Ninth Blog

            This week’s lecture and reading focused a lot on politics and its relation to art.  In the PowerPoint from this week titled “Culture Wars,” we learned that art and politics are connected through the flow of money.  It is apparent that artists may have different ways of being funded for their artwork.  For example, “Los Hilos de la Vilda,” which we examined a few weeks ago, is funded through Head Start and Urban Bush Women, which we also learned about recently, is funded from private, corporate and government sponsors including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).  Art and politics are also connected because artists often reflect on politics and can sometimes critique our society.

            The subject of politics and art and the series of debates over them are now referred to as “Culture Wars.”  Right wing politicians believe that public money should not be used to fund and support art that is considered to be offensive, pornographic, or against their religion.  On the other hand, artists argue that this is considered censorship.  In my opinion, art is supposed to be expressive of a person’s opinions, ideas, and beliefs, but at some point it does need to be regulated.  I don’t think it has to be denied grants for funds like John Frohnmayer did to artists such as Holly Hughes, Karen Finley, Tim Miller, and John Fleck in 1990.  I am a little torn between which side I completely agree with but I do feel that anyone should have the freedom to express themselves and their thoughts, while at the same time, I do understand if certain art is extremely offensive towards a group of people, why it should be regulated in some way.

            This week’s reading by Neil C. Patten discusses the same topic that was focused on in the lecture, which is politics and art.  In the beginning of the text, Patten compares and contrasts both politics and art.  I find it intriguing when he says, “If there is a difference then, this is it: all art is political, but not all political expression is artistic.”  It is an interesting quote because I would think that this would be the opposite.  The reading also discusses the subject of censorship and its relation to the First Amendment freedom of speech rights.  When first learning about this subject, I thought of the First Amendment and what it stands for.  In addition, I thought of other ways of self-expression, such as music and dancing.  I feel as though a lot of people who partake in both music and dancing are able to get away with much more, rather than “offensive” artwork, shown in paintings and drawings.  I wonder if censorship with art and politics will change in the future.  In my opinion, I feel as though they will change depending on how our society changes from here on.  Lastly, I think that more people will be less conservative, but at the same time the artwork can also change with the time period and be less about religion and other things that are considered to be offensive.