November 5, 1999
By Steve Dasbach
Want to end political brawls about art —like the one raging at the Brooklyn Museum of Art over a depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung? Simply stop using tax dollars to subsidize any kind of art.
Suddenly, instead of political conflict, there would be harmony. Instead of censorship there would be freedom. Instead of art that consists of elephant dung, there would be... well, maybe such "art" would still exist, but at least you wouldn't have to pay for it.
And that's one important fact that may have escaped your attention in all the hullabaloo about the exhibit in Brooklyn: You're paying for it.
That's right. The museum received $500,000 in funding from the National Endowment of the Arts over the past three years, so taxpayers from New York to New Mexico (and everywhere in between) are subsidizing that dung-covered exhibit.
But you're paying for more than manure. The so-called "Sensation" exhibit, featuring the works of young English artists, also includes dead animals in formaldehyde, live maggots, and a translucent bust filled with the artist's blood.
The exhibit, which runs through January 9, is a hot topic because New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani blasted its "vicious, disgusting attacks on religion," and attempted to cut off the city's $7 million annual subsidy.
The museum responded by claiming in federal court that the mayor's attempt to de-fund the exhibit is censorship. A ruling is expected any day now.
But the problem didn't start with the Brooklyn Museum of Art — and it won't end by cutting off government funds for this one exhibit.
The problem began when the government got into the business of subsidizing art. Politicians were smart: They didn't announce they would use your tax dollars to display a feces-smeared Virgin Mary. Instead, they promised to subsidize operas, museums, theater, and other inoffensive art.
But over the years, the National Endowment for the Arts has spent your money on a mind-boggling array of bizarre projects ranging from performance artists covering their naked bodies with chocolate to a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine.
Unfazed by this record, the Republican-controlled Congress endowed the arts agency quite well this year — with another $98 million of your money.
What recourse do you have? The fact is, once politicians get your money, it's out of your hands. Suddenly, decisions about which art to fund are in the control of politicians and bureaucrats, and they make decisions based on political, not artistic, considerations. The only way for you to have some influence is through lengthy political or legal battles.
That's why the solution is to let individuals, not governments, decide which art gets funded. Individuals already spend over $9 billion a year on private art, ranging from movies to ballet to community theater. Though conflicts occasionally arise over the artistic merits of all of the above, rarely is the conflicts as heated as the fight over taxpayer-funded exhibits.
In other words, if art welfare were terminated, most debates about the merits of art would end along with it —and each side would benefit. Artists would be guaranteed freedom from censorship, in exchange for giving up public funding. People offended by certain art would be guaranteed they wouldn't have to pay for it, in exchange for giving up the power to censor.
Now, it may be that you personally like dung, chocolate, or urine in your art. Great: You'll still have the opportunity to personally support such creativity.
But if you are a religious person, and consider (for example) a feces-smeared Virgin Mary to be an unholy act of blasphemy, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that your hard-earned money is no longer being used to display and publicize such an exhibit.
In all likelihood, we'll never eliminate all offensive art, but we can end most of the legal fighting and political confrontations that offensive art generates. We can do that by simply turning the world of art —museums, operas, theater, and so on — back over the community and non-profit sectors.
If such a policy were implemented, museums could go back to being places that display art — instead of being turned into political battlegrounds. And we wouldn't have to worry about politicians turning our money into elephant dung, and calling it art.
(Steve Dasbach is national director of the Washington, D.C.-based Libertarian Party.)
Return to Frontpage