淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2502200817382000
中文論文名稱 美國政府與藝術發展之關係:以美國國家藝術基金會為例
英文論文名稱 Government Funding and the Arts in the United States: A Study on the National Endowment for the Arts
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 美國研究所碩士班
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of American Studies
學年度 96
學期 1
出版年 97
研究生中文姓名 陳弘穎
研究生英文姓名 Hung-Ying Chen
學號 694220111
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2008-01-07
論文頁數 126頁
口試委員 指導教授-紀舜傑
委員-李本京
委員-范盛保
中文關鍵字 美國國家藝術基金會  藝術補助  政府與藝術 
英文關鍵字 National Endowment for the Arts  government subsidy  arts funding 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學區域研究
中文摘要 藝術需要政府補助嗎?筆者不是全然的同意政府需要補助藝術,但筆者絕對認同「國家藝術與人文基金會法案」(National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965) 的宗旨,偉大的藝術家或是學者不可能被創造出來,但政府絕對有責任培養及開創一個能讓藝術家自由自在思考、無拘無束想像的環境。
美國藝術資金補助的制度非常複雜,唯美國政府直到二十世紀之前,並沒有通過任何正式的國家藝術政策。一方面承襲於歐洲的社會與宗教傳統歷史,早期的新英格蘭移民者認為藝術會讓那些殖民地的開拓者沉迷於其中,進而使他們無所事事,喪失了原本勤勉的精神;另一方面,美國缺乏了一個強而有力且願意為藝術付出,成立國家藝術機構的領導者。也因此美國的國家藝術補助或是政策比起歐洲其它國家可以說起步相當的晚。雖然在美國國家藝術基金會(National Endowment for the Arts, NEA)成立前,美國已經有一些國家藝術機構的出現,但大多數都因為不完整的政策或像上述原因一樣,缺乏強而有力的領導而失敗。若以歐陸的標準來看,美國聯邦政府的補助是非常少的,但有趣的是美國的藝術環境卻又得以發展,仔細想想其實是非常有趣且值得探討、省思的。
本研究主要討論幾個問題:首先,藝術補助政策與其他公共政策一樣,一定是在某種特殊的歷史背景和社會氛圍的結合下所產生的,究竟在國家藝術基金會成立前,美國藝術政策之演進為何?而又是在何種氛圍下,促成了國家藝術基金會的出現?其次,聯邦政府對於藝術的補助,相較於歐陸其他國家來說,相對的少。在聯邦政府如此少的資金補助下,究竟美國藝術機構從何獲得足夠的資金運作?而美國整體藝術補助制度的架構為何?再者,美國國家藝術基金會,1965年由國會法案通過後成立,聲稱獨立於聯邦政府之外,向各州提供藝術補助,為全美最大的藝術資金贊助者。美國國家藝術基金會成立之背景、組織結構、資金分配為何?其內部審查機制,如何運作?現階段之補助計畫為何?又其對於美國藝術環境之貢獻為何?最後,基金會成立至今,各方評價不一,部份持正面的肯定,而部份則持批判的態度。因此,對於美國國家藝術基金會的論證為何?又基金會現階段之定位為何?
本研究基本上認同國家藝術基金會四十餘年來對於美國藝術環境與社會所帶來的貢獻。基金會並非以其資金補助特定藝術組織或單位,而是透過「相對補助款」所帶來之倍增效果,達到活絡整體藝術環境之效;而近年,基金會所補助之對象日漸多元,幾乎涵蓋所有藝術領域,並將之推行至全國各大小社群,甚至推廣至國際;除此之外,基金會也更為著重在藝術教育與文化傳承兩方面,前者從下紮根,後者對於舊有文化的推廣與保存,貢獻良多。然而,本研究認為「如何有效避免政治性干預?」是基金會一直以來都必須面對的首要問題。此政治干預包含基金會人員任命與政府部門之關係,以及基金會與其補助對象之關係兩個層面;其中特別是前者對於基金會整體運作之影響最劇,因此,是否能從基金會主席之任命與審核小組之組成作思考,找尋改善的空間。總歸來說,本研究認為國家藝術基金會若能克服所謂「政治干預」的難題,並清楚了解其自身定位,以其多元之補助計畫,將藝術推廣至全國,甚至國際,對於美國社會之貢獻,絕對是無庸至疑的。
章節編排上,第一章為緒論;第二章討論國家藝術基金會成立前,美國政府藝術補助政策之歷史發展脈絡;第三章為美國現行藝術補助機制整體之架構探討;第四章為美國國家藝術基金會之研究,其中包括其成立之宗旨、背景、現行組織結構、資金分配、審查機制、現階段之補助計畫、亦或其對於美國藝術環境及社會本身之貢獻等;第五章則針對基金會自成立以來所歷經的重大危機與爭議作討論,從正反兩面的論證歸納出基金會之於美國藝術界,或社會之定位;最後,第六章則為結論。
英文摘要 Although this research is not completely in favor of government funding on the arts, it absolutely agrees with one of the main purposes of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, which is “no government can call a great artist or scholar into existence, it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help and create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry, but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.”
Not until the twentieth century did the American Government pass any arts policy. On the one hand, it was because of its European origins. Early immigrants believed that arts would make those pioneers in the colony indulge in it and force them to lose their virtues of industry. On the other hand, it was a lack of a strong leader who would be willing to die for arts postponed the timetable for a national arts institute. Although there were a few arts institutes established under government sponsorship, most of them failed due to incomplete policy or the reason mentioned above, lack of a strong leader. The American Federal Funding on the arts had been so rare to compare with European standard, yet the art world in the United States grew without limits.
