Imagining the effects of getting rid of the Endowment can be hard to simply imagine, which is why some may be so eager to eliminate the Endowment altogether. When there is no tangible view of what could be lost, one can easily say that for the greater good, one could survive without the object. An additional argument against funding the NEA is that art will survive without the grants of the Endowment. This is the number one reason out of ten on the list of why the Endowment should be eliminated (Jarvik). Think about this piece of work: Hamilton, An American Musical. If an individual were stopped in the street, chances are they would be familiar with this piece. In the theatre industry, Hamilton is seen as a groundbreaking piece, one that is changing the very meaning of musical theatre. Artists all around the world …show more content…
The musical received a grant from the Endowment to fund the project. The rap-operetta-musical is not the only theatre piece that came about thanks to grants from the NEA. Other notable works include August: Osage County and Next to Normal; all three of these works won Pulitzer prizes and were influential pieces of work in the theatre industry. Lin-Manuel Miranda, the creator of Hamilton, in an interview speaks of owing his career to the NEA: “…you’re talking to me, because at every formative stage, I can point to public funding of the arts as making [my career] possible.” Miranda continues to express fear over what may happen if the Endowments were to be eliminated. He fears that art programs will suffer, and consequentially, the next generation of children will be most affected. The Interviewer points out to Miranda that the arts survived before the NEA, then states that the arts will continue to survive without the NEA (Miranda). Miranda’s response is well-informed, showing that he has most likely had to defend the Endowment