when does government funded art go too far?

Question

so alot of my friends have taken a course with me in English about government funded art. we looked at a picture in art class called "Piss Jesus". it was basically a crusafix (spelling?) put in the artists urine. some of us called it art, while one of my friends got furied and started yelling about it being un holy and stuff. she was really mad because i wasnt on her side, and it seemed to really anger her. but to me it was just a form of art. i think that it wasnt the idea of what went on to make it, but rather the photo. it looked heavenly, and jesus was surrounded with a yellow light. it was very cool and entransing. i just want to know how far public art has to go before it is concidered corrupt and against morals. i think art is what the viewers define it, and i defined that piece as being art. but almost anything can be concidered art. i want to report back to my english and art teacher about this... thanks

Answer 1

I think you have hit on a major point in your question. Government funded art goes too far when it deals with religion. For many, especially in the US, religion is a hot button issue. Things like the "chocolate Jesus" sculpture that recently came under fire is an excellent example. Have you seen this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/

Some call it art and others call it pornography. Who decides? Generally speaking, however, art will always push the boundary between acceptable and disturbing. That's one of the drawbacks to creating art. . .you have to consider the needs and sensibilities of everyone.

Answer 2

I think it was the "artist's" intention to debase that which is sacred. It sounds like from your description in viewing the piece you may not have been able to discern it was urine, but the title of the piece boldly proclaims it. So it is the artist's intention to be very in-your-face about trampling on the Christian Faith. The word piss is very aggressive with an angry connotation.

It sounds very unoriginal to me. The Virgin Mary was sculpted out of Elephant Dung, the list goes on and on. I really don't think it is chic to desecrate Christian symbols of Faith. In fact I abhor it.

Certainly government funds should not support such a poor excuse for art. People's hard earned tax dollars should not be used in this way. He is mocking & attacking the tax payer's values and therefore it should not be funded by them. If he is so above everyone that he can mock them, let him finance it himself.

The guy sounds like a hack, if he wanted to be unique or original he would have created something to inspire an audience. I would consider those posters hung in office cubicles ex: "Team Work" w/ cool phrase is more of a work of art than that guy's creation.

Answer 3

Government should never fund art. It is a waste of public money that should go to educate children. Government is a dumb thing; it has a tin ear; it has a blind eye. You yourself are the only person who can judge art.