This research focuses on a few questions: first of all, arts policy is like other public policy, which comes out only under certain historical backgrounds or societal atmosphere. Hence, what is the historical development of American arts policy before the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts? Secondly, how do art institutes in the United States find enough funding to run themselves under limited government funding? And what is the entire structure of American arts-funding system? In the third place, the National Endowment for the Arts, the biggest arts-funder in the United States, was established under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965. NEA claimed itself to be independent from the Federal Government and has been providing arts funding to each state over forty years. What is the background of its establishment, structure of the organization, and also distribution of the funding? Besides, what is the reviewing system and how does it work is also the part this research focusing on. In the end, different people may have different arguments on what the NEA has been doing over the past forty years. Therefore, what is the contribution the NEA brings to the American society, and also what are those arguments about?
This research basically gives its credit for what the NEA has activated the American arts environment and its contribution to the entire society as well, especially through its “match grant” system. Recently the NEA’s grants have been even more diverse, and covered almost all fields of the arts community. Furthermore, the NEA steadily promotes the arts domestically and internationally. Besides, it especially focuses on two important aspects, which are arts education and culture heritage. The former nourishes the arts from the roots, and the latter contributes a lot to the promotion and preservation of traditional American culture. However, “How to efficiently avoid political interferences” has been one of the most important and urgent issues the NEA confronts. This “political interference” includes two aspects, one is the relationship between the appointment of the president of the NEA and the government administration, and the other is the relationship between the NEA and its grants applicants. Overall, this research believes that if the NEA could overcome the so-called “political-interfered” issues, and has a better and clearer understanding toward the position it stands, doubtlessly, its contribution toward the entire American society would be even stronger.
Chapter 1 introduces the motives, methods, and also the literature reviews of this research. Chapter 2 contains the historical development of the arts policy of American Federal Government before the establishment of the NEA. Chapter 3 describes and focuses mainly on the current system of American arts funding. Chapter 4 would be a study on the National Endowment for the Arts, including its purposes and background of establishment, structure of the organization, distribution of funding, review system, strategic plans, and also its contribution to not only the Arts environment in the United States, but also the society itself. Chapter 5 would discuss the position of the NEA from both sides of the arguments through the crises and controversial issues that the NEA had been through, especially during the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s. Chapter 6 eventually would be the conclusion of this research.

