Government Funds for Arts

We’ve heard so often now, most recently from James P. Pinkerton (Commentary, Oct. 5), that public money should not be used to support art that offends public decency and morality. First, however, very little public money goes to the arts. Considering this, the hue and cry seems wildly disproportionate. But talk is cheap. Talk about morality and decency is especially cheap.

Second, those offended by the Brooklyn exhibit act as though they’re the only ones in America who pay taxes. But the artists have a right to say what they want to say. They’re taxpayers. I’m also a taxpayer. Plenty of my tax money goes to support programs or ideas I find offensive, irrelevant or just plain foolish.

Those who are offended, like Pinkerton, have the right to ignore the exhibit. But then, they’d have to find something else to huff and puff about.

HARRY SMALLENBURG

Burbank

*

What is happening in New York makes me believe it’s time to end all government aid to the arts. The 1st Amendment doesn’t say I must pay for someone’s right to display trash or porn as their idea of art. If the public can’t monitor it, they should not be required to pay for it. Let those who like it pay for it. If it is real art, it can stand on its own.

JOE GOLDWINE

Encino

*

I agree with Pinkerton’s commentary and Michael Ramirez’s cartoon (same issue). Why is the public forced to spend millions of dollars to support the art-elite snobs of the East Coast and Britain and on wasteful Mars looky-loo satellites, when that money is better spent here on Earth and for the people, building killing machines to enforce the will of our state (U.S.) on the masses of the world?

KEVIN MAYORAL

North Hollywood