Sleight of Hand, or How an NEA Book-Art Fellowship to Me Was Reduced and Nearly Killed (1998)

A bank’s directors, under our present laws, are hardly more than false-faces. They have neither the time nor the skill to scrutinize the doings of their officers.... Most of them, if the Baltimore Trust case may be taken as typical, are business men with no special knowledge of banking, and little apparent desire to acquire any. They seek the office, in some cases, because they want an inside track to the bank’s strongbox, but in most cases what moves them is only vanity.

—H. L. Mencken, “On Banks” (1936)

Late in October 1985 I received from the National Endowment for the Arts not the familiar single-page rejection slip, but a larger package that included a letter from Frank S. M. Hodsoll, the chairman at the time. It told me that the NEA had awarded me a grant for $15,000 from the Visual Arts for my application in the category of “Prints/Drawings/Artists Books.” Pleased as any recipient would be, I did not discover for a decade the problems and machinations behind this award.

What got my curiosity going was a letter from Professor Jacob Neusner, an NEA Councilor at the time, that I’d been awarded not the intermediate prize of fifteen grand but the top prize of twenty-five grand. Later a friend of a panelist told me that the panel considering my application had indeed awarded me the top prize, but that it was reduced at a point beyond their adjudication. My friend didn’t know why, while his friend the panelist wasn’t saying. When the award was acknowledged in the 1985 Annual Report of the NEA, it was accompanied by an asterisk that said my grant was paid with money appropriated in 1986. Sure enough, in the 1986 Annual Report my name appears again with another asterisk asserting that the grant was awarded not in 1986 but in 1985. The fact that nothing else was similarly asterisked in either book should have prompted me long ago to ask the NEA, as any citizen is empowered to do of any government agency having any paper with her or his name on it, for all documents relating to this grant.

Not until recently, however, did I get a more complete story, thanks to petitioning the Freedom of Information Act officer at the NEA, citing (as any petitioner should) 5 U.S.C. #552 (B). To judge from the papers submitted to me (and only those papers, as panelists are pledged to secrecy), at the visual arts meeting in the early summer of 1985 six panelists unanimously voted me the higher sum. They were Martha Beck, then the director of The Drawing Center, NY; Kathan Brown, still the director of the Crown Point Press, Oakland, CA; the Georgia artist Cheryl Goldsleger, the New York painter Ellen Lanyon, the Kansas artist Roger Shimomura, and the New York artist Paul Zelevansky. Don’t forget these names, because they figure anonymously later in the story.

Prior to the Eighty-Fifth meeting, August 2-4, 1985, of the National Council of the Arts, which customarily rubber-stamps panels’ recommendations, the various departmental administrators prepared a sort of briefing book identifying the winners of individual fellowships from their program. To account for the six top awards, they appended a single sheet, whose copy about myself I now have, characterizing the achievement of each winner. About me they said the following:

RICHARD KOSTELANETZ is an important New York visual artist whose books combining text and visual images have been an important influence on other artists in this country and abroad. In the past 20 years, he has published numerous books of his own work, as well as over 30 anthologies of other visual artists’ book projects. He has received a Pulitzer Fellowship and a Guggenheim Fellowship.

However, at a meeting the morning of August 4, according to the NEA’s own minutes, one councilor, apparently Joseph Epstein, then as now the editor of The American Scholar, “asked whether the Richard Kostelanetz described in the brief career summary of the $25,000 Visual Arts Fellowship recipients was the New York avant garde writer and publisher. He questioned it because he did not think of Kostelanetz as a visual artist and felt that the description was not representative of his career.” Rather than challenge Epstein’s limited sense of career possibilities in America (and, behind that, the evident limitations of his purported intellect, unwilling to recognize prominence in areas unfamiliar to him), “Program Director Richard Andrews informed him that Kostelanetz had been recognized as a leader in conceptual art in the visual arts field for the last 15 or 20 years. He is one of those artists whose work cannot be neatly categorized.” Consider this response courageous, as Andrews was then new to his NEA job.

Even more self-consciously limited intellectually (and easily deceived by Epstein), “Chairman Hodsoll asked whether Kostelanetz was in fact a visual artist, and Mr. Andrews replied that he was, primarily as a creator of artist books. Because this was the special $25,000 category, the Chairman was uneasy about singling out someone on the cusp for the fellowship,” to quote again from NEA minutes now in my possession. Another panelist, probably Samuel Lipman (then the publisher of The New Criterion), “knew Mr. Kostelanetz chiefly as ‘a critic and man of all work’ who publishes Concrete Poetry in which poetry is printed as shapes. It did not occur [to this Councilor] that this was visual arts or poetry. In the literary community he did not think Kostelanetz had a powerful name.” Another unidentified Councilor “said it made him think he [Kostelanetz] should apply to the music panel for his rendition of ‘Peg O’ My Heart.’” Whatever that last statement means, it was surely stupid, and meant to reflect stupidity, because no one else acknowledged it. Richard Andrews, whom I’d not met before and haven’t met since, replied that, “Kostelanetz does have a large name in the visual arts community. If he did not have a name in the literary world, Mr. Andrews could not address that failing, pointing out that this fellowship was in the Visual Arts New Genre Category.” Thanks, pal.

