Moderator Prompt #3
Funding for the Arts
The federal funding agency for arts organizations in this country is the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA is funded annually with federal money. The yearly budget is first recommended by the President in his proposed yearly budget then goes to the House then the Senate for their determination of funding. They do not have to follow the President’s recommendation but they do have to approve the final funding amount together.
There has been much controversy in the past not only on the amount of funding for the NEA but also about the type of art which has been partially funded with public dollars. We’ve seen some depictions of “controversial art” in class – below are a few more examples of art that was funded, directly or indirectly, by the NEA.
Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment – this review is highly in favor of Mapplethorpe’s controversial exhibition. Always keep in mind the source when reading an opinion piece such as this.
And, more recently, the Smithsonian came under scrutiny when the National Portrait Gallery’s exhibition of Hide/Seek contained a video of ants crawling over a crucifix. Below is an excerpt from an article by David Cole, published by the New York Review of Books on December 16, 2010.
On November 29, a conservative website posted an 11-second clip of ants crawling over a crucifix from a 4-minute video made by David Wojnarowicz, an artist who died of AIDS in 1992. The video, Fire in My Belly, was part of a show at the National Portrait Gallery called “Hide/Seek,” said to be the country’s first national exhibition devoted to gay and lesbian themes. Wojnarowicz made the video in 1986 and 1987, as his lover Peter Hujar was dying of AIDS, and as David himself learned that he was HIV-positive; it is an eerie meditation on life, death, violence, and nature, featuring imagery from the Day of the Dead. David later explained that he saw Jesus as a symbol of someone who willingly took on the suffering of the world. ...William Donohue of the Catholic League, saw it differently, and attacked the video clip as blasphemous and demanded that Congress reconsider future funding of the Smithsonian in reprisal. The Smithsonian—which runs the National Portrait Gallery and which is funded by the US Government—promptly removed the video from the exhibition...
You can read more about Wojnarowicz and his struggles with censorship in the rest of the article. Again, the source for this article is highly in favor of this type of art.
The NEA no longer funds individual artists for their work, with the exceptions of Fellowships and Honors to established artists within their field. And yet, federal funding for the arts still comes under scrutiny when it can be linked to art which could be considered offensive to some.
What are your thoughts? Do you think controversial art should be funded by public money? Why or why not? Some people consider this lack of funding to be a form of government censorship - what do you think? There is private funding for the arts available – maybe it should be the private sector’s responsibility to fund this type of art? But then, what is the purpose of art? Should it be challenging to our ideas or beliefs? Should it make people uncomfortable? Many of you have told me in your papers that part of what makes something art is that it makes you think. Does the main source of funding for the arts have a responsibility to produce “challenging” art? Or should they just be responsible for “safe” art?
Please argue your opinion but be respectful of everyone’s opinion.
(And if you are interested in the NEA and its funding, the budget is currently moving through the House and the Senate and they are facing significant decreases in funding. You can follow this, and other arts advocacy news, at http://www.artsusa.org.)
I have a very interesting take on federal funding, since my education is being paid by the Post 9/11 GI Bill, which is completely federally funded. Add to that I received a letter last week stating that our president has made cuts to said plan, and that he will essentially be taking my rent money.
ReplyDeleteNow the easy answer here is to say that if we can't care for our veterans we certainly shouldn't be funding other interests. While I do believe that ALL federal funding needs a review, but this doesn't change my attitude on this funding. If there is funding for the arts if should be for that exactly. There should not be cuts based on what one person likes or what another likes.
schwartz.1696
gasper.14
ReplyDeleteWhen I began reading this prompt, I was very much against funding art with federal money. I assume, maybe incorrectly, that art only benefits those who view it (obviously) but also only those who are capable of making sense of it. I think this is an incredibly small number of people, and do not think taxes should fund something with minimal benefits.
However, the total NEA budget is only about $160 million per year (lately) and this is insignificant as far as I am conserned (cuts in other areas would save much more money).
So, with this in mind, I think its best if the NEA goes to art that will provoke the maximum amount of thought. Such works are prone to controversy and usually done by individuals. So I support NEA funding of individuals.
I also think the lack of this kind of funding is censorship. Although the public of America is funding the work (and so you can argue the public should be allowed to restrict certain works) most controversial pieces usually are told from a minority perspective. In other areas of our law, we protect minorities from the majorities. By restricting funding, the majority may be muting the minority. I believe this is can be censorship and conflicts with other areas of our culture.
