{"id":5603,"title":"Private Money and Personal Influence: Howard Klein and the Rockefeller Foundation\u0027s Funding of the Media Arts","kind":"biblio","url":"https://www.videohistoryproject.org/private-money-and-personal-influence-howard-klein-and-rockefeller-foundations-funding-media-arts","version":"e8eeb920e1c75e9b49530e97b836ed2dc2f5267b09c1050476d97c92d6b62633","modified":"2026-09-13T21:52:04.441103+00:00","credits":[{"role":"Author","name":"Marita Sturken"}],"authorKeys":["Sturken, Marita"],"subjects":["Texts by Author"],"metadata":[{"label":"Publication","value":"Afterimage","url":null},{"label":"Publisher","value":"Visual Studies Workshop","url":null},{"label":"Date","value":"January 1987","url":null},{"label":"Place","value":"Rochester, New York","url":null},{"label":"Volume","value":"14","url":null},{"label":"Issue","value":"6","url":null},{"label":"ETC archive","value":"ETC0868","url":null}],"citations":{"page":"\u0022Private Money and Personal Influence: Howard Klein and the Rockefeller Foundation\u0027s Funding of the Media Arts.\u0022 Video History Project, Experimental Television Center, 2026. https://www.videohistoryproject.org/private-money-and-personal-influence-howard-klein-and-rockefeller-foundations-funding-media-arts.","publication":"Marita Sturken. Private Money and Personal Influence: Howard Klein and the Rockefeller Foundation\u0027s Funding of the Media Arts. Afterimage. vol. 14, no. 6. Visual Studies Workshop. January 1987.","risUrl":"https://www.videohistoryproject.org/citation/5603.ris"},"links":[{"label":"Scanned document","url":"https://archive.org/details/ETC0868","relationship":"linked document; contents not retrieved","contentType":"application/pdf"}],"sections":[{"name":"body","source":"VHP record body","generated":false,"characters":109915},{"name":"summary","source":"existing VHP generated summary","generated":true,"characters":644}],"content":{"section":"body","source":"VHP record body","generated":false,"text":"In comparison to NCET, the New Television Workshop at WGBH and the Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen were less overtly experimental and closer to the model of television production in which artists-in-residence produced works intended for broadcast TV. These programs were run by innovative television producers (most of whom are still working in public television today) instead of scholars and theorists. While the NCET program could represent the freedom style of the 1960s, the WGBH and WNET projects were emblematic of the more practical 1970s. There are few names in the Western world that evoke as weighty an image as the name Rockefeller. Power, prestige, philanthropy, cultural imperialism, and the old-boy network all come to mind. This name sums up the raw power of capitalism before the days of government regulation, antitrust laws, and income tax. To most of the U.S. public, it represents an extended, family-based power structure of phenomenal influence. The Rockefeller Foundation, while no longer a family institution, symbolizes the power invested in those who choose to use their wealth to effect change in the world. Like many private foundations, it was founded as a means of promoting change with and establishing a beneficent image for a newly amassed fortune; it was also an attempt to change the reputation of \u0022tainted money\u0022 that had plagued the Rockefeller fortune. From its inception, it was a globally conceived organization, begun with $100 million from John D. Rockefeller Sr. in 1913 [1] and aimed at establishing a lasting role for the Rockefeller fortune. The foundation was the brainchild of Rockefeller\u0027s trusted manager Frederick T. Gates. Of the foundation, Gates wrote: \u0022I trembled as I witnessed the unreasoning popular resentment at Mr. Rockefeller\u0027s riches, to the mass of people, a national menace. It was not, however, the unreasoning public prejudice of his vast fortune that chiefly troubled me. Was it to be handed on to posterity as other great fortunes have been handed down by their possessors, with scandalous results to their descendants and powerful tendencies to social demoralization? I saw no other course but for Mr. Rockefeller and his son to form a series of great corporate philanthropies for forwarding civilization in all its elements in this land and in all lands: philanthropies, if possible, limitless in time and amount, broad in scope, and self-perpetuating.\u0022[2] This fervor and sense of mission (Gates was a former Baptist minister) instigated what would soon become one of the most powerful philanthropies of this century, now with assets of over $1.3 billion. The foundation was set up in part as an extension of the ideas behind the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), where scientists were conducting research that would provide the expertise behind public health programs throughout the world. The foundation\u0027s reputation stems from its massive programs to combat malaria and yellow fever and to promote the \u0022green revolution\u0022 of cultivating high-yield wheat, corn, and rice in the third world. It was in this context--of an institution that could almost single-handedly eradicate diseases in certain areas and orchestrate huge agricultural programs--that an arts program was begun at the Rockefeller Foundation. The foundation had previously awarded grants in the arts to select institutions, but the formalization of an arts program did not take place until 1963.[3] Conceived as a program in \u0022cultural development,\u0022 it was also initiated as a response to a general expansion in the arts in the early 1960s, symbolized by the building of Lincoln Center in New York City (a project realized with the considerable involvement of and funds provided by John D. Rockefeller III). While the sciences will always predominate at the foundation, funding of the arts has had a wide-ranging impact. The arts program gradually developed into a multidisciplinary program that supports both institutions and individual artists in music, dance, theater, literature, video, film, and the visual arts. Although it increasingly channels its funds through arts organizations and via panels, the arts program has been ideologically geared since its inception toward the funding of individual artists, a doctrine that evokes the philosophy of the two men who have directed the program, Norman Lloyd and Howard Klein, both avant-garde musicians themselves. In the world of arts funding, the Rockefeller name embodies prestige as well as a certain mythology. Money from the Rockefeller Foundation is a ticket to other funding possibilities and acts as a stamp of approval in the art world. The Rockefeller Foundation began funding the media arts in the mid-1960s. In a field that receives little support from the art market, the role of this foundation has been incalculable. As in other fields, when a philanthropic organization of this magnitude graces a discipline with its dollars, people take notice and are more inclined to follow suit. In the relatively tiny world of video art, the interest and support of the