論文目次 目錄

第一章 緒論---------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

第一節 研究動機、目的與文獻回顧---------------------------------------------1
第二節 研究方法、範圍及限制與章節提要------------------------------------7

第二章 美國政府與藝術政策---------------------------------------------------------- 12

第一節 開國—1932---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
第二節 1933—1965---------------------------------------------------------------- 17

第三章 美國藝術補助機制------------------------------------------------------------- 29

第一節 政府直接藝術補助------------------------------------------------------- 31
第二節 政府其他藝術補助------------------------------------------------------- 37
第三節 私人捐助與稅捐獎勵---------------------------------------------------- 44

第四章 美國國家藝術基金會---------------------------------------------------------- 50

第一節 基金會概述---------------------------------------------------------------- 52
第二節 審查機制與補助計畫---------------------------------------------------- 60
第三節 成就與貢獻---------------------------------------------------------------- 76

第五章 美國國家藝術基金會之相關爭議與論辯探討---------------------------- 81

第一節 危機與爭議---------------------------------------------------------------- 81
第二節 相關論辯及其定位------------------------------------------------------- 98

第六章 結論----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109

參考書目-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 115


圖表目錄

表3-2-1、2004年官方及半官方機構藝術暨文化補助名單-----------------------------40
表4-1-1、美國國家藝術基金會歷年撥款總額------------------------------------------56
表4-2-1、機構專案計畫申請與補助數量------------------------------------------------67

圖3-1、美國非營利藝術組織的財源情況一覽表-------------------------------------------30
圖4-1-1、美國國家藝術暨人文基金會運作架構----------------------------------------53
圖4-1-2、國家藝術基金會補助申請作業程序-------------------------------------------58
圖4-2-1、國家藝術基金會審查程序-------------------------------------------------------60
圖4-2-2、國家藝術基金會文學獎補助金額演進表-------------------------------------63
參考文獻 參考書目

壹、中文部份

一、書籍
米勒(Toby Miller)、尤狄斯(George Yudice)著,蔣淑貞、馮建三譯,《文化政策》,台北:巨流圖書有限公司與國立編譯館合作翻譯發行,2006年。

伯恩斯(William J. Byrnes)著,桂雅文、閻惠群譯,《藝術管理這一行》(Management & the Arts),台北:五觀藝術管理,2004年。

彼克(John Pick)著,江靜玲譯,《藝術與公共政策:從古希臘到現今政府的「藝術政策」之探討》(The Arts in a State: A study of Government Arts Policies from Ancient Greece to the Present),台北:桂冠出版社,1995年。

洪惠瑛,《藝術管理》(Performing Arts Administration),台北:揚智文化事業股份有限公司,2002年。

莊芳榮,《美國聯邦文化行政》,台北:行政院文化建設委員會印行,1990年。

夏學理、凌公山、陳媛等編,《文化行政》,台北:五南出版社,2002年。

夏學理、鄭美華、陳曼玲、周一彤、方顗茹、陳亞平等編,《藝術管理》,台北:五南出版社,2002年。

費萊(Burno S. Frey)著,蔡宜真、林秀玲譯,《當藝術遇上經濟:個案分析與文化政策》(Arts & Economics:Analysis & Cultural Policy),台北:典藏藝術家庭股份有限公司,2003年。

鄭美華,《文化行政與藝術管理》,台北:洪葉文化事業有限公司,2004年。

二、學位論文
林于湘,《文藝政策的制定與辯證:試析1981年至1998年台灣文化論述的建構與轉型(以行政院文化建設委員會為例)》,國立台北藝術大學戲劇研究所理論組碩士論文,2000年。

林佳蓉,《藝術補助與言論自由:以美國相關憲法判決之研究為中心》,東吳大學法律研究學系研究所碩士論文,1998年。

林昱梅,《藝術自由之研究》,輔仁大學法律學研究所碩士論文,1993年。

吳曉菁,《我國文化藝術補助政策的研究:以舞蹈表演團體為例》,國立台灣體育學院體育研究所碩士論文,2002年。

洪淳琦,《從多元文化觀點論文化藝術之補助:以台北市文化局之組織檢證為例》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2004年。

翁誌聰,《從文化全球化觀點面向探討我國政府藝文補助政策之意涵:以台北市文化局為例》,私立世新大學傳播學系在職碩士班論文,2000年。

陳亞平,《我國政府對表演藝術團體補助的實證研究:以台北縣市表演藝術團體為例》,國立台北大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,2000年。

陳甦蘭,《我國對原住民藝術展演補助政策之探討:以行政院原住民族委員會為例》,國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士在職專班,2002年。

黃得彰,《政府對非營利組織補助的研究:以文建會對演藝團體的的補助為例》,1996年。

齊佩文,《法國文化政策之研究》,私立淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文,1990年。

戴君宜,《安迪•沃荷(Andy Warhol, 1928~1987)藝術特質形成之研究》,私立淡江大學美國研究所碩士論文,2007年。

謝瑩潔,《我國藝術補助機制之檢討:以組織、運作及財源籌措為討論》,台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文,2001年。

