"Piss Christ:" a controversial crucifix

Andres Serrano mixed blood, urine and a crucifix in a vat and concocted a controversy. In 1987, he photographed his creation, called it "Piss Christ" and was given a $15,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. At a Senate meeting in 1989, Alfonse M. D'Amato, R-N.Y., and Jesse Helms R-N.D., expressed their outrage. \n"This so-called piece of art is a deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity," D'Amato said in a congressional report.\nI sat down for a chat with Anthony Fargo, one of three communications law professors at IU to discuss this case and obscenity law as it pertains to visual arts today. Fargo has been writing about the First Amendment for the past nine years. \n"The way the law has been enforced, you can almost always find a redeeming social, artistic or literary value, particularly in fine art," Fargo said.\nThe current law, born out of the Supreme Court ruling of Miller v. California in 1973, asks whether the "average person applying contemporary standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest." \nFargo explained that the law is meant to be used as a shield and not as a sword. \n"It restricts what the government can do to you, but it doesn't make the government do anything for you," he said.\nAnd this is where the senators got pissed about "Piss Christ." According to its Web site, the National Endowment for the Arts' vision is to create "a nation in which artistic excellence is celebrated, supported and available to all." It does so by accepting government funding that comes from federal tax money. \n"This is not a question of free speech. This is a question of abuse of taxpayers' money ... This is an outrage, and our people's tax dollars should not support this trash," D'Amato said.\nHelms took a less eloquent approach, but still made his point. \n"I do not know Mr. Andres Serrano, and I hope I never meet him. Because he is not an artist; he is a jerk," he said. "That is all right for him to be a jerk, but let him be a jerk on his own time and with his own resources. I also resent the National Endowment for the Arts spending the taxpayers' money to honor this guy."\nSerrano might have had good reasons for his creation, and if he didn't, then it was his prerogative as an artist. However, the debate could have been completely avoided if the government stayed away from the arts in general. Let the government function solely as a shield. \nThe National Endowment for the Arts should be dissolved. By supporting the arts and setting its own parameters, the government is creating problems. Leave financial backing to private persons and institutions. Requiring people to pay for art works invites their opinions on the works themselves.\n"There is a difference between something being obscene and being tasteless," Fargo said. "As far as law is concerned, tasteless is protected, unless it crosses that boundary. The debates over what is or is not obscene are usually whether or not it is in good taste, and taste is in the eye of the beholder."\nJust don't make the beholder pay for it.