Rockefeller Foundation has been instrumental in shaping and guiding many of the directions taken by the community as a whole. The person responsible for that support and the directions it encouraged is Howard Klein, who worked at the foundation from 1967 to 1986, as director for arts from 1973 to 1983 and deputy director for arts and humanities from 1983 to 1986. The survey of the funding of video by the foundation since 1965, which accompanies this article, shows not only the progress of a field from its infancy to a more established community, but also the approach and philosophy of one man to the field as a whole. Klein left the foundation in October 1986, and his departure marks the end not only of a particular era at the Rockefeller Foundation, but also of an era of a specific kind of funding philosophy, in which a single individual dictates the direction and intent of the grants awarded, with a primary belief in providing for the needs of the individual artist. The Rockefeller Foundation is structured into six programs: Agricultural Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Equal Opportunity, Health Sciences, International Relations, and Population Sciences, as well as a Special Interests and Explorations fund for proposals that are not covered precisely by these categories. In 1985, these programs dispensed close to $43 million in grants, of which $7.4 million (14.6%) was in the arts and humanities program. The foundation has a self-perpetuating board of trustees of some 20 members (until 1981 it had at least one Rockefeller family member), who elect the foundation\u0027s president, currently Richard Lyman. The arts program, which was a separate program from 1973 to 1983 and is now combined with the humanities program, has dispensed an average of $3 million annually. It is not divided into specific disciplines, although it has been structured (with humanities) along certain vague, yet controlling guidelines: support for the creative person; strengthening secondary school education through the arts and humanities; enhancing the American public\u0027s understanding of international affairs through the arts and humanities; and forging connections between artists, humanists, and society. Until recently, the arts program has been a somewhat flexible one, with its director having a substantial amount of freedom in choosing what monies to give to what media. Grants of up to $50,000 (in the 1960s, the figure was $25,000, in the 1970s, $35,000) are made at the discretion of the director and do not require the approval of the board of trustees. While the arts and humanities program currently supports several fellowship programs in which grants are often made through nominations from the field and panels, most of the grants awarded in the arts since the late 1960s have been made by Klein himself. In the field of media arts, where no such fellowship program exists, Klein has been solely responsible for all but a few of the grants awarded.[4] In tracing the history of the grants awarded in media and television through Klein\u0027s program, a mixture of strategy and eclecticism becomes apparent. Several trends can be traced: support for artists\u0027 projects under the aegis of public television, the funding of programs intended to foster a crosscultural exchange of ideas, individual grants to artists, and the funding of equipment resources (specifically postproduction facilities) for artists. There is also a smattering of small, somewhat unexpected grants, which indicates a desire to respond to the moment and a distinctly personal style. Howard Klein came to the Rockefeller Foundation with a background as a musician and critic. He was born in 1931 in Teaneck, NJ, received a B.S. and M.S. in music at the Juilliard School as a scholarship student, and worked as a music teacher and pianist for dancer Jose Limon. From 1962 to 1967, Klein was a music reporter and critic for the New York Times. He came to the foundation in 1967 as assistant director under Norman Lloyd and became the director of arts in 1973 when Lloyd left. To understand the way in which Klein perceived his role as a funder and specifically as one of the primary and initial funders of video art and artists\u0027 television, it is necessary to understand how he saw his program and role within the larger foundation itself. He drew his models for approaching a new, unestablished field, the wide open territory of a new art form with no history or funders, from the overall history and philosophy of the Rockefeller Foundation: \u0022After the founding of Rockefeller Institute, the foundation began to examine medical education, and the Flexner Report, which came out of that, changed forever the way medicine was taught in this country. The Rockefeller Foundation has always stood for the green revolution. We talk about life sciences now, but that was an experimental term in the 1930s. Warren Weaver thought it would be very important for scientists from different disciplines to work together, so he offered grants for, say, a biologist to work with a mathematician, and the DNA molecule was discovered because of Warren Weaver\u0027s grant program. You come and you work at a place like this, and you think, \u0027Oh God, how am I going to measure up to those people?\u0027 Now that all has to do with changing perceptions and attitudes. You don\u0027t need a private foundation to support the status quo. It has money that should be used to take risks. If the foundation challenges itself at all to be pertinent, it has to think this way. What I did was come to the organization, get the feeling of it, the spirit and history, and say, \u0027Okay, how do you think that way in the arts?\u0027\u0022[5] Klein saw his role as a funder within the fledgling field of media as one of both influence and response, and his role was in fact much more than simply that of a foundation officer. He was directly involved in the establishment of a number of influential media arts organizations and programs, and he worked closely advising many organizations. He is often described as an ideal funder by the fortunate who received funding from him and who formed, in many ways, a kind of club. \u0022Howard was a wonderful sort of guiding influence,\u0022 says David Loxton, former director of the Television Laboratory at WNET/Thirteen, \u0022In terms of keeping you focused in the right direction. At the same time he was so clever about never making you feel in any way that he was intruding or imposing what he felt you should do. Yet somehow or other he always seemed to be terribly pleased with whatever you ended up doing, as if to say, \u0027Well, that was exactly what we thought you could have done.\u0027 There are some people who simply write a check and then say, \u0027Call me at the end of the year and tell me what you did.\u0027 But not Howard. He was enormously involved and supportive, but at the same time it seemed to be a very hands-off thing.\u0022[6] T","offset":0,"nextOffset":12000,"totalCharacters":109915,"complete":false},"rightsUrl":"https://www.videohistoryproject.org/terms-service"}