You are on page 1of 28

The “Freedom” of Art Are artists’, in the United States, freedom of expression, under freedom of speech rights outlined

in the Constitution, protected when government spending is involved? James Yu 001470-040 May 2012 The Arts Mrs. Sharice Williams Word Count: 3944

1

Abstract This essay attempts to answer whether or not the government really has its citizens, namely artists, best, freedom of expression, interests in mind through the medium of government budget backing for artists. In order to adequately answer the question, it was derived into several sub-sections; an outlining of what freedom of expression is, an overview of government funding, and what the government hopes to accomplish through the financing of this artwork. Using this breakdown, I was lead to conduct research in the United States Constitution and in government organizations that catered to the funding of art; and from this I could provide adequate and relevant background information and context to aid in answering the question. The question is then applied into three situations in the art world where the relationship between freedom of expression and government funding would cause individuals to question or doubt whether or not the government cares for and/or upholds the ideals of freedom of expression, which is outlined earlier in the essay by sub-section for support. To provide analysis of whether or not freedom of expression was violated in these instances, further research was conducted on each instance through the medium of journalist articles, blogs, interviews, biographies, and etc. The distinguishing of government was found through research of these situations as well. This information led me to conclude that freedom of expression was in fact, technically, violated; however, that it should also be noted that the government in the form of one distinction does fight for artists’ freedom of expression rights. But in the end, compromises are made which violate one person’s rights to protect those of many others. Word Count: 273

2

Table of Contents The “Freedom” of Art…………………………………………………………………….............1 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………2 Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….3 Introduction: Are artists’ freedom of expression protected under government funding?...……….4 Body……………………………………………………………………………………………..... Freedom of Expression………………………………………………………………........6 Introduction to government funding of art………………………………………………...7 Eligibility………………………………………………………………………………….8 Utilizing funds…………………………………………………………………………….9 Why government-funded art is second guessed………………………………………….10 Andres Serrano – Piss Christ (1987)……………………………………………………..11 Robert Mapplethorpe – The Perfect Moment (1989)……………………………………15 Smithsonian Institution – Hide/Seek (2010)……………………………………………..18 Conclusion: The Verdict…………………………………………………………………………21 Retracting is reasonable?...................................................................................................21 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………...24 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….28

3

Introduction: Are artists’ freedom of expression protected under government funding? Art is defined as the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. However the temperament of the true artist would insist on breaking the rules of the definitions to describe art. When one thinks of art or depicts an image of an artist within his or her mind, the notion most commonly associated with art is freedom of expression. Advocating this ideal of free expression, artists tend to push the boundaries of “normal” thought; diving into controversial issues that “normal” people would feel uncomfortable to even think of, let alone discuss. Artists, in their free spirit, will find refuge in rebellion to social norms; whether or not people are offended, the artist will try to find a way to keep his or her opinion voiced. However, with the concept of “artist” conceives another notion; the idea of the starving artist. Careers in the arts are notorious for being low-income, the average salary being only $47,552; with no specification in art field1. Money is a constant in the world that exists today; if an individual does not have the proper funds in order to carry out, practically, anything, he or she should simply relinquish ideas of having said desire accomplished. Understanding the financial situation of artists, it can be questioned on how artists will share their talents and bizarre perspectives with the rest of the world. The absence of adequate funds would result in the absence of the many great art masterpieces that are observed to this day. A route taken by several artists to prevent from hiding their “masterpieces” involves seeking for government intervention in funding. However there
1

"Average Artist Salary Information."Salary.com. Kenexa, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www1.salary.com/Artist-Salary.html>.

4

have been plenty of instances, in the circumstance of government-funded art, in which the grants offered to fund the art, is retracted — begging the question: are artists’, within the United States, freedoms of expression, under the freedom of speech rights outlined in the Constitution, protected when government spending is involved? If the works of the artists are unable to find a means for expression, even within the government, how will the voice of the artist be heard? A majority of the influencing factors that shape the opinions, moral values, and aspirations of individuals, are subject to the art that said person observes. Especially taking into account the average artist finance, if even the government cannot be trusted for artist expression, then that influencing factor will be greatly diminished due to ill-funding; an “endangered species”, so to speak.

