Taxpayer Dollars Subsidize Controversial "Art"

James Yeh
Through out history, people have struggled to define art. Sometimes, “artists” cross the line from art to profanity. There is a controversy brewing in New York City over the display of “Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saachi Collection,” a collection of modern “art” deemed highly offensive by many, but never before by an opponent as powerful as the mayor of New York, Rudolf Giuliani. The mayor’s position has caused an uproar among upper-class guilt-ridden residents of the city. They scream censorship, and claim if the mayor withdraws funding, it would be a violation of the First Amendment. Exactly whose First Amendment rights are violated is not clear.

Giuliani threatened the museum, saying he would freeze $7 million of city funds it receives if it conducts the exhibit. The museum’s board refused, voting to go on as planned. Giuliani, not messing around, promptly went forward with freezing funds. In addition, he’s contemplating evicting the museum from the city owned building it now occupies, rent-free. Even Congress has gotten into the fray, passing a bill that withdrew the $700,000 NEA grant. 

The issue at hand isn’t censorship, or First Amendment rights. It’s not about the government trying to define what art is, or isn’t. The mayor isn’t mad because the exhibit is full of crap, and he has never publicly denounced the works as such. Rather, the conflict is based on money, more specifically, the taxpayer’s money, and whether it should be used to support any sort of art, especially art which offends millions of New York Catholics.

Why should the city pay for “art” that offends millions of it’s inhabitants? The museum, in making the rule that bars children under 16 without a parent, has effectively admitted that the exhibit may be obscene. Additionally, the museum posted the following warning, as if to dare patrons to enter; “The contend of this exhibition may cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria, and anxiety. If you suffer from high blood pressure, a nervous disorder, or palpitation, you should consult your doctor before viewing this exhibition.” 

The rule barring those under 16  is one of the mayor’s main arguments against having the city subsidize the exhibit. Forget that taxpayer money is going to subsidize art offensive to millions of New Yorkers. What the mayor contestes is city funding for something unavailable to everyone in the city, specifically, New Yorkers under the age of 16. After all, the taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay to discriminate against the young, right?

The bottom line is, the museum wants to make money, and lots of it. Adult “donations” to the museum are $4.00, but tickets to the exhibit itself are $9.75.  When the exhibit was displayed at the Royal Academy of Arts in London, the museum made a killing in receipts. The exhibit didn’t raise as much of a ruckus in London, but three board members resigned in disgust.

If the leftists in New York City want to call Mayor Giuliani a heavy-handed Republican ogre for trying to withdraw taxpayer subsidies from works that offend millions of taxpayers, then let them. They’re going to attack his policies no matter what they are, strictly for partisan reasons. Truth be told, the liberal front is portraying a fight about taxpayer money as a fight for freedom and liberty. Giuliani knows that’s bullcrap, and so do the intelligent  conservative  readers  of  this    journal. MR