Don't like paying for dung-smeared "art"? The solution is to "devolve" the funding
WASHINGTON, DC -- Want to end the legal and political battles swirling around the Virgin Mary/elephant dung exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art? Stop using tax dollars to subsidize any kind of art, the Libertarian Party suggested today.
"Smearing elephant dung on a painting of the Virgin Mary may be offensive -- but it's not as offensive as forcing people to pay for it against their will," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "But that's the inevitable result of giving politicians the power to subsidize art."
This week, a federal court is expected to issue a ruling in a legal battle between New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the Brooklyn Museum of Art. At stake: Whether the city is guilty of "censorship" if it cuts off funding to the museum because of the "Sensation" exhibit, which runs through January 9, 2000.
The exhibit, featuring the works of young English artists, includes not only the Virgin Mary smeared with dung and surrounded by photographs of buttocks, but also dead animals in formaldehyde, live maggots, and a translucent bust filled with the artist's blood.
Mayor Giuliani blasted the museum for its "aggressive, vicious, disgusting attacks on religion" and promised to cut off the city's $7 million subsidy.
But it's not just New Yorkers who are paying for government-subsidized "artistic" dung, noted Dasbach. Every American is -- because the National Endowment for the Arts has funneled $500,000 to the museum over the past three years.
"Even if you are a profoundly religious person, and consider smearing feces on the Virgin Mary an unholy act of blasphemy, your hard-earned money is being used to display and publicize this exhibit," he said. "That's the ultimate act of political blasphemy."
But the problem didn't start with the Brooklyn Museum of Art, said Dasbach -- and it won't end by cutting off funds for this one exhibit.
"Politicians were smart: They didn't announce they would use your tax dollars to display a feces-smeared Virgin Mary, or to display a crucifix immersed in urine," he said. "Instead, they promised to subsidize operas, museums, theater, and other inoffensive art.
"The problem is that once politicians get your money, it's out of your hands. Suddenly, the decision about which art to fund is in the control of politicians and bureaucrats. The only way to have some influence is through lengthy political or legal battles."
That's why the solution is to "devolve" decisions about art funding back to the individual, he said.
"No, we'll never eliminate all offensive art, but we can end most of the legal fighting and political confrontations that offensive art generates," he said. "We can do that by simply turning the world of art -- museums, operas, theater, and so on -- back over to the private and non-profit sectors.
"So, if you enjoyed a certain kind of art, you could support it with your patronage and contributions. If you are offended by another kind of art, don't try to censor it -- simply boycott it. Either way, you would have control."
"If such a policy were implemented, museums could go back to being places that display art -- instead of being turned into political battlegrounds," said Dasbach. "And we wouldn't have to worry about politicians turning our money into elephant dung, and calling it art."
Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
