Both of these readings talk about the issues involved with funding artists and the censorship of some art. I found it very interesting how a case about artwork and the disagreement of whether an artist should be funded went to Congress. I guess this just shows that some people look at art in different ways and some people do not believe that having the nation's tax money go towards artwork that not everyone agrees with is wrong. When I first read that, I thought it was absured that a case about art went to Congress? Don't they have something more important to talk about? After thinking about it from the another perspective, I can see how one would argue that it is not fair for someones money to go towards something that they do not agree with. In Phelan's essay she basically says that the people who are spending time arguing about funded artwork that is too "sexual" need to be informed what art actually is and the purpose behind it. It would be interesting to see if the people's opinions would change after hearing what the actual purpose of the artwork was.
One thing about art is that it is ones personal creative expression. What one might find controversial or unappealing could be hanging on the mantel of someone that finds it it be beautiful. I think that a big motive behind Serrano's artwork was to cause controversy. When people were making a big fuss over his artwork and saying that they didn't agree with it, he was actually getting the reaction that he wanted to. I think that it would do art an injustice to censor it. Everything would look the same and new and creative thinking would be limited. It would definitely put a damper on the art world and its enthusiast.
Questions:
1. What artist are actually funded by the government?
2. Who determines who gets funded and how much each person is awarded?
3. Is there a certain process to apply to be a funded artist?
No comments:
Post a Comment