Censorship and Funding for the Arts

Forum temporarily down. Please return in May, 2003

     William J. Ivey, Chairman of the NEA, said he was "pleased with" the June 25, 1998 Supreme Court decision in NEA v. Finley. "Today's decision is an endorsement of the Endowment's mission to nurture the excellence, vitality and diversity of the arts and a reaffirmation of the agency's discretion in funding the highest quality art in America. We anticipate the Court's ruling will not affect our day-to-day operations."
     However, many artists and arts supporters feel differently. Essentially, the National Endowment for the Arts is being required to take common standards of decency, respect for diversity and American values into account when they decide whether to provide grants for artists and organizations. But if government officials are now able to decide what is 'decent and respectful' art, where does that leave protest or political art? Or art that addresses controversial moral and religious issues? The ruling was apparently the alternative to a complete dismantling of the NEA, which would leave support for the arts up to individual states and the whims of private funding. The ruling was an attempt to appease conservative concerns in response to the Mapplethorpe and Serrano controversies in the '80s, and was subsequently held to be consistent with First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights.
Please share your thoughts on these issues:
1)   Would politicians consider your work "decent and respectful," and what does that mean?
2)   What result do you forsee from this change in the NEA grant program, and will it affect you or your art organization?
3)   Who are you? Tell us a bit about yourself.