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?