
worked in the Javits building (or those close by) felt inconvenienced by the sculpture’s
positioning and had to walk around it to enter the building. The architect of the Javits
Building, Alfred Easton Poor, argued that the artwork “obstructed the view from one
building to another” and also that his “firm, which designed the building, was not
consulted.”
46
In 1984 William Diamond, regional administrator of the GSA, gathered
nearly 4,000 signatures petitioning the removal of Tilted Arc. Those for the removal of
Tilted Arc argued that “…official reasonability for the public’s aesthetic and nonaesthetic
welfare was being violated by the permanent presence of a disliked work…[and] that
public art must not offend the public that pays for it and that to retain a work against the
public’s wishes would interfere with the public’s freedom of expression…[and] that the
GSA owned the work and this gave them the right to remove it.”
47
According to Serra, he
had an oral agreement “that the work would be permanently installed at the site for which
it was designed”
48
and thus the removal of said work would have been a breach of
contract. Because the artwork was site-specific, the removal of the work thus destroys the
piece; without the specific location the work would have no meaning.
46
“Richard Serra: The Case of Tilted Arc,” University of Arizona.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
17
In March 1985, William Diamond called a three-day public hearing to consider
the removal of the work. Judge Edward D. Re presided over a panel
49
of five. During the
hearing over 180 people testified; of those, over 120 supported keeping the work as is. In
the end, however, the panel voted 4 to 1 in favor of the removal of Tilted Arc. In May
1985 Dwight Ink, acting administrator of the GSA, made the final decision to remove the
work. Serra then sued Diamond and Ink for the violation of his contract. In August 1987
Judge Milton Pollack
50
dismissed Serra’s case. While the work was not physically
destroyed, it has been in storage since its removal.
AVA-7 exhibition featuring Andres Serrano
While controversies continued throughout the years over the content of NEA art
funding by the NEA, none were as notorious as two 1988 exhibitions including works by
photographers Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe. Both of these exhibitions show
the use of oaths/pledges from artists/arts organizations and the delegation of
responsibility through advisory panels.
51
In September 1987 the NEA awarded the Southeastern Center for Contemporary
Art (SECCA) a $75,000 grant, which helped support their program Awards in the Visual
Arts (AVA). The Equitable Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation matched the
NEA grant. SECCA selected ten artists for their 7
th
annual showcase; the NEA was not
involved in their selection. In May 1988 the traveling exhibition, known as the AVA-7,
opened at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The AVA-7 contained a highly
49
The panel consisted of William Diamond, Michael Findlay, Thomas Lewin, Paul Chistolini, and Gerald
Turetsky.
50
Judge Milton Pollack presided over the US district court in Manhattan.
51
An “arms length” approach.
18
controversial work by photographer Andres Serrano entitled Piss Christ. The work
featured a crucifix in glass through a yellowish glow; the medium in which the crucifix
was suspended was urine. Senator Alphonse D’Amato called the work a “deplorable,
despicable display of vulgarity.”
52
Amidst the Piss Christ controversy the NEA was
between chairmen. In an attempt to soften the controversy, the acting chairman Hugh
Southern released a statement on April 25, 1989, stating, “The National Endowment for
the Arts supports the right of the grantee organizations to select, on artistic criteria, their
artist-recipients and present their work, even though sometimes the work may be deemed
controversial and offensive to some individuals.”
53
In response to Serrano’s artwork a
group of twenty-seven Senators, headed by Senators Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) and Jesse
Helms (R-NC), sent a letter to the NEA insisting that the agency stop funding
“sacrilegious art.”
54
Southern then responded to the Senators by stating that he too found
the work to be offensive but reminded them that SECCA was responsible for selecting
the artists, not the NEA. On May 31, 1989, Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) demanded that
the Endowment “cut off funds to SECCA for five years.”
55
While this demand was not
considered, funding for SECCA was threatened and will be discussed more in the section
The “Obscenity Clause” and Artist Reactions.
52
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA’s New Funding
Restrictions,” 942.
53
Bauerlien, National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 91.
54
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA’s New Funding
Restrictions,” 942.
55
Bauerlien, National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 93.
19
The Perfect Moment retrospective of Robert Mapplethorpe
In July 1988 a $30,000 grant was awarded to the University of Pennsylvania’s
Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) for a retrospective of photographer Robert
Mapplethorpe’s works. The exhibition was entitled The Perfect Moment and opened in
December 1988. The exhibition contained a still life series, nudes, and portraits. Some of
these images were graphically sexual and included “bondage and homosexuality.”