5

Freedom of Expression Although artists are pinned with the characteristic of expressing emotions and/or opinions freely, this does not mean, necessarily, that said liberals are under circumstances for them to be able to do so. In a wide variety of countries, namely under dictatorship rules such as in the example of Stalin’s Soviet Russia, the artist and artwork are controlled and filtered through the hands of the government2. Essentially used as pawns, the artists work under the watchful eyes of government officials. Any artwork produced by the artist must be approved by these officials to insure that it will not spark any controversy or lead the residents of the state to rise against the rule of the government. If the artwork is seen as crude or insulting to “Lord Stalin”, effectively immediately the artist is stripped of his license to practice in his or her art field, or possibly even killed. Artists within the United States are very fortunate in their productions. In the First Amendment of the Constitution, it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”3 Within this introduction to the Bill of Rights explains that the government cannot pass laws violating, or further control, citizens’ rights to establish religion, practice freedom of speech, or freedom of press. Applying this promise made by the United States government to the role of artists; artists, much like writers able to publish whatever opinions they write or say without consequence, are, in short, “permitted” to “say [write]”
2

MacKenzie, David, and Michael W. Curran. Comp. A History of Russia and the Soviet Union. 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1987. 705-14. Print.
3

Walenta, Craig. "The United States Constitution." U.S. Constitution Online. Craig Walenta, 06 Mar 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends>.

6

whatever they feel and get away with it without government persecution, as in the countries of the Communists. Even in the instances of the government being ridiculed by these artists, again contrasting the treatment of artists in communist countries. Introduction to government funding of art In fact, it seems as though the government encourages artists to take full advantage of their first amendment rights. The Great Society Program was, 37th President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson’s attempt to minimize and hopefully even eliminate poverty and racial prejudice within the United States. On the September of 1965, President Johnson signed and passed the National Foundation of the Arts and Humanities Act into law, which in turn created both the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)4, government run organizations which offer grants, out-of-pocket direct from the U.S. government itself, to support the projects of artists applying for grants through these organizations — and even explicitly explaining, “We fully recognize that no government can call artistic excellence into existence...Nor should any government seek to restrict the freedom of the artist to pursue his own goals in his own way."5 President Johnson readily and firmly acknowledged the importance of artwork as an educating device to the rest of the world. And even further recognizing the stature of the artist; notorious in reputation of normally being the “bottom of the food chain” of the social class system in the United States, thus the notion of the “starving artist”. Advocating his ideal of “helping the needy” in the advancement of his Great Society Program, in enacting and forming these organizations, President Johnson opened the

4

Quigley, Margaret. "The Mapplethorpe Censorship Controversy." Political Research Associates. Political Research Associates, 2010. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.publiceye.org/theocrat/Mapplethorpe_Chrono.html>.
5

(Quigley, Margaret)

7

window for many artists, once unable to conceive the idea of having their artwork rendered due to personal financial circumstance. Eligibility However, receiving this financial aid is not easy. The two organizations; the NEA and NEH, are in charge of the handling of government funding for artists. Each organization is permitted about $160 million to $180 million to offer grants6; however, just because the persons involved in these organizations are supporters of the art community certainly does not mean that every artist’s request will be catered to. The government cannot simply just give away its money to every financially struggling artist that walks through the doors of the NEA or the NEH. Especially now, in light of the current recession, the government must be careful in its decision to whom money is given to. Much like college/scholarship applications, one must apply and be accepted to qualify for a grant. Eligibility for these grants are, surprisingly, not all too difficult to achieve. One must simply meet the “Legal Requirements” (refer to Appendix A) of the organization, have a three year history of programming before prior to application deadline, and have submitted acceptable Final Report packages by the due date(s) for all Arts Endowment grant(s) previously received7. However, obviously, simply being eligible to be considered for admittance does not mean that the artist will be accepted to receive a grant.

6

United States. Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Summary. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 2009. Web. <http://www.nea.gov/about/Budget/2009funding.html>.
7

United States. Grants::Apply for a Grant. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 2011. Web. <http://nea.gov/grants/apply/GAP12/Eligibility.html#limits>.

