No Censorship of the Arts! (Unless We Trust You)

Pajamas Media ^ | Jan. 6 | Herbert London

[AJKauf]

From the origin of the National Endowment for the Arts during the Johnson administration to the election of President Obama, the arts community was united in its opposition to censorship. The argument that prevailed is that the NEA should not use funding to restrict artistic expression or deny support for art that might offend bourgeois sensibility.

When a significant segment of the public was outraged to learn that the NEA provided funding for Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” the arts community rose as one to decry censorship over efforts to cut funding for his “art.” The arts community was equally upset at the suggestion that government policymakers might influence the content of its artwork. As the art world sees it, the government should pay but remain silent about artistic content.

During the George H. W. Bush administration the NEA made an effort to require grant recipients to sign an anti-obscenity pledge, which sparked a spate of angry comments from the arts community and a generally hostile stance to President Bush.

Now, however, the worm has turned. The NEA under President Obama has expressed a desire to use the agency as a propaganda instrument to promote the administration’s positions. And astonishingly, the arts world seems all too amendable to political advocacy as part and parcel of its work....

[Mark was here]

Their adjenda has never changed.

[a fool in paradise]

When a significant segment of the public was outraged to learn that the NEA provided funding for Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” the arts community rose as one to decry censorship over efforts to cut funding for his “art.”

The same PROHIBITION on using federal tax dollars to enshrine a Christian icon PROHIBITS the use of federal tax dollars to ridicule Christian icons.

Either the government CAN or CANNOT spend on such work. The antiChristian Left can't have it both ways.

[a fool in paradise]

Now, however, the worm has turned. The NEA under President Obama has expressed a desire to use the agency as a propaganda instrument to promote the administration’s positions. And astonishingly, the arts world seems all too amendable to political advocacy as part and parcel of its work....

Herr Clinton's people engaged in similar partisan "art" and revisionist history.

Exhibit A is the first White House website, which described the lousy years of Reagan-Bush and how Bill Clinton was making everything all better.

Exhibit B is the series of stamps (1 sheet per decade) to encapsulate the 20th Century. Look at the subjects that were proposed, and those that made it (that were not even subject to vote, like the success of Bill Clinton's economy)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrate_the_Century

[1776 Reborn]

Government art is as worthless as a government dating service. Pull the funds!

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

If these people can’t make a living as artists based on their artist ability let them learn another trade. I will NEVER understand why the government is funding art.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Correction: artist ability should read artistic ability.

[Kandy Atz]

If the artist is talented enough they will create artwork and find a market for their work. Art, whether bad or good, should never be government subsidized.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

More and more the NEA makes the case for clearing the books of this commie leftist POS. Think of the money we will save? The Government shouldn’t be in the art business. Problem is they are elitists who think they know whats good for us—and then jam their have baked ideas down the throats of the people.
They funded a play, a Tony Award winning play, for South Carolina -—Bathhouse all about Homosexuals and Aids. They were shocked no one in the community rushed out to see it.They blamed the Christian wing nuts and bumpkins for sabotaging their plans to bring gay sensitivity to the south.
They are fools and we do not need them.