Use of Public Funds for Artistic Display - Assignment Example

The use of taxpayer’s money to pay for art that some find offensive and indecent is ostensibly not using public funds in the most responsible way. Three arguments can be fronted in support of this. Firstly, it is an insult to the public when their funds are misappropriated. Secondly, there is a need for observation of general standards of decency as well as respect for the diverse views of the American population. Lastly, it would enhance responsibility among artists. After all, their artworks are not covered by public funds.

Therefore, this paper will expound on why public money should not be used to help pay for art that some taxpayers believe to be offensive and indecent. To begin with, it is an insult to the public when their funds are misappropriated. People who do not subscribe to obscenities and artworks that insult their faith may protest against the inappropriate use of their money. Case in point is the protests by American Family Association against National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for wrong use of their money in the artwork display.

The artwork was a painting by Serrano named ‘Piss Christ’ to which American Family Association found distasteful. They described it as obscene, hate-filled, anti-Christ and bigoted. They wrote protest letters to the Congress and NEA showing their displeasure in use of their money (Stokstad and Cothren). In essence, it was an insult to them. Secondly, there is a need for observation of general standards of decency as well as respect for the diverse views of the American population.

America is a large country with a population that subscribes to diverse beliefs and views. The whole population pays taxes regardless of its diverse nature. Consequently, respect for that diversity is paramount. Artworks that display mockery of other faiths, special population groups should not be funded by public money to which the population groups contributed. Case in point is Chris Ofili’s drawing of ‘The Holy Virgin Mary’ displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art which angered Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Catholic leaders.

Giuliani considered the art sick and disgusting as well as promoting religious intolerance (Stokstad and Cothren). In view of this, artworks should respect the diverse views and religious standings of the citizens. Using taxpayer s money to ridicule certain population groups shows lack general standards of decency Finally, the exclusion of public funds would enhance a sense of responsibility among artists. People tend to misuse and misrepresent public funds. They engage in irresponsible acts as they feel they are ‘covered’.

  In summary, the use of public funds for artistic display is an insult to the public. Additionally, there is a need for observation of general standards of decency and responsibility among artists. Therefore, public money should not be used to help pay for art that some taxpayers believe to be offensive and indecent.