Should taxpayers' money support art that is offensive?

  • Who is to say what art should be supported and what art should not.

    If art is already being supported by taxpayer money, why would the fact that some people find said pieces of art offensive matter? Some may not find it offensive, so who is to say what art should not be supported by taxes and which should not? Just because something is offensive does not mean that it should not be supported


    The meaning of something offensive is subjective to the viewer. I mean burning a cross may be horrific to a christian (i presume that is what the picture is). But what about people who would support that belief? Int it supposed to be that "Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable" (Cesar Cruz)? I believe the real question should inquire whether using taxes on art is a wise decision. In that case, yes it is. Should it be to a large magnitude? Well that would depend on the community. As a hugely exaggerated example, look at Dubai's artificial islands. The millions of millions (indeed an unwise decision vs. Providing for he people) but it attracted MASSIVE amounts of tourism. Therefore business and MONEY. Even with more trivial examples, simple sculptures, especially art displayed on boardwalks, attracts hundreds of people to the stores and businesses nearby. I mean, (even though it is irrelevant to taxes) look at parks like Disney and universal. The artwork of the architecture, design of the basic public commodities, alone attracts thousands and thousands per year. Who wants to go to a park nowadays without the art to dazzle and captivate? All im saying investing a little will deliver a successful payback.

  • Of course it will

    Lets be real art will always offend at least one person. Now our we talking about religious art. Because if we art then of course tax payers taxes should go towards it. Why? Because our goverments principles were founded on the bible and God. Just because its offensive to you doesn mean

  • The community gets to decide

    A community gets to decide whether "art" is deemed offensive or not. Robert Mapplethorpe submerged a figure of Jesus Christ in his own urine and labeled it "Piss Christ." This, of course, is offensive for almost any community in America and should not be funded by tax-payers. Neither should "pornographic" art or anti-patriotic art be subsidized. If a vote or city council resolution is needed then a referendum should be held.

  • No, taxpayers' money should not support art that is offensive

    I don't think it would be morally permissible to support art that is obviously offensive through taxpayers dollars at all. People would definitely be against having their tax dollars go to art, especially art that is offensive and explicit. I think taxpayers dollars should support historic art, not art that is offensive.

  • Not Support Art

    I don't think tax payers should be supporting art of any kind offensive or not. That is not the proper use of tax money. To label art offensive is usually subjective so it is hard to label art as a whole offensive or not. I would not want my tax money going to support art though.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.