Another NEA Councilor “stated she had trouble with the fellowship to Mr. Kostelanetz on several levels because he used to surface in Literature Program applications and was not taken seriously by the literature community at that time. She also thought he was ‘stinking rich.’” Though names were deleted from the papers submitted to me under the FOIA, the retention of gender-specific pronouns prompts speculations to be raised later. This NEA document continues, “Following the discussion [name deleted] moved that the fellowship grant to Richard Kostelanetz be deleted. The vote passed. The Council voted to recommend the rest of the Visual Arts grants.”

The average intelligence of a committee is always lower than the intelligence of its average member. Committees will often do things more stupid than any member of the committee would have done.

—Thomas Sowell, “Random Thoughts” (1993)

Fortunately, the abortive Councilors did not have their way. Three days later, on August 7, 1985, Richard Andrews prepared for Hugh Southern, then the NEA deputy director in charge of programs, a memorandum accounting for the grant:

Richard Kostelanetz is, beyond doubt, a visual artist. As a visual artist, he applied to the Visual Artists Fellowship category in the Printmaking/Drawing/Artists Books subcategory. The panelists unanimously recommended him for a $25,000 fellowship, based on the quality of his work as a visual artist and his sustained contribution to the field of artists’ books over the last 20 years.

After giving Hodsoll a capsule history of the medium of Artists’ Books, Andrews explains:

Recommendations for the $25,000 fellowships are taken on the last day of panel review after all the applications have been reviewed and recommendations at $15,000 and $5,000 have been completed. Nominations must come from among those artists already recommended for a $15,000 fellowship. Each nominee is considered thoroughly, and all six panelists must agree on the $25,000 recipients. Visual Artists Fellowships at $25,000 are not intended to be simply honorific but are awarded to artists who have had a strong influence and who are still very much contributing to the field. Richard Kostelanetz’s application, therefore, survived extreme competition, and he was unanimously recommended.

The panel review process by which Mr. Kostelanetz was recommended by a fellowship is sound and consistent with both our guidelines and the Visual Arts Program panel procedures. However, I am of the opinion that the Council process by which [our panelists’] recommendation was overturned was not. Comments such as “professional grants writer,” “slot machine operator,” and “stinking rich” are extraneous personal views and would, of course, never be admissible for discussion in a Visual Artists Fellowship panel.

Though the Council stood above the panel in the adjudicating hierarchy, the quality of its discussion was, in his considered opinion, considerably lower.

Exactly one week later, someone at the NEA named Paul Carlin issued a “Memorandum” instructing that the budget office to reduce the grant to me to zero. Under “reason for change” is the following: “Chairman requested a hold on this as a result of objections raised by August NCA.” Accompanying this document is a handwritten letter addressed to “Michael,” who must be Michael Faubion, then an assistant in the NEA Visual Arts Program. The identity of its author is deleted, while its calligraphy differs from that of Paul Carlin. Internal evidence suggests its author must be an assistant to Frank Hodsoll. It reads:

I want to have a complete background on R.K. by the time F. H. [Hodsoll] returns on Sept. 3. It should include the following:

1) Letters from the P/D/AB panel members summarizing their support for R.K. (referring to Review Criteria) and reasons for recommending the $25,000 level. First, a letter must be sent to them on the 19th, after being reviewed by Hugh [Southern] and Art Warren. The letter should simply state that some questions were raised about R.K. and that, in the absence of panel transcripts or tapes, we need to contact the panel to get a summary of their individual comments.

2) David [last name unknown] should go to the library and using Art Index of Periodicals dig up any articles on R.K., whether positive or negative. Also he should check the N.Y. Times (F.H. asked if The Times had written about him).

3) You should, with your usual discretion, contact highly respected individuals in the field to get their comments on R.K. to be quoted in my memo to F.H. It’s not the quality of comments that counts, but the quality of the speaker does. Perhaps [name deleted] or [name deleted] can give the names of national recognized artists, curators, critics or others who would give comments about R.K. Perhaps: [name deleted] (MOMA), [name deleted] (LACMA), [name deleted] (Whitney).

