Controversy of Public art

Controversy of Public art

Should Controversial Art Be Publicly Funded?















By Shana Jones

African American Art

Response Paper 11-5-09
Controversial art should not be publicly funded.   Because public funding means public display and I do not want my tax dollars contributing to an exhibit which may appall my community.   We the people, make up as a whole, one voice, being the public.   We are a governed society with laws and regulations.   Whereby, I petition to a discreet review upon the dispersing of public art funding, the controversy that the arts may attract and whether or not the terms of the artist are done in decency and respect.   In doing so, I hope to gain the favor of my community in an alliance against the public funding of controversial arts.
There must be discretion to the way that government funded organizations are choosing to allocate funds for the public arts. It has been a topic of debate as to exactly how much and what kind of diplomacy the government has in the decision of award.   However, in 1990, the United States’ National Endowment for the Arts was amended.   It required a Chairperson to ensure that a board of judges grant applications that took into consideration, what was publicly just for a community.   Although this term was challenged on whether it violated the right to freedom of speech (expression), the U.S Supreme Court found it to be constitutional.   This was a good thing.   It is in the best interest of the people who live, work, and leisure in a community to have a say as to what they need or want to see displayed in the public realm.   I wouldn’t want my hard earned money funded into a public display of art that wasn’t going to enhance the outlook of things on life for me, my family or neighborhood.   Would you?   We should want to be able to appreciate art that will complement the goals of our communities, not degrade it.
Controversial art attracts fear and pain to many who subconsciously view it as a threat or insult.   We...