Personally, as one of the non-religious persons, I disagree with the concept of “Piss Christ” for it violated the sanctity of Jesus, a household great personage.
Even though the NEA has some inappropriate plans or standards in endowment admeasurement, it is indispensible for the development of American arts. Although private funding and charitable giving can support some art activities, they cannot sustain the arts nationally and promise distribution equality between developed and underdeveloped areas.
Despite the fact that the design of “Piss Christ” caused uproars among the religious groups, the government, if possible, should not conceal its endowment for arts with ambiguous intentions for many great inspirations are shaped in long-term thinking. However, it is necessary to make sure that these designs not against the public value, especially the value of religious groups and minority groups. Works of art have the responsibility to reserve and pass on valuable ideas to the public and our later generations. Therefore, some macro restrictions, such as not violating the principle of gender equality, not containing ideals of terrorism or ethic discrimination, are necessitate. Furthermore, since the specific value of an art can only apprised by experts, when setting detailed funding principles the government should consult various professionals. In addition, although the public value is of significance, arts should not only cater for publicity. The public has their right to chase the arts they are interested in, and the artist should also have the opportunity to design and create freely at the same time. Similarly, though the government has to consider the return of their investment, which usually presented as the art’s social influence, social benefit should not be the decisive factor for the government when considering whether to support an application.