4) We need Visual Studies Workshop book on Artists’ Books ASAP. Paul [apparently Carlin] will fill you in on my discussion with F.H. as can Hugh [Southern] or Ana [Steele].

Little could any outsider guess that my innocent application was causing so much overtime activity in Washington’s August heat.

Obviously having nothing else better to do in summer’s doggest days, Michael Faubion was forced to draft under Richard Andrews’ name individual but similar letters, dated August 21, 1985, to the six panelists identified above, asking them to “summarize in writing your reasons for recommending Mr. Kostelanetz at the panel meeting.” No more mindful of common summertime schedules, this letter asked for replies by August 30, perhaps assuming that they might be neglectful. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, I have copies of the responses as well, with their authors’ individual names crossed out.

The six panelists were obviously annoyed to have their judgments reversed. On 27 August, one panelist typed that she or he “was rather surprised and somewhat dismayed to hear of the reservations expressed by some council members regarding the $25,000 grant recommendation for Richard Kostelanetz.” On the 28th, another typed, “We were all familiar with his name. As I recall, he seemed an obvious choice for the most distinguished grant; there was more discussion about the other person to whom we awarded it than there was about Kostelanetz.” A third, typing on September 3rd, wrote:

Beginning in the late sixties, before this medium had a name, no less a category, Kostelanetz created, edited, published, and disseminated a vast range of visual/verbal works which have influenced many artists and formed the basis for works that have followed. His collaborative magazine, ASSEMBLING, not only provided a forum (exhibition space) for hundreds of young (myself included) and sometimes neglected artists from all over the world, but it also gave birth to a publication format and strategy that has been imitated and reinvented from Boston to Rome.

In short, any reading of the Artists Books form and its history would include Kostelanetz as a major figure. In keeping with this and the spirit of the Visual Arts Program guidelines, he is eminently qualified to receive the $25,000 grant.

Another panelist, also writing on September 3rd, cited:

three reasons why I support Richard Kostelanetz for a $25,000 fellowship. Most importantly is the quality of his work. Mr. Kostelanetz’s book work explores a range of resources, information, and material that I find very impressive. Exhaustive Parallel Intervals is a visually interesting book that I think is very strong. My understanding of the criteria for the $25,000 fellowships is that the artist must have made additional contributions to the art field, above the quality of the art work. Mr. Kostelanetz has also edited a number of books of other writers’/artists’ works. These books are experimental in nature and have helped promote and explore other artists’ work.

Two panelists submitted handwritten (but, alas, less quotable) statements also supporting the award to me. Pleased to have them, thanks to the FOIA, I count them among the nicest encomia ever to come my way. All six panelists deserve my gratitude now for taking the trouble to write, as well as my apologies for causing the meddlesome NEA to disrupt their late summers.

On September 11, 1985, Richard Andrews prepared for Hodsoll a memorandum that included “copies of responses from the six panelists,” “a more complete résumé for Kostelanetz, researched by the Visual Arts staff,” and “two excerpts from Visual Studies Workshop’s recently (this month) published history of artists’ books. Artists’ Books [1985] is the first comprehensive study of the genre and includes a number of essays by artists and critics. The two excerpts enclosed here referring to Kostelanetz’s work are Robert Morgan’s ‘Systemic Books by Artists’ and Kostelanetz’s own essay ‘Book Art.’”

Andrews adds, “I would like to meet with you as soon as you have had a chance to read through this material. We normally would release the names of fellowship recipients at the end of this month. In the event Kostelanetz is awarded a fellowship, we would want to include his name in the FY [fiscal year] 85 press release, even though his funds would be coming from the FY 86 budget.” That last remark accounts for the asterisk repeated in successive NEA Annual Reports.

III

They named the names because they thought nobody would remember, but it turned out to be the only thing that nobody can forget.

—Victor Navasky, Naming Names (1980)

What I cannot ascertain from the papers submitted to me is exactly how or when, or on whose authority, the grant was reduced from twenty-five to fifteen grand (or, more precisely, upped from nil to fifteen). What we do know is that, thanks to the efforts of many generous and principled people, an award (albeit reduced) and perhaps the integrity of the NEA were saved. Understand this episode, and you begin to recognize how our precious arts agency can be sabotaged from within by people lacking respect for it and for American art. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, which is a uniquely American achievement constantly threatened by alien subversives, we were able to find out what happened, who deserves praise, and who courted censure. One wonders as well how many other grants duly awarded by NEA panels were killed by spuriously damaging remarks uttered by NEA councilors and then whether blackballed applicants will ever find out?