8

Utilizing funds But what do artists need grants for in the first place? Is it only because their jobs are lowpaying? Picture an artist’s process in his or her propagation of a new artwork. The beginning of the process bears the question, “what do I want to make?” for the artist; thus the development of the idea. The process moves on to the execution of this idea, transforming the question from “what” to “how”; “how am I going to bring forth this still abstract idea to reality?” The answer is most commonly found in the resources of the artists. An average 37 ml tube of oil paint can cost up to $35.25, $26.44 if lucky8. Oil paint brush prices vary, normally, depending on the size of the brush; they can cost as little as $7 to prices exceeding $100 each9. It should also be taken into consideration that these are but a few of the tools in the arsenals of artists. Photographers normally use higher-end quality cameras called Digital SLR (single-lens reflex) cameras which can range anywhere between $550 dollars to $700010. Budgets for films can tangent $200 million dollars, as seen through the example of James Cameron’s, Titanic11. Even after the final product of the artist’s production, money is needed for printing costs, publication costs, advertising, exhibition, tour, and etc. In light of exhibition, grants from the NEA or NEH are offered to a variety of museums to host the exhibitions, or to fund the tour of the work12. The point here is that a great investment of wealth is involved for the artist, striving
8

"Artists' Oil Colours: 37ml Tubes: Cerulean Blue." PrattStore. Pratt Institute, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://prattstorecatalog.net/artists_oil_colours_37ml_tubes_cerulean_blue-p-1222277.html>.
9

Smith, Daniel. "DANIEL SMITH Series 55 Kolinsky Sable Oil Brushes." Daniel Smith: Finest Quality Artists' Materials. Daniel Smith, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.danielsmith.com/Item--i-G-063-150>.
10

"Digital SLR Cameras." Canon. CanonUSA, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras>.
11

"Titanic." IMDb. IMDb, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/>.

12

Southern, Hugh. United States. National Endowment for the Arts: 1988 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1989. Print.

9

for recognition of his or her talents. The United States, recognized as the “land of opportunity,” will do what she can to meet these demands, evident by the funding of the NEA and NEH organizations. Why government-funded art is second guessed? It can be said that the government does a good thing in its assistance to the financially struggling artist. So when a citizen with a soft spot for the arts hears of instances where the government decides to pull back funding or museums deciding to take down artwork due to controversy of subject artwork, what is said citizen inclined to believe? “The government is a menace and a liar to the citizens of the state — they don’t believe in protecting freedom of expression at all,” is a possible statement that said art admirer would exclaim to the revelation of this knowledge.

Andres Serrano – Piss Christ (1987)
10

11

Andres Serrano’s, Piss Christ: a prime example of government funding cuts. Piss Christ, is a photograph depicting a plastic crucifix — an object sacred to those of the namely Catholic religion due to its conveying of Jesus, the God of the Catholic religion, being hung on a cross, again sacred because of the context (according to the holy book of Catholicism, the Bible, this God, Jesus Christ, came down to Earth to be offered as a sacrifice and save humanity from its sin) — submerged in what is claimed to be Serrano’s urine. In terms of balance, Serrano places the crucifix in the dead center of the photograph, essentially and obviously pronouncing that the crucifix is the undoubted focal point and subject of this piece. The color is a painstakingly vibrant yellow; with contrast in color only seen in the various shades created by the lighting, thus uncontrolled because of it being a photograph. These two elements give the piece a great sense of proclamation and resolve, the balance stating the focus and the color hitting home in the heart with its eye-squinting resonance; leaving no room for the viewer to observe or think otherwise. Thus the controversy is obvious. With funding from the NEA; when this photograph was released, the public retaliated in anger. Senator of the state of Colorado, William Lester Armstrong, commented on the “bigotry” of Piss Christ, “It has recently come to my attention that the NEA supports, in the name of art, work by Mr. Andres Serrano that denigrates Christ. I'm appalled!13” It has also been reported that the work was shattered by hammer at the hands of four “habitants de français.”14 The piece was originally given $5,000 from the NEA15. However,

13

(Quigley, Margaret)

14

Chrisafis, Angelique. "Attack on 'blasphemous' art work fires debate on role of religion in France." theguardian. 18 Apr 2011: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-pisschrist-destroyed-christian-protesters>.
15

Hodsoll, Frank. United States. National Endowment for the Arts: 1986 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1987. Print.

