public funding of the arts
If art is publicly funded, censorship should be allowed. Artists should be allowed to create anything their heart desires even if it offends people however, if their art is being funded by a public source the first amendment should no longer apply and the art should be created in a way that the general society sees fit and is not offended by. This is a matter of great debate and one of the biggest issues is who decides if the art is appropriate.
The United States Government is by no means required to use tax payer money to fund the expression of the arts, but once the government funds a program they are not allowed to withdraw funding if they disagree with the art being shown. This rule essentially bans the government from applying any censors on the art shown in these programs. Basically once the government decides to fund a program of the arts they are required to stand by their decision under U.S. law. Also the government is not allowed to push their viewpoints onto publically funded programs. “As stated by the National Coalition Against Censorship, public funding for the arts does not allow the government to play the role of censor.” (Kenworthy). Prohibiting the government to make any sort of decision of the art they fund is a flawed system and there needs to be some sort of reform such as having elected members of a committee determine which art is appropriate, but also have a set of checks and balances in place to prevent corruption
It is true that if the government does not like certain pieces of art they have no obligation to fund it in the first place, but once a program gets backed by the government it basically has free reign to spend the tax payers’ money however they want. This can turn into a very large issue. For example, in 1989 protests erupted over an exhibit in which an artist who was receiving money from the government displayed a piece of “art” in which he submerged Jesus Christ on a Crucifix in his own urine. The aptly named Piss Christ
The United States Government is by no means required to use tax payer money to fund the expression of the arts, but once the government funds a program they are not allowed to withdraw funding if they disagree with the art being shown. This rule essentially bans the government from applying any censors on the art shown in these programs. Basically once the government decides to fund a program of the arts they are required to stand by their decision under U.S. law. Also the government is not allowed to push their viewpoints onto publically funded programs. “As stated by the National Coalition Against Censorship, public funding for the arts does not allow the government to play the role of censor.” (Kenworthy). Prohibiting the government to make any sort of decision of the art they fund is a flawed system and there needs to be some sort of reform such as having elected members of a committee determine which art is appropriate, but also have a set of checks and balances in place to prevent corruption
It is true that if the government does not like certain pieces of art they have no obligation to fund it in the first place, but once a program gets backed by the government it basically has free reign to spend the tax payers’ money however they want. This can turn into a very large issue. For example, in 1989 protests erupted over an exhibit in which an artist who was receiving money from the government displayed a piece of “art” in which he submerged Jesus Christ on a Crucifix in his own urine. The aptly named Piss Christ