56
In
June 1989 Washington DC’s Corcoran Gallery of Art cancelled their part of the touring
exhibition. The Washington Project for the Arts did not cancel the exhibition and
showcased the works from July though August.
The “Obscenity Pledge,” the “Decency Pledge,” and Artist Reactions
During the Mapplethorpe controversy, some members of Congress started to
debate the H.R. 2788 bill, which was responsible for NEA funding. An amendment to the
bill (created by Representative Charles Stenholm [D-TX]) aimed to reduce the amount of
funding to the Arts Endowment. The proposal was to cut $45,000 from the Endowment’s
funding, a number which represented the Endowment’s contribution to the SECCA
($30,000) and the ICA ($15,000). The bill was passed by the House. Senator Jesse Helms
(R-NC) added a stipulation to the bill stating that the NEA could not allocate funds for
works that were deemed “obscene or indecent.”
57
Helms proposed that NEA funds could
not be used to “promote, disseminate, or provide- (1) obscene or indecent materials,
including but not limited to depictions of sadomasochism, homo-eroticism, the
56
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA’s New Funding
Restrictions,” 942.
57
Helms’ definition was based on the language used by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California.
20
exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts; or (2) materials which
denigrate the objects of beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion or non-religion; or
(3) material which denigrates, debases, or reviles a person, group, or class of citizens on
the basis of race, creed, sex, handicap, age or national origin.”
58
The Senate passed the
“Helms Amendment,” but the House of Representatives rejected it.
Some senators felt this proposal was too extensive; Senator John Danforth (R-
MO) argued that under such restrictions “classics such as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry
Finn could not have received federal support.”
59
On October 23, 1989, Congress passed a
less severe version of the amendment, which “prohibited the use of federal funds to
promote material which in the judgment of the NEA could be considered obscene.”
60
The
“Helms Amendment,” or as it is better known the “obscenity pledge,” would be added to
all the NEA grants’ terms and conditions. The obscenity pledge now declared works to be
obscene if they included “…depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual
exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts which, when taken as a whole,
do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
61
The obscenity pledge
marked the first time in United States history that Congress established “restrictions on
the content of government sponsored art.”
62
Through this bill, the Senate would also
create an “independent commission to review the Arts Endowment’s grant-making
58
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA’s New Funding
Restrictions,” 943.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.
21
operation.”
63
In the end, the $45,000 cut was not part of the bill, the SECCA and ICA
were not banned, and the Endowment’s funding remained the same.
The amendments to the H.R. 2788 bill in the late 1980s, especially the obscenity
pledge, caused some to question whether the National Endowment for the Arts was
censoring the arts. Indeed some artists and organizations did not agree with the new terms
and conditions of the grants. Joseph Papp, a New York theatre director, turned down two
grants worth a total of $323,000.
64
Papp stated, “I cannot in all good conscience accept
any money from the NEA as long as the Helms-inspired amendment on obscenity is part
of our agreement.”
65
Conductor Leonard Bernstein refused the National Medal of Arts
Award because John Frohnmeyer, Director of the NEA, cancelled a $10,000 grant to
Artists Space, a New York gallery. Artists Space presented “Witnesses: Against our
Vanishing" and it was the catalogue for the presentation that Frohnmayer disapproved of.
Bernstein stated that "a catalogue is not...a work of art" and that Frohnmayer’s decision
was "political rather than artistic in nature."
66
Later, Frohymayer restored the grant
67
but
stipulated that the funds could not be used in the creation of the catalogue.
The Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation was awarded a grant but the company
manager refused to sign and agree to the new terms and conditions. The NEA’s General
Counsel, Julianne Ross Davis, explained to the foundation that “none of the terms of the
63
Bauerlien, National Endowment for the Arts: A History, 94.
64
One of these grants was for the New York Shakespeare Festival and worth $50,000.
65
John Houchin, Censorship of the America Theatre in the Twentieth Century, 242.
66
Jody Lynn Olsen Agraz, “The National Endowment for the Art's Decency Standard and Freedom of
Expression: Examining the Indecency Policy-Making System,” 199.
67
The grant was reinstated after Frohnmayer consulted with the National Council on the Arts and NEA
advisors.
22
grant [were] optional.”
