Do you work hard? What for?
To pay for expensive private schools, so your kids can have a decent
education? Or just to put a roof over your head? Perhaps you’ve been saving
for a vacation?
How about modern "art"? Would you like to spend some of your
hard-earned money on pictures of the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornography and
feces? Or dissected animals?
Surprise - you are paying for the modern art described above, whether you
know it or not. And since the money is deducted from your paycheck, you may
not even realize that you’re paying for this art before you educate your
kids, pay your mortgage, or take a vacation. But we’ve always wondered
about your priorities.
You can see your tax dollars at work at the federally subsidized Brooklyn
Museum of Art, which is hosting the "Sensation" exhibit. In the great
artistic tradition of attracting attention through shock value, "artists"
such as the infamous Damien Hirst are showing paintings that "explore a
complex and bizarre world of sexual identity, transmutation, and commercialism."
The exhibit attacks commercialism - and, in spite of the federal subsidy,
charges an entry fee of $9.75. (Where’s Ralph Nader when you need him? What
about the unsuspecting art patrons who pay their money and expect to see
real art? On the other hand, if someone enters this exhibit, knowing what to
expect, we’re glad to see ‘em get fleeced.)
The exhibit satirizes religion, Catholicism in particular, by surrounding a
picture of the Virgin Mary with feces and cutouts from pornographic
magazines. Yet the promoters of the exhibit show an almost religious belief
in the idea that the public should subsidize this sort of thing.
What would happen if an artist, let's say an American white male, had created a painting showing Buddha surrounded by elephant dung? Or Martin Luther King, or Mahatma Gandhi, surrounded by pornography? The cries of racism and cultural insensitivity would have made your ears ache. Yet the people who would have yelled the loudest to defend these icons are also those who are most violent in their defense of the right to use taxpayer money to blaspheme the sacred symbolism of the Catholic faith.
Supporters of the exhibit include Hillary Rodham Clinton and some Democratic
legislators. "The issue before us is censorship" according to
Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). Really? We thought the issue was
whether taxpayers are forced to subsidize art they find esthetically and
morally reprehensible.
We’re not denying the right of anyone to create and exhibit whatever they
like - at their own expense. If this is censorship, then not only do we
have an obligation to let Nazis march - we also have to pay for their
printing presses.
Parting words from Representative John Sweeney, Republican from NewYork: "I
don’t think that when taxpayers said they supported art funding that this is
what they had in mind."
************************
READ ALL ABOUT IT!
Read more about the controversy over the "Sensation" exhibit.
-------------------------------------
MORE ARTISTIC OUTRAGES!
If you enjoyed this Outrage, you may want to take a tour of the National
Gallery of Art with the Outrage staff. See our "Great Art" essay.
