Controversial Art Funds Discussed By Panelists

A panel of artists, professors and journalists discussed censorship and the arts last night in Harvard Hall as part of a series of events to recognize Queer Harvard Month.

The debate focused on a current Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of indecency restrictions on grants issued by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

"As artists, we have to create vision," said panelist Abe Rybeck, an actor at Theater Offensive. Rybeck explained that a very small portion of the funding available for the arts is designated for work that steps beyond current paradigms.

"If you're producing art like Piss Christ, you're not expecting the government will fund it," said Shattuck Professor of Law David W. Kennedy, referring to a photograph by Andres Serrano of a crucifix immersed in urine.

Acceptance of such art is difficult to obtain because of how the media present issues of artistic aesthetics, according to Alisa Solomon, a staff writer at the Village Voice.

"Journalists live by the principal `good quotes high up," she said.

Solomon explained that such details as word choice and the way quotes are used in news reports can have a dramatic effect on the slant of articles, citing examples in which news publications identified artist Karen Finley by a performance in which she smears her body with chocolate because of its sensational nature.

Nan Hunter, a professor at City University of New York (CUNY) Law School, explained how the Supreme Court case emerged from the denial of NEA grants to four performance artists, including Finley, in 1990 due to the content of their work.

The denials were issued under a congressional law enacted in 1990 requiring artists to maintain certain "standards of decency" to qualify for NEA funding. The law was challenged by the four artists and the National Association of Artists Organizations, and was ruled unconstitutional in district and circuit courts.

The case, known as Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts, was presented on March 31 to the Supreme Court and is currently pending.

The panel was moderated by Ann Pellegrini,associate professor of English and AmericanLiterature and Language.

Rybeck expressed hope that the bias against artcurrently deemed obscene by conservatives soonwould subside.

"The horribly mean-spirited system, the onewe're trying to make it in now, it has a lot ofcharacteristics of a fad," Rybeck said. "To me itraises the question, `what's next?'

The panel was moderated by Ann Pellegrini,associate professor of English and AmericanLiterature and Language.

Rybeck expressed hope that the bias against artcurrently deemed obscene by conservatives soonwould subside.

"The horribly mean-spirited system, the onewe're trying to make it in now, it has a lot ofcharacteristics of a fad," Rybeck said. "To me itraises the question, `what's next?'