In my opinion, despite however beautiful art may be, the government could be using their money for something more useful. Art is simply something to look at, it does not help or hurt anybody.This country is already in billions of dollars of debt, so I feel like the money should be used a bit more rationally. I do not think that any art should be funded by the government because of the reason that I previously mentioned. This lack of funding is not an act of censorship, maybe just an act of actually thinking about what is really important. Is a piece of artwork more important then the millions of impoverished people living in one of the most wealthy countries in the nation? Me personally, I would pick the people.
ReplyDeleteI feel like whoever is funding the creations of these artworks, should be able to decide the types that are created, whether it be the government or private funds. Nobody is responsible for creating "challenging" art because this definition varies in the minds of many people. One individual may find something to be "challenging" when another does not. Art is in the eye of the beholder. We each have different ideas of what art may be and what types of art are considered controversial.
plymale.21
ReplyDeleteI believe controversial art should be funded because many times it teaches the best lessons. There could be many reasons that the government would not fund certain pieces of art. It may be because they are trying to control what people see or because they just simply do not want to fund the piece of art. I think the government should fund the art no other person. I believe the funding should be responsible for "challenging" art and "safe" art because both are very important. Challenging art gets a person to think whether the piece makes the person uncomfortable or challenges a persons belief it should be there. One part of learning is having your beliefs challenged and then see if you still believe in them, that makes the connection so much stronger. The government is always going to have a say in what art is funded and what art is not so it is our job to try and persuade them to fund the art that "challenges" a persons mind.
ReplyDeleteSpoerl.8
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal funding on artwork could be spent on other things other than art. As stated before, our country is in billion dollars of debt. Also, as stated in the article, "The NEA no longer funds individual artists for their work, with the exceptions of Fellowships and Honors to established artists within their field." Therefore, there is still funding for those in Fellowships and Honors, and funding is not totally gone. I am aware that some see this as censorship, however if reason for not funding is to get our current economy out of the state it is in now, then I feel this isn't "censorship", but rather a step in the right direction for the economy.
A piece of art will never be universally liked or disliked. One thing is for certain though, if something "might" be controversial, there sure as hell will be people out there who think it's controversial.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think the federal funding of art should just keep going on as is. There will always be critics. People will always get pissed. These things are inevitable. It would be impossible to sift through every piece of art that the federal government has funded and decide if it is "too controversial."
meyer.760
I don't believe controversial art should be funded by public money. Ging back to the start of the Untied States they made the mistake of not going into more detail on the Bill of Rights. I believe that everyone should be able to believe in what they want but going as far to produce something that is going to cause problems is just something i don't understand. I really think it was sick minded to do the things that people did with the crucifix and I would say the same thing for someone who did it to any other god someone believed in. These things cause problems in a country that needs to focus on other neccessary problems instead of things like these artworks.
ReplyDeleteI feel that art needs to be federally funded as to keep it available for the public viewing. If it is not funded by the private sector then it could very well be phased out and it is a large part of reflecting on our past and understanding feelings of that specific time and place.
ReplyDeleteI do understand completely how offensive material to some that are technically contributing with their tax dollars, but there is no possible reason nor logic behind censorship of art because if it is "controlled" it becomes a product rather than an expression. In short, it would not be art.
Our tax dollars are used for a lot of things we know and don't know. We elect PEOPLE based on backgrounds, beliefs, etc and TRUST in them to make decisions on a general basis.
Eli Duffey.34
Grimes.155
ReplyDeleteI believe that art that is controversial should be up to the government if they want to fund it or not. If they feel that it is controversial and will upset many people why should they help to provide it. The artists should have to find their own source of funding for it. I mean I'm all for challenging ideas to make people think but there really is only so far one can take that and just because it does not get federal funding does not mean that it will not find a way to exist somehow. I do believe that it should be up to the private funding to get it out there. The people providing the funding should be open to the idea of having some challenging work but they should have the discretion to decide what is too challenging.
@Eli Duffey.34
ReplyDeleteGrimes.155
I totally see where you are coming from saying that art should not be censored just because it falls under the category of controversial. However, I am not really sure that it is completely censorship since it does not totally stop the work from coming out. The artist can find other methods to publish the work.