三、期刊
王受之,「美國當代藝術面臨的困境」,《藝術家》,1996年12月第258期,頁308以下。

王受之,「美國當代藝術面臨的困境(續)」,《藝術家》,1996年12月第259期,頁367以下。

李賢文,「訪年度預算高達新台幣五十億元的美國國家藝術基金會」,《雄獅美術》,1987年6月第196期,頁103以下。

黃美賢,「美國當今藝術政策取向之探究—經濟與教育面」,《國際藝術教育學刊》,第5卷第1期,2007年7月,頁127-146。

劉新圓,「歐美政府的藝術補助」,《財團法人國家政策研究基金會國政研究報告》,教文(研) 095-016號。

四、網路資料
國家政策研究基金會:http://www.npf.org.tw/

音速青春:http://pulp.bluecircus.net/

貳、英文部份

一、書籍
Bendict, Stephen ed., Public Money and the Muse: Essays on Government Funding for the Arts, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991.

Biddle, Livingston, Our Government and the Arts, New York: Port City Press, 1988.

Binkiewicz, Donna M., Federalizing the Muse: United States Arts Policy & The National Endowment for the Arts 1965-1980, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Bolton, Richard ed., Culture Wars: Documents from the Recent Controversies, New York: The New Press, 1992.

Cummings Jr., Milton C. and Katz, Richard S. ed., The Patron State: Government and the Arts in Europe, North America, and Japan, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Cummings Jr., Milton C. and Schuster, J. Mark Davidson ed., Who’s To Pay for the Arts? New York: American Council for the Arts, 1989.
Dubin, Steven C., Bureaucratizing the Muse: Public Funds and the Cultural Worker, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Greenstein, Fred I., The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader, Massachusetts: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Harris, Jonathan, Federal Art and National Culture: The Politics of Identity in New Deal America, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Harris, Louis ed., Americans and the Arts V: Nationwide Survey of Public Opinion, National Research Canter of the Arts, 1988.

Lowell, Julia F., State Arts Agencies 1965-2003: Whose Interests to Serve?, California: The RAND Corporation, 2004.

Magione, Jerre, The Dream and the Deal: The Federal Writers’ Project 1935-1943, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company, 1972.

Miller, Toby and Yudice, George, Cultural Policy, California: SAGE Publications, 2002.

Morris, Valerie B. and Pankratz, David B. ed., The Arts in a New Millennium: Research and the Arts Sector, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003.

Mulcahy, Kelvin V. and Swaim, C. Richard ed., Public Policy and the Arts, Colorado: Westview Press, 1982.

Netzer, Dick, The Subsidized Muse: Public Support for the Arts in the United States, New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1978.

O’Hagan, John W., The State and the Arts: An Analysis of Key Economic Policy Issues in Europe and the United States, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1998.

Reich, Cary, The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller: Worlds to Conquer, 1908-1958, New York: Doubleday Press, 1996.

Schwartz, David T., Art, Education, and the Democratic Commitment: A Defence of State Support for the Arts, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

Smith, Ralph A., and Berman, Ronald ed., Public Policy and the Aesthetic Interest: Critical Essays on Defining Cultural and Educational Relations, Illinois: The University of Illinois Press, 1992.

Smith, Richard Candida, Utopia and Dissent: Art, Poetry, and Politics in California, California: University of California Press, 1996.

Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America, Mansfield, Harvey C. and Winthrop, Delba ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Wyszomirski, Margaret Jane, Congress and the Arts: A Precarious Alliance? New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988.

Zeigler, Joseph Wesley, Arts in Crisis: The National Endowment for the Arts Versus America, Illinois: Chicago Review Press, 1994.

二、國家藝術基金會刊物
Ball, Don ed., 2005 Annual Report, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, September 2006.

Ball, Don ed., 2006 Annual Report, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, October 2007.

Ball, Don ed., 2007 Guide, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2007.

Ball, Don ed., NEA Literature Fellowships: 40 Years of Supporting American Writers, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2006.

Ball, Don ed., Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America, June 2004.

Bauerlein, Mark ed., How the United States Funds the Arts, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2004.

Beete, Paulette ed., NEA Arts 2007 / Vol. 1, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2007.