Before closing, I have one nagging question. Who the hell ever thought I was “stinking rich”? Knowing as much about her as she does about me, and following her epistemological example, I could imagine this woman to copulate with animals and molest prepubescent children. The fact that her example encourages me to think the worst of her becomes a general index of the “thoughtfulness” of NEA councilors during the Ronald Reagan era, not to mention unseemly presumptuousness, insufficient literacy, and a self-consciously limited sense of career options in art. According to NEA minutes, the women present at the 4 August meeting were the painter Helen Frankenthaler, the choreographer Martha Graham, the choral conductor Margaret Hillis, the actress Celeste Holm, the author Toni Morrison, and the Lord-knows-what Lida Rogers, none of whom has ever met me or examined my bank account with my knowledge. Until any of these women wishes, in an act of disassociation, to identify the one who would discredit them all, it is reasonable to assume that any of them could have said it and thus that all of them approve of it (and by that fact disqualify themselves from ever again serving in such cultural capacities).

My hunch, based upon the speaker’s purported familiarity with literature (quoted above), is that the perpetrator must be Morrison, the sole littérateur among the women, her Nobel Prize in Literature notwithstanding. What, you wonder, is someone purportedly of the left doing eagerly collaborating so abusively with self-styled conservatives as Epstein and Lipman? Confront that question seriously and you get a sense of the common interests and behavior of American culture’s powerhouses, superficial differences in public utterances notwithstanding, and thus of the sheer foolishness of anyone ever worshiping such hypocrites.

What this episode suggests is the need for sensitivity-training of all NEA Councilors prior to their serving (particularly in the economics of independent artists), the automatic rejection of those who refuse such training, and the need for a mechanism for the prompt removal of any Councilor uncouth enough to jeopardize the NEA’s reputation. On further thought, perhaps the wisdom of this episode is that such trustees are unnecessary and thus expendable, initially for wasting not only public money but administrators’ valuable time, but also for patent professional insufficiencies.

The NEA records suggest that the initial perpetrator, Joseph Epstein, who did not reply to an earlier version of this exposé, assumed that his colleagues were easily deceived, if not congenitally unbright. It follows that the difference between the panelists and the councilors is that the former had the moxie necessary to refute him. Considering this example of Epstein’s bureaucratic behavior, most of us would correctly wonder about his activities as the editor of American Scholar all these years. It is obvious that he encourages us to think what we want about Phi Beta Kappa, the magazine’s publisher and thus his employer. (Can I be alone in wanting to return my PBK key?)

I would be remiss if I did not mention that Joseph Epstein first came to my attention a decade before, in 1975, with a review of my book The End of Intelligent Writing (1974). Published under the acknowledged pseudonym of Aristides, that name appearing for the first time, this carping attack reflected the envy of those who rise in literature by kissing butt rather than doing major work. Strictly from internal evidence (e.g., especially his characterization of a purported literary career), I had no trouble identifying “Aristides” as Epstein himself. Obviously, anyone so eager to exploit one’s employer and deceive his peers, in this case at the NEA, on behalf of his or her petty animosities must be doing similarly elsewhere and often. (This is reprinted in my book ‘The End’ Appendix [1979].)

I don’t think I’m doing a disservice exposing those who tried to kill the panelists’ grant to me, because, quite simply, if they didn’t want to be regarded as petty and malicious, as distrustees, they wouldn’t have done what they did. That they thought they were acting in secret is no better an excuse for them than it was for any other rogues in history. Not at all. One wonders how any of them would feel if he or she suddenly discovered several years after that they had been relieved of ten thousand dollars (and nearly robbed of much more) through no fault of their own, not by urban thugs but by purportedly distinguished citizens out to discredit their class and kind, incidentally illustrating vivaciously the old Woody Guthrie song that some guys will rob you with a six-gun, others with a fountain pen.

In response to an earlier version of this memoir, one councilor recently wrote me, “I do think we formed a lynch mob and discussed you without respect for you but with wanton disrespect. My memory of the incident is strong only in that I walked out disgusted with myself for being part of a lynch mob. You may quote me if you wish.” To him, in retrospect, the killing of the grant was not just a mugging, which would be my characterization, but a lynching, albeit in absentia thankfully. If, as is often said, a neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, then consider that this episode was perhaps ingeniously designed to change my politics to resemble that of the self-defined conservative NEA councilors, so profoundly devious were their ultimate motives.

If only to illustrate their success at this last effort, shouldn’t I conclude this expose by advocating the swift and immediate long-term incarceration of all muggers and lynchers, along with their accomplices, with no excuses for race, ethnicity, or class? Shouldn’t I add that all nouveau conservatives should support me in this prosecution, if only to distinguish themselves, in principle as well as practice, from self-conscious opportunists.