National Arts Lottery

Who decides which arts groups or individual artists get Federal grants in the arts? There's a process in place but folks in places like Pdx complain that folks in bigger cities like New York, LA and Chicago -- even Seattle! -- are looked upon with kinder favor. I made a suggestion recently in a comment at Bob Hicks' Art Scatter blog that no one paid much attention to but the more I think about it, the more I like it. Award the grants via a lottery. Draw the names out of a hat. There are minimum qualifications to apply, to get into the hat in the first place, but after that, it's random. Luck of the draw.

What I like about this idea:

• it de-politicizes the process
• it makes it more exciting for the zillions of artists not in the major centers
• invites wonderful surprises
• makes centralized critical opinion irrelevant
• has less administrative costs, hence more money for the artists

Another reason I like the idea is that I've served on a committee that decided how money went to artists. The process sucked. What happened, and rather predictably if you think about it, is that artists with passion had applications with great support but also heated opposition. In the end, the money was given to the "safest" applicants, those who did NOT generate any passion pro or con, the ones who were okay and were safe. I don't think the best artists got the loot. No way. This was another cultural machination, of which there are many, to inspire mediocrity in the middle.

Someone needs to propose a National Arts Lottery in Congress.