I felt compelled to jump in on this, as someone who helps university professors secure similar fellowships (which frequently, although not always, cover travel/room+board). I understand why they might just seem like sponsored vacations— and certainly, enjoying the local culture is a part of any residency — but that’s a bit of an oversimplification.
The organizations that fund programs like this do it to encourage the development of meaningful new work, whether creative or scholarly. They accomplish this in two ways:
- By providing dedicated time off for writing (or making art, etc.). In order to fully devote themselves to their projects, professors need time off from teaching, creative writers/artists need time off from their day jobs, and so on.
- By providing a community of where ideas can be discussed among peers. My husband’s an academic, and I’ve seen firsthand how useful it can be to participate in casual conversations with other scholars, whether it’s comparing notes with someone in the same field or getting a new perspective from someone in a different discipline. Similarly, artists and creative writers benefit from the opportunity to discuss their ongoing projects.
While it’s certainly possible to make art or craft an intellectual argument without this kind of support, fellowships accelerate the process and create the opportunity for important real-time feedback. It’s also more cost-effective to gather a group of writers/artists/academics together in one place and cover their living expenses for a few weeks than it is to provide small grants to individuals who will never discuss one another’s work.
Most importantly, these awards aren’t given out arbitrarily; one has to apply, and successful applicants have a demonstrated track record of productivity. You might secure one residency with the perspective of “yay, free vacation!” but if you never complete the project that you proposed in your application, it’s unlikely you’ll ever receive another one.
So why should the NEA (and NEH, and other funders, both federal and private) devote money to programs like this? Simply put: If you want art — both visual and writerly — to exist, and if you want humanistic scholarship to flourish, someone has to pay to make it happen. Private donors already underwrite a lot of the foundations behind these fellowships, but I think it’s entirely appropriate for the government to invest in them as well — to say “we think this work is valuable and we want to help people produce it.” In the grand scheme of the federal budget, arts and culture funding is just a tiny sliver, yet its impact is huge.
I hope that was at least somewhat enlightening. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Clearly this is very personal to me, and if you can believe it there’s plenty more I could say. :)
