Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

7-28-89 Friday. The art world is in an uproar over a recent congressional decision to restrict funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). This organization funds art exhibits throughout the country. Two recent exhibits, however, have shocked and offended a good number of people, who complained loudly enough to move Congress to act. One exhibit is by an avowed male homosexual, Robert Mapplethorpe. His photographs depict everything from nude males in various poses to leather-clad lovers in bondage scenes. The other exhibit is by Andres Serrano, who photographed, among other things, a crucifix immersed in a jar of his urine. He calls it “Piss Christ”. You can imagine the outrage among Christians. The current debate is about whether Congress should fund artists whose work is offensive to so many people. Those against such funding claim that nobody has a right to government funds for the display of offensive art, while those in favor of funding claim that it would be censorship to fund only artists whose work is considered mainstream. My first inclination is to agree with those against funding. If government were prohibiting the display of Mapplethorpe’s work, that would be one thing; but all Congress has done is decide not to subsidize it. That seems reasonable enough. On the other hand, perhaps, as a nation, we should be committed to subsidizing art of all kinds, however distasteful it may be to certain people at certain times. It’s an interesting issue. I’ll have more to say about it from time to time in these pages.