Four years ago, Nancy Manter, a native of Veazie and resident of New York City, decided to start a Maine-based summer symposium called LandEscapes to explore the overlap of art, science and community. As the daughter of a medical doctor father and artist mother, Manter, an artist herself, wanted to start a larger dialogue about how these two disciplines inform and expand one another. “I’ve always had a second ear for science,” said Manter, who has a summer home in Tremont.

The theme for this year’s program, “Sensing Balance,” which will take place July 21-27 on Mount Desert Island, grew out of Manter’s determination and emotional struggle after her family, including two sons, had to flee their Tribeca home two blocks from ground zero on Sept. 11. “Many or most of the people speaking at the symposium live in close proximity to ground zero,” said Manter. “I personally felt it had to be addressed. No matter what – even in Maine – we are repositioning ourselves and considering our future. I wanted to get the dialogue going.”

In addition to free lectures, panel discussions, exhibitions and workshops taught by artists and scientists, the symposium features a keynote speaker. This year’s guest is Jane Alexander, the actress and director of the National Endowment for the Arts during the near-fatal budgetary years of 1993 to 1997. Alexander’s film credits include “The Great White Hope,” “All the President’s Men,” “Kramer vs. Kramer,” and “The Cider House Rules.” She has received both Emmy and Tony awards as well as four Oscar nominations.

More recently, she performed in “Mourning Becomes Electra” in Seattle, and is currently appearing in John Sayles’ new film, “Sunshine State.” In the fall, she and her husband, director-producer Edwin Sherin, will teach theater at Florida State University. Her book “Command Performance: An Actress in the Theater of Politics” is a memoir of her time in Washington. She is also a lifelong birder and peace advocate.

NEWS arts writer Alicia Anstead called Alexander in Nova Scotia, where the actress spends summers in her grandmother’s hometown. Alexander had just seen a theater presentation by the Georgia Mountain Players, a rare visiting cultural treat in a remote fishing village. While Alexander was in her kitchen preparing potato salad for a dinner celebrating the artists in town, she spoke about the role of art and artists in America. Excerpts from the informal discussion follow.

Anstead: The arts have taken budgetary hits in the last 10 years. In a country as rich as America, why are the arts so poorly funded?

Alexander: I think it’s as much the fallout of the independent and individualist spirit that founded the country as it is anything else. Many people in the United States think nobody should have that kind of handout, particularly when they see the commercial arts thriving. We don’t have the history of public art support. We don’t have the history of funding through the church, the king, etc. It’s also because the actual equation of public and private money and giving is not well understood.

Anstead: When I think about the money that goes into establishing corporations, I get very curious about the inability for similar dedication for the arts. Do you think there’s a resistance to the arts?

Alexander: It’s a resistance based on the belief that if things are good, artists will make it on their own. Regrettably, often that is borne out. You hear the success stories, but you don’t hear about too many of the failures. We don’t like to talk about that. Your newspaper doesn’t like to talk about it. They don’t want to say: This is an absolutely wonderful artist who has never sold one painting. You’re not going to run that. Having spent some time in other countries, I have to say I don’t want a complete social-democratic system either. I don’t want complete public funding for the arts because then a very strange thing happens – a complacency that comes with tenure. What I would want is a better understanding of what it takes to do art that will never break even or make a profit. And I’d like a bigger infusion of public money to help pay the bills.

Anstead: As citizens, we feel we owe something to our churches, our synagogues, our communities. But somehow the arts still get squeezed. Why is that?

Alexander: They do get squeezed but the interesting thing is that most of the arts in the United States are supported by individuals like you and me. People believe that corporations and foundations and government money are the big ones that keep the arts alive. And it’s not true. Between government money, corporations and foundations, they make up about 20 to 25 percent [of arts funding]. If the organization is a nonprofit, then it’s 40 to 50 percent in the box office, on average. The rest is funded by individuals. I think it’s a matter of getting the word out about what the economics are. But you also have to think about how much individuals can pay for things they want to do.

Anstead: I watch when Fenway Park fills up for baseball games. I am an American. I love baseball. But why can’t we “fill up” for the arts? Are we failing at home and in school to teach our children about other activities?

Alexander: You got it. How many guys sit around on Saturday afternoon and have enthusiasm for art? As more and more women move into economic strength and power, you may see a shift. I don’t know if you will, but women tend to be more drawn to those kinds of things. I also think the word “art” – unlike the word “sport” – is not loved and embraced. It sounds too hoity-toity for most people.

Anstead: The word “artist” presents a problem for me on another level. Is there one monolithic being called “artist,” or can artists be as diverse as members of any group of people?

Alexander: What we used to call crafts are now something we think of as “high art.” It’s that kind of thing we need to rethink and not scare people off. At the NEA traditional arts program, we honored iron mongers, railroad tie workers, silver bridle makers and everything from quilts to folk art. It was great because then you saw people who did this just for the love of it. They needed to make money, too, but they loved their work.

Anstead: As an artist and someone who has given much thought to the arts, what roles do you think artists play in a community?

Alexander: That’s a tough one. I don’t really believe the artist has a responsibility to anything but his or her art. However, there are some artists – a good 40 percent – who are very interested in the community. In my observations, artists love to connect to people through their art. Those are the artists I would like to see have a little bit more because that’s where they live and where they come alive, and it’s very exciting. A lot of writers, painters, dancers don’t want to do that and they shouldn’t have to. But to get the others involved would be great.

Anstead: Are you still in touch with friends you made during your years at the NEA?

Alexander: I maintain connections sporadically with senators and congresspeople. You know, with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, I didn’t have any problems. But I didn’t have problems with any women. Even if they were very staunch Republicans, I can’t think of one [woman] senator who was against federal funding for the arts. In the House, it was a different cup of tea. If women held the majority seat in the Senate, the NEA would be fully funded.

Anstead: Does that speculation surprise you?

Alexander: Not really surprise. Women get it, don’t you think? They get it in their gut.

Anstead: What was your major role at NEA?

Alexander: In the beginning, it was to extend the scope of the NEA and have more people involved in the community. But then it was fighting to stay alive.

Anstead: How did you feel in those days?

Alexander: Blue. More than blue, I was mad.

Anstead: Do you think most people feel hostility toward artists who get public money?

Alexander: Not most people. But a sufficient number do make it difficult to increase federal funding. But by and large across America, mayors really get the picture. It has to do with civic pride.

Anstead: When you were director of the NEA, was it hard to be away from acting?

Alexander: Yes.

LandEscapes 2002 information

As part of LandEscapes 2002: Sensing Balance, Jane Alexander will speak at 8 p.m. July 22 at Acadia Repertory Theatre in Somesville. The event is free but seating is strictly limited to 148. Alexander will sign copies of her book 11 a.m.-noon July 23 at Port-in-a-Storm Bookstore in Somesville.

Other LandEscapes programs, which take place at venues throughout Mount Desert Island, include more than a dozen scientists and artists as presenters and workshop leaders, including Dr. Joseph LeDoux, author of “The Emotional Brain” and “The Synaptic Self”; Carl Little, art critic, author and communications director at Maine Community Foundation in Ellsworth; filmmakers Judy Hallet and Nancy Andrews; and papermaker Sue Gosin, founder of Dieu Donne Papermill in New York City. Showcased during the week will be the photography and drawing exhibit: “A Delicate Balance: New York and Maine Respond to 9/11.”

For information about the symposium, which has activities for both children and adults, call 244-3741. Workshops have limited enrollment and some fees for supplies. Reservations are recommended.