12

because of the controversy, Serrano lost this grant for the work going into exhibition, touring, and etc16. However, there’s a possibility that the piece may have been misinterpreted. Andres Serrano was raised a devout Catholic17, why would he blaspheme the name of his God? Of course it cannot be so easily deduced that simply because one is raised in the church, that individual will hold true to his or her faith. It is a clear truth that individuals leave the church, in fact Serrano even states that this work was made to “denigrate[s] the central figure of your[Catholicism’s] faith.18” Regardless of the validity of the argument, one Catholic nun offered a different interpretation of the piece; Sister Wendy Beckett plainly explains that, “this is what we [modern Catholics/Christians] [are] do[ing] to Christ.19” Her argument, in support of the Piss Christ piece explains that in every intentional, guiltless, and shameless sin that an individual commits, he or she might as well be “piss”-ing on Christ. Her insightful interpretations have inspired me to mold my own personal interpretation of the piece. Being a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins. What’s important in this statement is not found in me declaring my faith, but in what justifies it — Christ died for the sins of the world. In the act of taking offense because of this man’s opinion, we insult the sacrifice that Christ willingly suffered through for us by putting Him up on a pedestal. Again, He did not
16

Serrano, Andres. "Shooting the Klan: An Interview with Andres Serrano." High Performance Magazine. Intervew by Coco Fusco. Fall 1991. Print.
17

"Andres Serrano, American (1950 - )."RoGallery. RoGallery, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://rogallery.com/Serrano_Andres/Andres_Serrano-Biography.html>.
18

Heartney, Eleanor. "A consecrated critic - profile of popular television art critic Sister Wendy Beckett." BNET. Jul 1998: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://web.archive.org/web/20080606014020/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n7_v86/ai_21113230/ pg_2>.
19

(Heartney, Eleanor)

13

come from heaven to show the world His splendor, He came to die. In our provocation, we forget about the sacrifice He made and simply refer to Him as holy and righteous; which is not necessarily a wrong thing, but a Christian must never forget that sacrifice made by Christ. This work simply informs observers of the ridicule Christ endured in order to save humanity. The truth that He wasn’t seated on a throne and exalted, but humbly persecuted and mocked. If the public could simply open their minds to different perspectives, instead of resorting to pointless action upon frustration, this problem of fund retraction could have been very facilely avoided.

14

Robert Mapplethorpe – The Perfect Moment (1989)

15

Rather than a single piece, the constituents of the Mapplethorpe Controversy are a culmination of photographs by photographer, Robert Mapplethorpe — named The Perfect Moment. Much like Piss Christ, The Perfect Moment wastes no time in getting to the point of each photograph. All photos within this series are black and white, creating a mood of plain prominence — just as the vivid yellow tone was used for emphasis in Piss Christ. The use of balance by Mapplethorpe is identical to Serrano’s use of balance as well; placing the subject in the middle of the photograph to make the focal point of the photograph very frank to the public. The photos in the series contain very crude and sexual themes. Mapplethorpe was an open homosexual therefore there is no surprise to the frequent use of male models, almost completely nude in a vast majority of the collection. The publics’ attention was fully grabbed. Mapplethorpe, solely, was granted $30,000 from the NEA through the University of Pennsylvania for touring and exhibition purposes20. Because of the strong content in regards to homoeroticism, riots — in protest — demanding that the series be removed from the museums and tour put to halt, especially with the recent outburst against the NEA for the funding of Piss Christ, and questioning as to how the NEA could fund such graphic sexual images was widespread among politicians. The two controversial pieces, Piss Christ and The Perfect Moment were, in a sense, conjoined; whenever one would mention Mapplethorpe, the example of Serrano would shortly follow after, and vice versa21. This escalated the seriousness of the Mapplethorpe controversy, leading to the receiving of threats by the NEA from politicians to close down the organization22. Eventually, the funds were retracted
20

(Southern, Hugh)

21

Demaline, Jackie. "Mapplethorpe battle changed art world." Cincinnati Enquirer. 21 May 2000: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/05/21/loc_mapplethorpe_battle.html>.
22

(Demaline, Jackie)

16

and the tour came to an end23. The supporters became outraged, explaining this retraction as a matter of violation of freedom of expression natural rights.

Smithsonian Institute - Hide/Seek (2010)
23

Fitzpatrick, James F. "The Sensitive Society."Indiana University. 47.2 n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no2/fitzpat.html>.

