Skip to main content

Government Art / N.E.A. / Censorship

. .
It bothers me that my tax dollars are used to fund artwork that I find worthless. As soon as a conversation starts on this topic, so does the matter of censorship. They go hand in hand. Americans are protected by laws that forbid censorship, yet there are many instances in our society where censorship is applied. This would seem to indicate that there is room for exceptions. We are not to yell fire in a crowded theater. We are not to travel nude on a bus. And etc. Isn't that a level of censorship? When something is called artwork the question become is it properly labeled.

Art is, as they say, in the eyes of the beholder. One man's artwork is another man's trash. The National Endowment for the Arts (N.E.A.) has labeled many repulsive items as art, and they continue to give away my tax money (and yours) to support the artists that make this (in my opinion) junk.  I don't like it!

There are many excellent artists that produce wonderful conventional artworks, (Robert Mapplethorpe for example) - who also sometimes produce some of the worst garbage describable. Holy Bibles nestled in dog poop. A caricature of Jesus sketched in blood. Children portrayed having sex with a dog. And so forth. None of this trash should be supported by public money. Period.

To prevent subsidization of artists that insist on making this detestable kind of non-conventional and unacceptable art, and assuming that the Government should be involved at all, should we (the government) set standards to qualify for taxpayer support? In other words, a level of censorship.

I think this would be dangerous and the power could be easily misused. Who should draw up such qualifications? What subjects should be forbidden? I've got the questions. Do you have the answers?

Comments

Rain said…
Mapplethorpe was an extreme although art as a means of political protest has gone way back and for all we know even showed up in petroglyphs.

Generally speaking the grants don't really fund any individual artist but go to traveling exhibits or programs. After reading your thoughts on it here, I went looking for who is getting it right now and found this: http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/09grants/am09.php?disc=Visual%20Arts%20Touring. A person might or might not approve of the various exhibits but there really isn't much money going into them either. Most artists are supported or not by selling their work and a lot of those who sell the most probably don't get any grants-- nor need them.

I always have a problem even with art museums as often the work (to me) is very questionably the best art of its generation. One time I was looking at an exhibit in Portland and said something to the guard about how it was more like the Emperor's New Clothes than real art. He was taken aback and definitely didn't agree with me; but it was the truth. Someone important said it was art and therefore it got in there but will a future generation think it is? Unlikely in my opinion.

The thing is though without those small grants for like a local dance group, with schools cutting out the arts for budgetary reasons, where might that leave any support for budding artists in the future? I favor money for the NEA but know I won't always agree with who they consider worthy.
Rain . . This time, though I pains me to admit it, you are 100% right. I especially agree with your last sentence.

Dixon

Popular posts from this blog

Intellectual / Incompetent / Liberal

We all know that there are serious problems with ou American political system. The federal government and national media have been telling us that we continue to lead the world in just about everything. Unfortunately, we do not. Measuring our status against other nations is difficult as it entails comparison of different attributes and characteristics. Comparisons are, at best, crude.  Surely, if we look, it's clear that America is no longer dominant among the world's communities. 


For decades following the 1929 economic depression, America has enriched foreign industries at the expense of our own. We have subsidized foreign military powers while allowing the depletion of our own. We've defended other nations borders while, at the same time, not defended our own. We've spent trillions of dollars to subsidize unworthy governments, and let our own infrastructure to fall into disrepair. 

The use of our economic power as a diplomatic tool may have been the correct thing to d…

Cruel and Thoughtless . . .

A disheartening situation has hit our family. A cousin, one that we don't know very well, has reached 93 years of age. Most of the Chapman family made it to the mid 80's, but Mary Lou Chapman has managed a few years more. And, she's not gone yet. Mary was unmarried her entire life. She grew up in a good home, was well educated, has always hd a good job, and has enjoyed pretty good health - until just a few years ago. While she is still very much alive, I sometimes speak in the past tense as if she had already died. Mary is either confused or in her own little world now. She began losing some of her sparkle a few years ago. At first it was mild memory loss, and then mild hearing loss, and then drifting in her speech as she lost track of what she wanted to say. Her Doctor said it was a mild dementia coming on with old age, and nothing to worry about yet. A few month's passed by before she began to have problems driving herself to the market and appointments and so forth,…

Mark Turner - Another Look

MARK TURNER.  I'm an interested ex-corporate exec., now retired, and have little to contribute to this. Perhaps you can help? At first I thought Mark's story was so complicated it couldn't be true. I discovered later that  Mark's business may indeed have  generated as much money as he said it did. His story is long and complicated, but regardless of his guilt or innocence, there is definitely  something wrong with the legal process he encountered. Maggie Thornton says his business dealings were honest. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but she may be right.  There is no question that he was improperly sentenced in one court, and deserves an appeal process in another. 


I have received several comments from a blogger named "Anonymous". He (or she) has chosen to remain unknown but clearly has an inside track to information about Mark's problems. I have removed my original speculations from this blog and regret there were so many errors. Sorry folks, my fault…