Good Essay About Art and its Contexts: controversies Over Public Funding for The arts

Art refers to an application or expression of imagination and creative skill, in visual forms such as drawing, sculpture or painting. It main aim is producing works which are meant to be appreciated primarily for their emotional power or beauty. Public, on the other hand, refers to what can be viewed by others controlled by fragile sets of social conventions over appropriate and acceptable behaviors. Public arts are artistic works that are to be displayed in a public domain that is accessible to all. Creation of art requires money for material and labor, hence calling for the need of financial grants to the artists. Art has evolved to mean an act of displaying, expressing and application of a skill. Nevertheless, it is surprising that some piece of art have portrayed indecent and obscene with reference to the culture and costumes of the society. This trend has resulted to the debate of whether such art should be awarded grants from the public tax dollars.
National Foundation for Humanities and Arts 1965 Act, vests substantial discretion to the National Endowment for the Arts to award grants to support arts. The act defines broad funding priorities that include cultural and artistic significance which give emphasis to cultural diversity and creativity, art appreciation, public education and professional excellence. The Act provides for advisory panels of experts which review all the applications for funding before reporting them to the National Council on the Arts; which advises the NEA Chairperson. Controversial photographs that were displayed in two exhibitions funded by the NEA in 1989 triggered the public outcry on the grant-making procedures.
As recorded in the documentary records, among the two was Andres Serrano’s work in which he had created a photograph of a crucifix submerged in his urine. His piece of work funded by NEA, was vehemently denounced by Rev. Donald Wildman, referring to it as an anti –Christian bigotry. Another example is of Robert Mapplethorpe, who exhibited provocative homoerotic images of nude portraits and flowers. This exhibition was followed by cancelation of the show of his work, a move which evoked angry protest from art lovers.
The public reactions on the forms of arts resulted in the Congress involvement in amending of the NEA’s 1990 reauthorization bill. The amendment was made to ensure that grant applications are judged basing on the criteria or artistic merit and excellence without compromising respect for diverse values as well as general decency of the public. Although official interpretation of the amendment was not promulgated by the NEA, it was implemented by the Council at a time when four artists had already applied for the grant. Whereas the advisory committee recommended approval of their projects, the Council on the other hand recommended disapproval; as a result the funding was denied. The artist filled a complaint against the provision and managed to challenge it to be null and void based on vagueness and impermissibly.
In conclusion, it is noted that from the beginning of the art funding wars, artists have differed on the best strategic response. As observed, most of them agree that, even though the first amendment protects sexually explicit or otherwise controversial art, it is important to pursue fiscal responsibility, high artistic standards, and attention to diverse. If grant awarding is meant to be a euphemism for an avoidance of anything potentially offensive or challenging, then the principal purpose of arts funding will be undermined.