COLUMN: Urine Trouble

From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94 That's why many object to the "Piss Christ," a government-funded color photograph by Andres Serrano that will appear next week at the University's Institute of Contemporary Art. ICA Public Relations Coordinator Wendy Steinberg earned her PR salary by promoting the work as "very, very beautiful -- actually kind of reverent." One can only assume from this statement that the urine, Serrano's own, must be a model of what humans aspire to achieve with their urine -- a purity of waste product that the artist was so proud of that he just had to put it in a picture for all to admire. Should our tax dollars pay for such a work? Well, they did. Besides giving hope to all the liberal arts majors who have virtually no chance of earning a living, the photograph has stirred many other emotions. Newman Council President Jeremy Chiappetta decried, "I would question whether the University would sanction an exhibit which would abash or debase the lesbian, gay, or black community. They certainly wouldn't show an exhibit of a piss swastika on this campus." Actually, the latter endeavor might be pretty popular, especially around Hillel. But the point is clear -- should the government pay people to demean certain peoples' heritages? Steinberg argues that the work was created "absolutely not to offend or really even necessarily to provoke." The government is paying for artists to put objects in urine and people aren't even provoked? Some might view this as a waste and a gyp. What is the justification for the "Piss Christ" work? According to Steinberg, it is supposed to "incite an intellectual dialogue." Of course. Join us for an informal discussion: "What did Serrano consume before contributing the specimen?" Refreshments will be served. Or "A crucifix in urine: why it's deep" -- a lecture for all. Many argue that while they support the artist's right to take and attempt to sell any pictures, they don't feel that they should have to pay for them. Yet what would happen if the government did not fund the "Piss Christ" piece? If our government starts deciding what is "art" and funds only certain ideas, some philosophies of expression will be declared more worthy of promotion, and this might prove dangerous. When the next "Piss Christ" artist comes before the National Endowment for the Arts, should the individual receive funding? Should the "offensive" or "meaningless" be dismissed as unworthy? Should the "offensive" or "meaningless" be embraced and paid for with taxpayer funds? There is a third option: fund absolutely nothing. That is, the government should fund absolutely nothing Ultimately, the NEA can only support a limited number of artistic endeavors, and can not avoid deciding for the public which "art" is most important. Are they making the correct decision? Which art do people really want to pay for? Without the NEA, the money would be returned to the public, and we might actually find out. According to Jane Alexander, chairman of the NEA, the organization must exist because "without government and private subsidies, performing-arts organizations today would have to charge maybe $200 to $300 a ticket to break even. And that would shut out most of the public." So, the public can't afford $200 to $300 a ticket. Well, who's paying for the government subsidies so the public can afford these tickets? The public. When ticket prices are lifted directly from taxes, people lose their choice about what to support. Also, it's more impressive to tell a date, "I paid $200 a ticket, baby," than to explain that "In addition to the $35 a ticket, I supported this out of the taxes I paid -- because you mean that much to me." Alexander, a former actress, explains that she "can never forget that the endowment helped [her] own career." Without government funds, some artists may never make it. Some argue that art is important, and that if people aren't forced to support certain artistic projects, they might not do so. Exactly. If they can't succeed without government funds, lifted coercively from the public, do they deserve success? A recent article in Parade magazine by Dotson Rader used the title "Let's Support our Artists," and explained the importance of the NEA. But in reality, people aren't being urged to "support our artists," but rather to support our government supporting our artists. This important distinction is often ignored. To many, there is a social responsibility to support the arts. But does this imply that the government must be the powerful middle man? If people support a project actively, rather than passively, they probably would tend to care more about it. Without the forced nature of donations that lead to "Piss Christ" funding, artists will begin to fight the negative stereotype of being creators of silly, pseudo-intellectual works for which the government decides to dole out ridiculous funds. If Serrano's work earns money from private citizens who see value in it, then both he and the artistic community might gain respectability. The NEA's budget for the 1995 fiscal year is $167.7 million. "There are lots of things the government supports that one or another group doesn't like," Alexander explained. "It is for the good of the whole nation." Is the public too ignorant to independently recognize this good? "The arts are vital to the life of this country," she continued. "So there!" The arts certainly are vital, and now the government controls $167.7 million of the resources for this important industry. Every cent of this might be allocated by individuals, supporting art and artists that appeal to them. Or possibly they would wish to support other endeavors, until artists are able to create pieces that sway these people to become art patrons. Instead of stylizing art to appeal to the handful of leaders of the NEA, the American public would now be the target audience. If people hold the power themselves, they can decide whether they should financially support an artist's waste, or dismiss it as waste. Dan Schorr is a senior English major from Valley Stream, New York. Behind Enemy Lines appears alternate Fridays.