17

18

Hide/Seek is another collection, better described as a gallery exhibition. There is no main artist; artists range from Georgia O’Keeffe to even Robert Mapplethorpe, including a few pieces from The Perfect Moment series. With this understood, there are no designated techniques, styles, or principles and elements that can be used to represent the exhibition in its entirety. Only the interpretations of the pieces are somewhat linked. From studying the works of Robert Mapplethorpe, it can be understood that the theme consistent within his artwork were in relation to the dealings of sexuality, homosexuality, sexual differences and etc. From this it can probably be easily deduced what the purpose and story behind Hide/Seek is, using its title as a clue as well. The theme constant in Mapplethorpe’s work dealt with sexuality; the title Hide/Seek could imply what many individuals remark “hiding in the closet” in reference to a homosexual hiding his or her sexuality from his or her peers in order that he or she might blend with society, again dealing with the theme of sexuality. Meditating on this, it is highly probable that the collection has to deal with sexuality; in fact, Hide/Seek “is the first major museum exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture” and “considers such themes as the role of sexual difference in depicting modern America; how artists explored the fluidity of sexuality and gender; how major themes in modern art — especially abstraction — were influenced by social marginalization; and how art reflected society’s evolving and changing attitudes toward sexuality, desire, and romantic attachment.24”; basically, the concept of sexuality over time. The controversy for this exhibition lies not in the artwork, but in the funding of the museums holding the art. The Smithsonian Institution is a favorite among the many museums

24

"Hide/Seek." National Portrait Gallery. Smithsonian Institution, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/hideseek/index.html>.

19

that the NEA funds25. Regardless of its popularity however, when Hide/Seek was installed into the Smithsonian, the same criticisms of Piss Christ and The Perfect Moment tagged along as well. At the mouths of Republican House Speaker, John Boehner; Georgia congressman, Jack Kingston; and fear of funding retraction, the Smithsonian withdrew a video; Fire In My Belly, depicting a crucifix covered in ants to signify the decay of AIDS, from the gallery26. A response to this atrocity from the Association of Art Museum Directors (refer to Appendix B) states that the withdrawal of art is a limitation, thus infringement, on the freedom of expression rights United States citizens are explicitly given through the United States Constitution, just as the supporters of the Mapplethorpe Controversy argued27. The Hide/Seek exhibition is currently being displayed at the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution, “just simply” missing a piece once included in the original installation of the gallery.

Conclusion: The Verdict
25

Clinton, William J. United States. National Endowment for the Arts: 1997 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1998. Print.
26

Logan, Brian. "Hide/Seek: Too shocking for America." theguardian. 5 Dec 2010: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/dec/05/hide-seek-gay-art-smithsonian>.
27

(Demaline, Jackie)

20

Being a skeptic of the established United States government, when I first acquired knowledge of the retracting of funds in artwork by the government my first reaction was to place the blame on the government. Their “clear” violation of the U.S. citizen’s freedom of expression was the only thought racing through my mind. Retraction is reasonable? For what reasons does the government find it acceptable to violate an artist’s freedom of expression? Is it simply because their funding is involved; that they believe they can control and manipulate artworks to their discretion, essentially taking ownership of the artwork? If so, then the government is in clear violation of a citizens first amendment rights. The act of government organizations, National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, “bestowing” these grants to artists is simply a matter of merit. There is no contract between artist and organization; when one applies for the grant and is accepted to receive one, the artist simply receives the money and the relationship ends there. The government has done its job, fulfilling the purpose of the creation of the NEA and NEH in financing artists without ample resources, and the artist is happy in voicing his or her opinion. So why must the government cross the line and make the relationship between artist and government “awkward”, for lack of a better word? An echoing of theme in the essay; whenever one forms a stance in a controversy, it is important that the individual consider multiple perspectives beforehand, insuring a resolved argument with minimal or no fallacies in the individual’s convictions. In the example of the controversy found in the retracting of government funding in artwork, the varying perspectives of the term “government” should be scrutinized with much punctuality. In the examples of Andres Serrano’s, Piss Christ, Robert Mapplethorpe’s, The Perfect Moment, and the

