There has been a continual dialogue on either cutting or ending entirely the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The main issue of concern seems to be the subject matter of some of the works that have been funded by the NEA.

Should the U.S. government fund the NEA? Should the government be allowed to censor federally funded works?

Yes - especially the more labor intensive performing arts like theatre and dance. Without state support, such artforms are forced to either scale down considerably or they become entirely vacuous, commercial enterprises. Every civilized country in the world - from the UK to China - has state-funded arts programs, and most have fully-funded national theatres, national ballets, national opera companies, and national galleries. That famous "rest of the world" which we hear about from time to time seems to recognize the value of a national cultural identity and realize that, without patronage, most artforms cannot survive. Such institutions are also good for a nation's image (which, okay, we don't really care about) - and tourism (which we should care about a lot more). All of them are better funded than the NEA has ever been in its history. In Ireland, for example, a country of less than 4 million people, the Arts Council matches the NEA's funding dollar for dollar. To match Ireland proportionally, the NEA should have an annual budget of $8.7 billion. At the moment the NEA receives $115 million - which is pocket change for any given defense contractor.

Absolutely not. Obviously, a form of censorship is employed in deciding which applications to approve. But once a project or institution has been funded, there should be a strict laissez-faire policy. If the NEA feels that one of its clients has produced offensive material, they can always refuse them future funding. Of course, for works which are clearly in breach of the law - which are libelous or foster hatred or constitute treason - there is always the option of legal action, which should be more than enough.

I agree that the U.S. government should fund the NEA. The art that we produce is and integral part of developing and defining our culture, and as Wertz said, in order for an artform to survive, it requires patronage.

As far as censorship is concerned, I am strongly against government censorship, including censorship of federally funded works, because in essence, the NEA is funded by U.S. citizens' tax dollars. It should be up to our citizens to decide what works shall define our culture, and each element of our society, even the most subversive, should be allowed the opportunity to express themselves. If their works are rejected by society than the NEA does not have to grant them future funds, as Wertz already said.

Maybe the media doesn't cover people who love the art that is publicly funded, but you sure hear allot about most people detest things like elephant dung and urine art.
Should government fund things that are so reprehensible to many Americans.
Dunno, but I would probably cut funds based on what I've seen.

Of all of the art that is funded by the NEA, very little of it falls under the urine, elephant dung category. Additionally, some of that controversial art that has been funded by the NEA has been produced by some of the finest artists in America. Mapplethorpe is a good example of this. Should the government reduce funding, crippling the artistic vision of America, just because some people don't appreciate or understand the message behind certain pieces?

Also, many of the classic painters, including Picasso, were considered to be highly controversial in their time. Artists who are willing to transcend boundaries are important for the advancement of modern art. Andy Warhol, the founding father of pop art created paintings utilizing other peoples' urine. These were experiments, but they don't define all of the art that Warhol has produced.

For my 40 cents that I contribute a year, I feel I get a lot out of the NEA (NPR, PRI, PBS). So I don't think it should be eliminated.

Well, I have little to add the conversation except that I agree with Cyan and Wertz. Funding should be continued, and in my opinion, raised. I dont think the government should censor any artist they are funding, regardless. Cyan made a good point that a good portion of classic artists were really controversial at their time (even Beethoven had his moment, and who in the world thinks hes controversial now?).

It is not a proper function of government to subsidize the arts.

Expand on this, please. Why isn't it proper for the government to subsidize the arts?

Me! Me! Me!

I want to answer!

Pick me!

My guess is.... drumroll please... it isn't expressly outlined in the constitution.

Do I win the prize?

It doesn't say that it shouldn't be funded, though. What it does say is that congress may collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, and the arts benefit this country culturally. It could be argued that the NEA falls within that category.

I would not favor singling out the NEA to be excluded from federal funding. I would support eliminating all subsidizing of programs and services which are an unneccessary part of government function. To determine whether it is neccessary, ask the question, "Is this something we can only do via public funding ?"

Aid to the arts is not a function delegated to the feds in the constitution. The Federalist Paper #41 makes quite clear the general welfare clause only enabled Congress to fulfilll its duties enumerated to it in the constitution.

Yep, Max, you win the prize. I iam pretty consistent when it comes to limiting the fed to the duties the Constitution intended.