Well, as this right-wing, 12th century, fascist columnist -- that is, according to one of his most ardent fans -- was ruminating on the topic of his next column a little flap in NY arose which he could hardly resist commenting upon. Of course I speak of the whole Brooklyn Museum of Art imbroglio. It seems that real art was in short supply and so the museum had to settle for second best, a show entitled Sensation. And boy, what a sensation it is! From a Virgin Mary covered with pornographic pictures to the picture of a child-murderer painted with a child's handprints to a rotting cow's head complete with maggots, the exhibit has much to tease and tingle the senses. Then entered the bad-guy, party-pooper, Mayor Giuliani. The Museum gets funds from NY City. Mayor Giuliani was not amused. He thinks the stuff is not art and argues that the portrait of the Virgin Mary is offensive. So he threatened to cut city funding to the museum if the exhibit went on. The museum refused to stop the exhibit. Giuliani didn't balk and stopped the funding. Though in fairness to Giuliani he argues that the real reason the funding is being cut is because the museum violated terms of an agreement with the city by hosting an exhibit which charges an entrance fee.
Now a whole bunch of people are in a tizzy. This is censorship they scream. Well, what of this charge? Is Giuliani playing big brother and censoring? The sheer intellectual disconnect on the part of those who make this argument is almost laughable; I say almost because of the sad fact that they are serious. Giuliani is hardly censoring the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Nor is he suggesting that the so-called artists should be disallowed from creating their works. He may be right when he suggests that these sorts of things might more appropriately be created in a psychiatric hospital but regardless he believes they can be made. He simply is saying that the tax-payers' money should not be used to fund such works. If we are to follow the logic of those arguing the censorship charge, then we must conclude that artists have a right to be funded by the government. And if this right is abridged they are being censored.
The second argument being bandied around goes something like this: the government should not have any right to suggest what is or is not art; it should give its funding and stop there. This is very odd indeed. Government money never comes without limits, red-tape, and regulation. Yet in the arts a certain autonomy should exist. One cannot have his cake and eat it too. Either one can accept the money and the possible repercussions therein or one can kindly decline the offer.
Another argument being heard is that the Giuliani and the critics of the exhibit do not understand art and thus should not offer criticisms of it. This argument is not only patronizing but ridiculous. Its logic boils down to this: in order to understand and appreciate such pieces one must be educated in the arts. Thus no one outside of the community can judge or criticize that produced. It seems to be affirmation of Chesterton's old adage that common sense is the extinct branch of psychology. To be able to stare at a portrait of the Virgin Mary with pornographic pictures plastered around her or at the picture of a child-murderer painted with the handprints of children and see therein art and something of value takes a serious suppression of one's natural inclinations (and I might add gag reflexes).
Several final points might be made. One is the fact that were the portrait of the Virgin Mary instead a portrait of Martin Luther King Jr. covered with pornographic cut-outs there would be hardly a question of defunding the museum. It is an odd situation when the government cannot fund religious institutions but that it can fund attacks on religion. Catholics are not victims. But neither should anti-Catholicism be disregarded. The chattering classes who pride themselves on their open-minds would do well to examine themselves when it comes to their religious biases.
But back to the whole mess of the funding and the museum. Maybe we should fund it. But not under the rubric of arts funding. We should call it a public service announcement (PSA). Why a PSA? The artists are doing us as a culture a great service. For they are heralds of what we are. If our art is no better than the latest on Jerry Springer, what does it say about us? If it does not express transcendence and beauty but the base infantile fantasies of the heart, might it not be telling us that we as a culture have so degenerated that we are nothing better than base adolescents? The artists seem to be speaking to us the words: "Our culture is being devoured." And scary still is the fact that we seem totally incapable of even criticizing the art. That in itself is indication that Sensation is less trash and more mirror showing us ourselves: a culture slouching toward the millennium.
