Blog 9

            In this weeks lecture we discussed the idea of culture wars and what that entails. “Culture wars” is a series of debates about the politics of art. There are many arguments about if art is political or if politics can be seen as art. Art and politics are connected through the flow of money in the government. Artists are granted money from schools and museums. The money used is public money supported by the taxes of the government. The reason there are so many arguments over who should be granted money is because not all of the art is seen as appropriate or accepted by everyone. Art is controversial and because of that the government feels it is necessary to censor what is put into schools and museums and into the public eye.  In 1990 the National Endowment for the Arts chairman John Frohnmayer denied the grants for four artists who were four Holly Hughes, Karen Finely, Tim Miller, and John fleck.  These artists challenged the norms of our society and tried to show the themes of being homosexual. Congress believed that their work was offensive and promoted “homosexuality”. This fight led to another fight about whether the government has the right to censor what we see in our society. Just because some people believe these works to be offensive others may not. They could have a more liberal view of what these artists are trying to tell everyone. The government has a very strict idea of what should be allowed and should not be.

In the paper written by Joan Glantz Garfinckel she addresses the issue if art is political or if politics can be art. “It is said that everything is political; some critics, moreover, hold that anything is art. If there is a difference then, this is it: all art is political, but not all political expression is artistic.” What she is stating is that there is a very thin line between art and politics. Art can be seen as political and a way to understand society. A great speech something that inspires everyone can also be seen as art. The fact is that art and politics are always going to be intertwining and dealing with each other. There are millions of debates over whether or not the government has the right to deny artists grant money based on their art. Artists can draw what ever they want in any way they want to. That is his or her right that is everyone’s right in our country. We have the first amendment protecting what we say and what we do. Just because people find an artists work offensive does not mean that their work cannot be shown. The government has abused their power when they denied money to artists because they did not like the message that the art was sending. When the “Helm Amendment” was made it restricted the NEA and who they could grant money to. “The amendment provided that NEA funds could not be "used to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which in the judgement of the [NEA]... may be considered obscene, including but not limited to, depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, [and] sexual exploitation." This amendment limited artists to what they can and cannot do. The government made rules against who could get grant money and who couldn’t. They wanted to censor what people could view and wanted to stop artists from making art that offended the government. This amendment was seen as unconstitutional because it was limiting artist’s freedom of speech. There is a ton of art that is seen as controversial and just because the government does not approve of it does not make it right. Artists had to fight for their right to be granted money by the government and they were able to do that and get the “Helms Amendment” removed.  The fight is still going on but it has gotten better from the 1990’s. People have become a little be more open and accepting of new things.