21

Smithsonian Institution’s, Hide/Seek, there can be distinguished, on a basic level, two interventions of government. The first is Lyndon B. Johnson’s NEA and NEH, considerately respecting the artists’ freedom of expression in their act of dispensing grants to artists accepted by the organizations; the other is found in the politician, upholding his or her party’s ideals and principles. This distinction in government makes all the difference in assessing whether or not freedom of expression is being dealt with fairly. Advocates of providing aid to those needing resources, the NEA and NEH simply do their job in their existence to provide an opportunity for struggling artists. It can be said that the NEA and the NEH represent the theory of the United States government, to respect the natural rights of the citizen. The politicians however, exemplify a media through which the people — the public — of the United States are represented. The role of the politician, unlike that of the United States Constitution, is not constant. Politicians are humans; therefore their existence will perish; whether by death or election by the people for another politician. So it is completely understandable for politicians to criticize controversial art in order to appeal to the public, and quite possible that the politicians could care less for the message depicted by the art. Regardless of what is probable and hypothetical, the reality stands that the politician “party” of the government has complained and threatened to push for the closing of the organizations of the NEA and NEH — strangely after observing the vast majority of the public reacting against the maintenance of the controversial art. The United States government can be described as a “loose” democracy, meaning that the majority of the people hold the power. The majority rules against the preservation of controversial art, therefore the theoretical party of the government is forced to compromise. The NEA and/or NEH cannot be closed down simply because of one perpetrator to controversy; especially during the times of Piss Christ and The Perfect Moment
22

when the NEA was experiencing one of its greatest budgets28. The NEA has other artists to attend to; finding compromise in the sacrifice of one to continue funding the many other artists the organization must back. The pieces of controversial art have had their time to shine anyways. In conclusion, the answer to whether the government protects freedom of expression rights, through the example of funding controversial art, is dependent upon the definition of a government. In exhibition of the government through the NEA and NEH — the theory party — the government does its best in order to protect artists’ freedom of expression. However, with politician — the façade for the public — intervention, this protection cannot be fully carried out; especially with an understanding of the hundreds and thousands of other artworks requiring protection as well. Another related argument that can be made to answer the question: because the government of the United States places its power in the people, and the majority rule against the artworks, freedom of expression is inevitably violated. Regardless of these circumstances of failure, I believe comfort and security should still be found within the government in that it sincerely tries its best to protect these freedoms. But one person’s freedom of expression should not adversely affect and “hostilize” the freedom of expression of the many others.

Works Cited

28

(Demaline, Jackie)

23

Print MacKenzie, David, and Michael W. Curran. Comp. A History of Russia and the Soviet Union. 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1987. 705-14. Print. Southern, Hugh. United States. National Endowment for the Arts: 1988 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1989. Print. Hodsoll, Frank. United States. National Endowment for the Arts: 1986 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1987. Print. Serrano, Andres. "Shooting the Klan: An Interview with Andres Serrano." High Performance Magazine. Intervew by Coco Fusco. Fall 1991. Print. Clinton, William J. United States. National Endowment for the Arts: 1997 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1998. Print. Internet "Average Artist Salary Information."Salary.com. Kenexa, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www1.salary.com/Artist-Salary.html>. Walenta, Craig. "The United States Constitution." U.S. Constitution Online. Craig Walenta, 06 Mar 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends>. Quigley, Margaret. "The Mapplethorpe Censorship Controversy." Political Research Associates. Political Research Associates, 2010. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.publiceye.org/theocrat/Mapplethorpe_Chrono.html>.

24

United States. Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Summary. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 2009. Web. <http://www.nea.gov/about/Budget/2009funding.html>. United States. Grants::Apply for a Grant. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 2011. Web. <http://nea.gov/grants/apply/GAP12/Eligibility.html#limits>. "Artists' Oil Colours: 37ml Tubes: Cerulean Blue." PrattStore. Pratt Institute, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://prattstorecatalog.net/artists_oil_colours_37ml_tubes_cerulean_blue-p1222277.html>. Smith, Daniel. "DANIEL SMITH Series 55 Kolinsky Sable Oil Brushes." Daniel Smith: Finest Quality Artists' Materials. Daniel Smith, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.danielsmith.com/Item--i-G-063-150>. "Digital SLR Cameras." Canon. CanonUSA, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras>. "Titanic." IMDb. IMDb, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/>. Chrisafis, Angelique. "Attack on 'blasphemous' art work fires debate on role of religion in France." theguardian. 18 Apr 2011: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christianprotesters>. "Andres Serrano, American (1950 - )."RoGallery. RoGallery, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://rogallery.com/Serrano_Andres/Andres_Serrano-Biography.html>. Heartney, Eleanor. "A consecrated critic - profile of popular television art critic Sister Wendy Beckett." BNET. Jul 1998: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011.
25

