Discuss whether the government withhold funds for those artists that don’t serve a clearly defined artistic purpose?
For this week, we’ve decided to post something that tends to get people a bit fired up. I hope that it will provoke an interesting conversation, but be warned: some of this material is shocking and offensive.
As you have in past weeks, Write a thread in Week 8 that develops what you think of this exhibition and the public’s reaction to it. Then in Week 9, respond to at least seven in your group.
In 1987, photographer Andres Serrano indirectly received federal funds through his regional arts agency. With the funds, Serrano produced “Piss Christ”, a crucifix submerged in a jar containing his own urine. Read more here–
“Piss Christ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_christ
Read these articles–it is just a selection of material on the internet; not advocating one position or the other…
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/art_controversy_back_in_ny_ZjuqKoVhysXZ3eQg6U6n1H
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/sep/28/andres-serrano-piss-christ-new-york
http://thefineartdiner.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-does-piss-christ-mean-why-is-it.html
The awarding of funds to Serrano created an uproar and got many religious groups up in arms, eventually forcing the resignation of the Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts. Needless to say, this resulted in the NEA tightening up its funding policies that continue to the present day. Serrano’s exhibit was endlessly debated in the arts landscape of America, calling into question the entire role of federal funding for the arts and humanities.
Certainly this controversy has solid grounds to be on. In times of federal budget crunches, people are looking to cut everything that doesn’t serve a clearly defined, quantifiable purpose. But in a society where the government provides significant support for the arts, what are the rules? If funding is cut off and the federal government gets out of the business of choosing art, will funding for the arts dry up? Should the government withhold funds for those artists that don’t serve a clearly defined artistic purpose? Or for those artists who are clearly courting controversy to serve some agenda? How much should factors like obscenity, decency, and value be considered in the selection of certain art? Who decides the standards for obscenity or value? Does this constitute a form of censorship? What about freedom of expression? Should not the viewers/patrons be able to decide what exhibit they want to see or not? Should the government favor high production value or accessibility? Should artists be told what their boundaries are if they want to ‘show’? Who decides what is “acceptable” art? Should we (citizens) push for NEA funding or private funding?
To help understand some of these questions, take a look at Wikipedia’s pages on fine art and applied art to give you an oversight of the art world.
This kind of material, and Serrano is not alone, has been (and probably will be in the future) debated by local organizations, small & big arts organizations and the Supreme Court alike. I’m curious to hear what you have to say.
When you shape your response, consider the above questions, and raise others. Be objective. Remember, this discussion is about arts funding. Share other controversial examples if you know of one. Let’s have an honest conversation–there is no intent to offend…
