Public Art

656 Words3 Pages
Though art is something everyone should be able to enjoy but more often than not there is not enough money to support the arts and artist across the country. So who is there to help with these problems, groups like the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. This independent government agency that offers support and funding for projects that exhibit artistic excellence. The NEA has been helping the art community by giving money to some of the newer as well as the artist that have been around for a while, art educators and more. The group has done many wonderful things by funding alone and have help out numerous artist. But the funding they have provided has come with controversy. Which brings us to the question the public funding a good thing or not?
There are people who argue that there is no reason for art to have public funding. They have many reasons like there are many “more” important things the government should be concerning themselves with. Issues like unemployment or the amounts of people need government assistance and things of that nature. The there is the issue of who the grants the give the arts' class='brand-secondary'>National Endowment for the Arts are going to and what the messages their pieces are conveying. Artist like the four performance artist John Fleck, Tim Miller, Karen Finley, and Holly Hughes, often referred to as the NEA Four. These artist had works that were deemed quite controversial and the many conservative parties that said this argued that they did need the money they received to do their pieces. There will always be people saying that the government should not fund the art and the reason on why public funding should not be given for art are endless. Yet I believe that it is very much a great thing to have.
The Nationa...

... middle of paper ...

...me artist to take this to the extreme and tend to over do it especially when their pieces are being shown in public spaces. Though most artist hate to censor their work as they should. They should not create a piece no matter how wonderful not appropriate for children in a place where there are constantly children. But the public should not loose their marbles every time they don't like something an artist has created simply because a few conservative people feel an aspect of the piece is unacceptable. I think it is the responsibility of the artist to communicate with the community or look around to at least get a feel of the area before they create something for the public. Whether the artist chooses to be subtle or outrageous is totally up to them, but that is also what could set a countries art apart for all the other art from the various places around the world.

More about Public Art

Open Document