<http://web.archive.org/web/20080606014020/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n7 _v86/ai_21113230/pg_2>. Demaline, Jackie. "Mapplethorpe battle changed art world." Cincinnati Enquirer. 21 May 2000: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/05/21/loc_mapplethorpe_battle.html>. Fitzpatrick, James F. "The Sensitive Society."Indiana University. 47.2 n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no2/fitzpat.html>. "Hide/Seek." National Portrait Gallery. Smithsonian Institution, 2011. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/hideseek/index.html>. Logan, Brian. "Hide/Seek: Too shocking for America." theguardian. 5 Dec 2010: n. page. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/dec/05/hide-seek-gay-artsmithsonian>. Landay, Janet, and Christine Anagnos. Association of Art Museum Directors. 120 East 56 th Street Suite 520 New York, NY 10022, New York. 03 Dec 2010. Web. 24 Sep. 2011. <http://aamd.org/newsroom/documents/20101203_NationalPortraitGallerystatementFINAL.pdf> . Images "Piss Christ." Photograph. Andres Serrano. 1987. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://imgross.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/07/piss-christ.jpg>. "Self-Portrait." Photograph. Robert Mapplethorpe. 1989. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www1.assumption.edu/users/McClymer/hi119net/mapplethorpe_self-portrait1.jpg>.
26

"Self-Portrait." Photograph. Robert Mapplethorpe. 1989. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QGtnVPb5lr8/TeecLE7tjxI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/wXZo4YXv_Y/s1600/0_photographers_mapplethorpe_self_portrait.jpg>. "Andy Warhol." Photograph. Robert Mapplethorpe. 1986. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d51859/d5185988l.jpg>. "Sigourney Weaver." Photograph. Robert Mapplethorpe. 1989. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RpTRoam5eOc/StNNr2duBhI/AAAAAAAANgo/yB8uAyzeYWE/s 400/SigourneyWeaverByMapplethorpe_Web.jpg>. "Canto XIV." Photograph. Robert Rauschenberg. 1959. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/hideseek/index.html>. "James Baldwin." Photograph. Beauford Delaney. 1963. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/hideseek/index.html>. "Ellen Degeneres." Photograph. Annie Leibovitz. 1997. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/hideseek/index.html>. "Self-Portrait." Photograph. Romaine Brooks. 1923. Web. 24 Sep 2011. <http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/hideseek/index.html>.

27

Appendices Appendix A
Legal Requirements
By law, the National Endowment for the Arts may support only those organizations that:

Are tax-exempt. Organizations qualifying for this status must meet the following criteria: 1. No part of net earnings may benefit a private stockholder or individual. 2. Donations to the organization must be allowable as a charitable contribution under Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. For further information, go to the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Web site.

Compensate all professional performers and related or supporting professional personnel on Arts Endowment-supported projects at no less than the prevailing minimum compensation. (This requirement is in accordance with regulations that have been issued by the Secretary of Labor in part 505 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 505 does not provide information on specific compensation levels.) Assure that no part of any Arts Endowment-supported project will be performed or engaged in under working conditions which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health and safety of the employees involved.

Appendix B It is extremely regrettable that the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery, a major American art museum with a long history of public service in the arts, has been pressured into removing a work of art from its exhibition “Hide/Seek.” More disturbing than the Smithsonian’s decision to remove this work of art is the cause: unwarranted and uninformed censorship from politicians and other public figures, many of whom by their own admission, have seen neither the exhibition as a whole or this specific work. The AAMD believes that freedom of expression is essential to the health and welfare of our communities and our nation. In this case, that takes the form of the rights and opportunities of art museums to present works of art that express different points of view. Discouraging the exchange of ideas undermines the principles of freedom of expression, plurality and tolerance on which our nation was founded. This includes the forcible withdrawal of a work of art from within an exhibition – and the threatening of an institution’s funding sources. The Smithsonian Institution is one of the nation’s largest organizations dedicated to the dissemination and diffusion of knowledge – an essential element of democracy in America. We urge members of Congress and the public to continue to sustain and support the Smithsonian’s activities, without the political pressure that curtails freedom of speech.
28