November 7, 2011
1
. Situation
For most American artists, their art is expressed through their feelings and emotions, even if the final product is indecent. Therefore, creative expression is the central idea of how artists communicate their vision to the audience.
Think about all of the artists that need funding for programs, workshops, and most importantly to support their love of the arts and these individuals are not allowed to receive the funding because their art is deemed as indecent.
2. Legal Background
NEA v. Finley disputed the decency provision in government grants to artists through the National Endowment for the Arts. In 1990, Congress passed a law requiring that “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public” be taken into consideration for the NEA’s funding decisions. Finley, an artist sued the NEA arguing that this law restricts the arts funding, which violates the First Amendment. The lower courts decided that this case was unconstitutional, however the Supreme Courts appealed the decision 8-1.
3. Questions
1. What do you think constitutes the “standard of decency” for artwork?
2. Do you think the Supreme Courts decision restricts artists creativity and First Amendment rights?
3. What are the arguments in favor of and against the “standard of decency” for artists seeking funding?
2 thoughts on “Obscenity, Indecency & Violence”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
I think that this is one of those things where you can’t draw a line between what would be okay and what wouldn’t in art. There are no directions or guidelines for art so to tell someone they can’t have funding because they are deemed indecent is wrong. There is no way to draw that line to because art is someone’s vision and there really shouldn’t be a specific standard of decency. Art should be left alone.
I think that this does restrict artists creativity because one artist might be so excited about something they thought of and then they can’t do it because it doesn’t fit the guidelines. Art is 100% based on creativity and that should not be restricted. Freedom of speech for artists are shown throughout their works.
The arguments for them to have funding is because they are not being content neutral. They can’t not give funding to a certain group of artists but give it to the other groups. That is wrong on so many levels. Either everyone gets funding or no one does. The argument against them to have funding would be if the American public is highly offended or the work is very inappropriate for general audiences, then a way to not have those offenses would be to cut spending. I can see both sides of this argument but I believe the stronger side is for them to have the funding.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
good post, but I think the Supreme Court “overturned” the old law, not appealed it.