Beete, Paulette ed., NEA Arts 2007 / Vol. 2, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2007.

Beete, Paulette ed., NEA Arts 2007 / Vol. 3, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2007.

Beete, Paulette ed., NEA Arts 2007 / Vol. 4, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2007.

Koostra, Barbara ed., The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: A Brief Chronology of Federal Support for the Arts, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2000.

Larson, Gary O., American Canvas: An Arts Legacy for Our Communities, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 1997.

National Endowment for the Arts, 1997 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, Research Report No. 39, December 1998.

National Endowment for the Arts, American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius, September 2007.

National Endowment for the Arts, Appropriations Request for Fiscal Year 2008, February 2007.

National Endowment for the Arts, Before and After Disasters: Federal Funding for Cultural Institutions, 2005.

National Endowment for the Arts, National Medal of Arts, 2006.

National Endowment for the Arts, Performance & Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2006, November 2006.

National Endowment for the Arts, Strategic Plan: FY 2006-2011, November 2006.

National Endowment for the Arts, The Arts and Civic Engagement: Involved in Arts, Involved in Life, November 2006.

Puderbaugh, Ann, A Legacy of Leadership: Investing in America’s Living Cultural Heritage Since 1965, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2000.

三、報章雜誌
Berenson, Ruth, “Artistic Freedom, Public Anger,” National Review, October 13, 1989.

Berger, Maurice and Feldman, Ronald, “The Future of the National Endowment for the Arts,” Artforum International, January 1, 1993.

Berns, Walter, “Saving the NEA,” National Review, November 19, 1990.

Bracker, Milton, “U.S. Role in the Arts is Found to Have Increased in Decade since World War II,” New York Times, December 8, 1958.

Brenson, Michael, “American Canvas: A Roundtable on the 1997 NEA Report,” Art Journal, September 22, 1998.

Brenson, Michael, “Washington’s Stake in the Arts,” New York Times, April 12, 1998.

Broder, David S., “Who’s Afraid of the Arts?” Washington Post, March 11, 1992.

Brustein, Robert, “How to Privatize the NEA,” Newsweek, January 23, 1995.

Buckley, William F., Jr., “The NEA and Censorship I,” National Review, July 9, 1990.

Buckley, William F., Jr., “Understanding Mapplethorpe,” National Review, June 11, 1990.

Clark, Marika, “How Strong is NEA Support?” Dance Magazine, September 1, 1997.

Duin, Julia, “NEA Spreads Wealth, But New York Gets the Most,” Insight on the News, June 1, 1998.

Duin, Julia, “Who will Head the NEA?” Insight on the News, May 27, 2002.
Ferguson, Andrew, “Mad about Mapplethorpe: Controversy about Exhibit of Artist Robert Mapplethorpe’s Works,” National Review, August 4, 1989.

Goode, Stephen, “Is the Curtain Dropping on the Arts?” Insight on the News, March 6, 1995.

Harris, Melissa, “Jane Alexander: On Her Leadership of the National Endowment for the Arts,” Interview, July 1, 1994.

Janowitz, Barbara, “Congress Hears NEA Pros and Cons,” American Theatre, March 1, 1995.

Janowitz, Barbara, “Congress Says Howdy to NEA Boosters,” American Theatre, May 1, 1995.

Janowitz, Barbara, “Embattled NEA under the Gun Again,” American Theatre, September 1, 1994.

Kidd, Dustin, “Mapplethorpe and the New Obscenity,” Afterimage, March-April, 2003.

Miller, John J., “Up from Mapplethorpe, but Far from a Conservative Darling: The Arts Endowment Today,” National Review, March 8, 2004.

Mundy, Liza, “National Endowment for Administrators; The NEA’s Real Problem isn’t Crucifixes in Urine – It’s Bureaucrats in Dubuque,” Washington Monthly, June 1, 1991.

Neusner, Jacob, “The End of the NEA,” National Review, May 13, 1991.

Nunns, Stephen, “NEA Redux,” American Theatre, April 1, 2000.

Nunns, Stephen, “The News vs the Muse,” American theatre, December 1, 1997.

O’Rourke, William, “Protesting NEA,” The Nation, June 25, 1990.

O’Sullivan, John, “Philistines at the Gate: Controversy over National Endowment for the Arts Funding of Art with Erotic Content,” National Review, June 11, 1990.
Reis, George R., “Support of the Arts at a Record High,” Fund Raising Management, November 1, 1998.

