|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
Government Funding of the Arts
| Article
# : |
16552 |
|
|
Section : |
EDITORIAL
|
| Issue
Date : |
11 / 1989 |
1,058 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
The furor over the cancellation of the exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, D.C., and Sen. Jesse Helms' subsequent amendment is a monument to the ability of the arts establishment to brainwash the media. This issue has nothing to do with First Amendment freedoms or the rights of artists to experiment with new techniques or means of expression. These remain untrammeled no matter how odious the work or how depraved the artist. The only relevant issue is the right of the government to control the expenditure of tax dollars raised from the general public.
If the public becomes outraged over a new missile, it will not be built. If it becomes outraged over a catastrophic health insurance bill, it will be modified. When one dips into the pork barrel, one is obliged to play by the rules of democracy.
Government support for the arts is inherently problematic. It raises the question of official art, whether that art be the standard of the public, government officials, or a largely self-chosen art establishment. Choices always involve inclusion and exclusion. Private patronage on the whole is a far better protection for diversity and experimentation than any governmental program can be. The moment one has an endowment through committees that dominate large grants, the process of official encouragement of some lines of art and official discouragement of others will have begun to influence artistic directions. The lines of communication quickly become incestuous, and the institutions begin to operate in a vacuum.
There may be exceptions: Art forms of merit that would die out without public
... (1998 of 6140 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