68
The foundation then sued in Bella Lewitsky Dance Foundation
v. Frohnmayer
69
declaring that the “pledge was unconstitutional.” In this case, the ruling
was in favor of the Bella Lewitsky Dance Foundation. The court found the obscenity
pledge to be an “unconstitutional condition [placed] upon an artist’s freedom to exercise
fundamental rights.”
70
A deciding factor in the case was that the definition of obscenity
was totally at the discretion of the NEA, and its restrictions were vague. Like the Bella
Lewitsky Dance Foundation, the New School for Social Research
71
refused a grant which
would have remodeled a courtyard and sued in New School v. Frohnmayer. Eventually
the NEA agreed to allow the New School to obtain the funds without having to sign the
obscenity pledge. Because of this, in February 1991 the New School dropped the lawsuit.
The “obscenity pledge” sparked many artists and art directors to refuse to serve on the
NEA panel.
72
On October 11, 1990, the Williams-Coleman Amendment
73
, or “decency clause,”
was added to the bill. Artworks funded under the decency clause needed to “incorporate
general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the
American public.”
74
Under the decency clause, grant recipients were required to file a
report stating that their work(s) met the new standards. The decency clause also stated
68
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA’s New Funding
Restrictions,” 946.
69
Frohnmayer refers to John Frohnmeyer, the new director of the NEA at that time.
70
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA’s New Funding
Restrictions,” 948.
71
The New School for Social Research is an arts institution and has campuses in New York and California.
72
In 1992, the Visual Arts panel resigned in protest thus there were no fellowship grants awarded for
sculpture.
73
This amendment was proposed by Representatives Pat Williams (D- MT) and Ronald D. Coleman (D-
TX).
74
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the NEA’s New Funding
Restrictions,” 951.
23
that if a candidate did not meet this or other requirements the NEA “could suspend grant
payments, and could even require artists to pay back money previously disbursed.”
75
On
November 5, 1990, the Williams-Coleman Amendment was signed into law.
The “NEA Four”
In the case of the “NEA Four,” the following actions can be identified:
oaths/pledges from artists/arts organizations and the denial of funding. In May 1990 the
National Council on the Arts decided to defer a group of grants that were to be awarded
to performance artists based on the decency clause. There were 18 grants in total that
were deferred for four months. Eventually 14 of the 18 grants were awarded. The four
grants that were not reinstated were to be awarded to Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly
Hughes, and Tim Miller; these performance artists became known as the “NEA Four.”
John Frohnmeyer, Director of the NEA, decided to revoke their awards.
76
Finley’s
performance included pouring chocolate sauce on her body while naked. Fleck’s
performance simulated masturbation. Hughes and Miller’s performance works dealt with
homosexuality. The denial of these grants sparked a public debate over the NEA’s
approval process. Because of this, in August 1990 the National Council on the Arts
changed its meeting policy; the grant review meetings would now be open to the public.
The NEA Four, along with the National Association of Artists’ Organizations (NAAO),
filed a lawsuit against the NEA calling a clause defining the content of art
unconstitutional. In 1993, the court ruled the decency clause to be void due to its
vagueness, stating that it “creates a trap for the unwary applicant [who may] offend
75
Ibid.
76
John Houchin, Censorship of the America Theatre in the Twentieth Century, 242.
24
someone’s subjective understanding of the standard.”
77
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John
M. Harlan elaborated, stating that “one [person’s] vulgarity is another’s lyric.”
78
The
court furthermore ruled that the decency clause did not set any guidelines for
administering the subjective standard. Once again
79
, a court ruled that the clause violated
the First Amendment because it was too broad. As a result of this and other controversies,
the NEA decided to quit funding individual artists in 1996.
Many of the case studies presented have shown multiple actions taken in response
to a controversy. The six government actions will now be discussed in more detail in
relation to these examples. By presenting the case studies and actions, art funding
advocates and policy-makers will be able to better understand what has worked in the
past and what has not; therefore, they can be more successful in their advocacy work and
policy writing.
Actions
(1) Requiring Matching Funding from Other Entities and the
(2) Reorganization of programs/changing names of programs, and/or the elimination of
programs, and/or the Elimination of Programs
Requiring matching funding from other entities and the reorganization of
programs, changing names of programs, and/or the elimination of programs are both
general actions that have been taken by both Federal One and the NEA. A specific
example can been found in the WPA’s Reorganization Act of 1939. The Act changed the
77
Raleigh Douglas Herbert, “National Endowment for the Arts- The Federal Government’s Funding of the
Arts and the Decency Clause.”