Reiss, Alvin H., “The NEA in the Year 2000: The Final Solution,” Fund Raising Management, April 1, 1998.

Rice, William Craig, “I Hear America Singing: The Arts Will Flower Without the NEA,” Policy Review, March 1, 1997.

Simon, Scott, “Profile: Poet Dana Gioia to Lead National Endowment for the Arts,” NPR Weekend Edition – Saturday, February 1, 2003.

Spillane, Margaret, “The Culture of Narcissism,” The Nation, December 10, 1990.

Urice, John K., “An Iconoclast’s View of the National Endowment for the Arts and K-12 Arts Education,” Arts Education Policy Review, September 1, 2001.

Urice, John K., “Three Contemporary Reports that Influenced the Creation of the National Endowment for the Arts: A Retrospective,” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, March 22, 2003.

Young, Henry, “The National Endowment: Preparing for the Future,” Dance Magazine, January 1, 1998.

Wall, James M., “In the Realm of Ideas,” The Christian Century, May 19, 1993.

Zeigler, Joseph Wesley, “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Waiter. Feed the Muse from a Real Endowment,” U.S. News & World Report, December 30, 1996.

Zesch, Lindy, “A New Beginning for the NEA?” American Theatre, July 1, 1994.

Zesch, Lindy, “Congress Hears Support for Culture: Pro-Arts Defenders Speak out for NEA, NEH,” American Theatre, April 1, 1995.

Ziter, Alan, “Loss of NEA Would Hurt the Arts in San Diego,” San Diego Business Journal, January 30, 1995.

四、網路資料
American Family Association: http://www.afa.net/about.asp

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the: http://www.mellon.org/

Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union, January 4, 1965: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650104.asp (2007/10/6)

Arts Midwest: http://www.artsmidwest.org/about/about.asp

British Council: http://www.britishcouncil.org/home.htm

Carnegie Foundation, the: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/
Christopher Holly by Robert Mapplethorpe: http://courses.ttu.edu/fehr/Publications/Dogs_playing_cards/Chap6.56.gif

Cornell University Law School: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-371.ZO.html (2007/11/19)

Dia Art Foundation: http://www.diacenter.org/

Executive Order 11112, June 12, 1963: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo/eo/11112.htm (2007/10/5)

Ford Foundation: http://www.fordfound.org/

Getty, the: http://www.getty.edu/foundation/

Institute of Museum and Library Services: http://www.imls.gov/about/about.shtm

Kennedy’s State of the Union Message, Jan. 14, 1963: http://www.kennedycenter.com/about/virtual_tour/jfk_quotes.html (2007/10/5)

Letter to Abigail Adams, 1780: http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17800512jasecond (2007/9/17)
Letters to Miss Theodate Johnson: http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/joint/app35_arts.html (2007/11/29)

Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973): http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/15/case.html (2007/12/1)

National Endowment for the Arts: http://www.nea.gov/index.html

National Institute of Health: http://www.nih.gov/about/history.htm

National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/about/

New York State Council on the Arts: http://www.nysca.org/public/home.cfm

Official New York City Website, the: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/html/funding/funding_main.shtml

Piss Christ by Andres Serrano: http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424288434/423908876/piss-christ.html (2007/11/10)

Poetry Foundation, the: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/

Rockefeller Foundation, the: http://www.rockfound.org/

Smithsonian Institution FY 2008 Budget Request Summary: http://www.si.edu/about/budget/2008/02%20-%20Budget%20Summary%20by%20Account_R2.pdf (2007/12/1)

Target: http://www.target.com/
The Arm’s Length Principle: http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/arm's.htm (2007/10/9)

The Big Read: http://www.neabigread.org/

The United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00001431----000-.html (2007/10/14)

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948: Comments, Critiques, and the Way Forward: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/occ%20smith%20mundt.pdf (2007/10/14)

U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml?src=a (2007/12/1)

五、其他
“NEA Cuts, But Not So Much,” American Theatre, November 1, 1994.

“Future of the NEA Debated in Senate,” Fund Raising Management, March 1, 1995.

“Remarks by President Bush in a Toast at Dinner Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities,” PR Newswire, November 11, 2005.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2009-03-04公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-03-04起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信