78
Ibid.
79
As seen previously in Bella Lewitsky Dance Foundation v. Frohnmayer.
25
names of several of the Federal One programs, eliminated the Federal Theatre Project,
and required all remaining programs to acquire 25% matching funding from the States in
order to receive federal funding. Likewise, some of the NEA funding programs require
matching funding. In 1996 the NEA eliminated its grants for individual artists.
(3) Oaths/Pledges from Artists/Arts Organizations
During trying economic times, the United States had enough worries. Then, with
the threat of another war, many feared Communists and Nazis within the states. Because
of this, the Relief Bill of 1940 required participants to sign a loyalty oath declaring that
they were neither Communist nor Nazi. The NEA has similarly required either the above
mentioned “obscenity pledge” or “decency pledge.” These pledges came not from fear of
political ties but rather relate to action number 6; the NEA did not want to provide
funding for art that the mainstream public deemed undesirable.
(4) The Denial of Funding
The “lighght” poem controversy raised the question of the worth of content that
was funded. The next year, NEA withdrew their funding from the 1970 issue of the
American Literary Anthology because of an “obscene” work by Ed Sanders. Because of
the decency pledge, the NEA decided to revoke the grants awarded to the “NEA Four.”
(5) The Delegation of Responsibility through Advisory Panels
The NEA has a history of requiring advisory panels for grants since their
inception. Sometimes the NEA itself carries out this process, but other times arts
organizations that receive grant funding are required to make up their own advisory
panels and select artists for funding. This is known as an “arms length” approach. Even
26
though this approach attempts to distance the grant giver from the grantee, often the NEA
still receives blame for the types of art works that are funded. This was the case with the
AVA-7 exhibition featuring Andres Serrano and the Robert Mapplethrope retrospective
The Perfect Moment.
(6) The Change or Destruction of Art
As mentioned above, the play Ethiopia never had a chance to be performed (other
than the press preview show). Three of the four mural panels at the Floyd Bennett Airport
were torn down and destroyed. The destruction of art is not always a physical act.
Richard Serra’s Titled Arc, while not physically destroyed, lost its meaning and purpose
once it was removed from its site-specific location.
Conclusion
The programs of Federal One aimed to provide artists with jobs and endured
controversies along the way. Whether these controversies were over the content of an
artwork or alleged political ties, Communist or Nazi propaganda was the main reason for
government action/reaction. Today Communist or Nazi propaganda is less of a threat;
this threat has been replaced, however, with “obscenity.” When controversies arose over
the content of artworks funded by the NEA, it was generally because the work was
deemed obscene. In response to these controversies, the government took actions which
attempted to satisfy the mainstream popular standards rather than artistic standards. The
government in general feels that federally funded artworks should be what the public
finds worthy of funding, enhances the cultural identity of American Art, and are all
around enjoyable works. At the same time, however, the government has been accused of
27
censorship by taking into account the public’s needs over that of the artists’ freedom of
expression.
The case studies have demonstrated that the government uses one or more of the
actions described as a reaction to controversy. Government sponsorship of the arts has
always raised the concern of censorship. Censorship may be the denial of funding (based
on content), requiring oaths or pledges, and the removal or destruction of artworks. In
some cases, government censorship of art can be argued. In general these cases result
from the government acting on behalf of what they feel is in the interest of the general
public.
There are numerous other examples of U.S. art funding controversy, but they do
not necessarily lead to actions or policy changes. Rather the ongoing occurrence of these
controversies ultimately leads to these changes. Yet when amendments have been added
to try to avoid these controversies, artists and arts organizations cry “censorship.” How
can arts advocates bridge the gap between these groups and their opposing goals? There
will always be artwork that someone will find offensive, and there will always be artists
fighting for their right for the creative freedom of expression. Therefore, these types of
controversies are sure to occur in the future.
By knowing the history of art funding, the controversies that have occurred, and
the actions taken by the government in response to said controversies, art funding
advocates and policy-makers can make better informed decisions when presenting an art
funding idea or when trying to influence public policy. For example, it has been proven
that many grants require an advisory panel; therefore, policy-makers and advocates may
28
want to include such a panel in their original proposals. Obtaining multiple funding
sources has also been demonstrated as a benefit when seeking a grant. Establishing a
partnership with an organization or individuals who are recognized as having American
values (like those of the mainstream public) is also an effective way to increase the
likelihood of a grant approval. The information in this paper may also help prepare arts
organizations and government agencies for reactions to funded artworks. Again, by
having knowledge of past funding, problems that have arisen, and the steps that have
been taken in attempts to avoid said problems in the future, arts advocates and policy-
makers will be better prepared and able to present successful proposals for arts funding.
29
Bibliography
Don Adams and Arlene Goldbard, “New Deal Cultural Programs: Experiments in
Cultural Democracy,” Institute for Cultural Democracy,
http://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html (accessed June 6, 2012).
Margaret Bing, “A Brief Overview of the WPA,” Bienes Museum of the Modern Book.
http://www.broward.org/library/bienes/lii10204.htm (accessed June 14, 2012).
Mark Bauerlein and Ellen Grantham, ed. National Endowment for the Arts: A History,
National Endowments for the Art (Washington, DC: 2009), www.arts.gov/pub/nea-
history-1965-2008.pdf.
Michael Wingfield Walker, “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: The Aftermath of the
NEA’s New Funding Restrictions,” Washington University Law Review, Volume 71
Issue 3 (1993).
Jody Lynn Olsen Agraz, “The National Endowment for the Art's Decency Standard and
Freedom of Expression: Examining the Indecency Policy-Making System” (PhD diss.,
University of Utah, 2008).
John Houchin, Censorship of the America Theatre in the Twentieth Century, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003).
“Painter of Murals to Sue Somervell: Prepares suit as result of WPA destruction of work
at the bennett airport.” New York Times July 10 1940.
http://emich.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMLM0TTGySEk1S
jZPNEm2BJaSKcYWZpaJxkkGaYZJ4JlzxKHzSKW5myiDrJtriLOHLqxUjE_JyQG2UU
E9J0szU0MxBhZgnzgVAGZRF34 (accessed Jan 4, 2013).
Raleigh Douglas Herbert, “National Endowment for the Arts- The Federal Government’s
Funding of the Arts and the Decency Clause,” Seton Hall Legislative Journal V 18
(1993).
“'Red' airfield murals torn down; WPA dismisses their creator: Artist refused to swear he
was neither communist nor nazi--somervell inquiry may cause other oustings” New York
Times July 9 1940.
http://emich.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMLM0TTGySEk1S
jZPNEm2BJaSKcYWZpaJxkkGaYZJ4JlzxKHzSKW5myiDrJtriLOHLqxUjE_JyQG2UY
2BzRhjMxNDMQYWYJ84FQBmDBd4 (accessed Jan 4, 2013).
William H. Stringer, “Mural dispute stirs demand WPA work only on defense: Not
enough wealth answer to criticism likeness of stalin U.S. delays test.” The Christian
Science Monitor. July 10 1940.
30
http://emich.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMLM0TTGySEk1S
jZPNEm2BJaSKcYWZpaJxkkGaYZJ4JlzxKHzSKW5myiDrJtriLOHLqxUjE_JyYk3Brb
5LU2BFZmhGAMLsE-cCgBmQhd6 (accessed Jan 4, 2013).
“The WPA in Indiana,” Indiana University,
http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/wpa/wpa.html (accessed June 6, 2012).
“Poetry of Light by Aram Saroyan,” The Lancaster Literary Guild,
http://www.litguild.org/content.php?filename=poetryoflight.html
“Politics Charged to the WPA by Rice: ' living newspaper' censored as injurious to
democrats, says director who quit. REPORTERS SEE 'ETHIOPIA' after special
performance cast appeals for guarantee of freedom of expression,” New York Times , Jan
25 1936.
http://emich.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMLM0TTGySEk1S
jZPNEm2BJaSKcYWZpaJxkkGaYZJ4JlzxKHzSKW5myiDjJtriLOHLqxUjE_JyYm3ML
cEza2ZGYoxsAC7xKkAT5MXTw
“WPA to Give Play on Farm Problem: Will take place of 'ethiopia,' censorship of which
led to rice's resignation. AAA DISCUSSED IN SHOW barber says he will continue
predecessor's policies and plans for productions.” New York Times, Jan 28 1936.
http://emich.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMLM0TTGySEk1S
jZPNEm2BJaSKcYWZpaJxkkGaYZJ4JlzxKHzSKW5myiDjJtriLOHLqxUjE_JyYm3ML
c0AHakTAzFGFiAXeJUAE9_F00
