Money, Four Artists, and Angry Republicans

Can Art be Defined and Regulated?

Well the NEA sure has risen from a fledgling department of the state to a fairly large organization with the aim to fund artists in America. I guess that once anything starts receiving a moderately large sum of tax money, some Conservative politicians will start being alarmed, especially if the said program funds artists that piss them off. Furthermore, the said politicians will try digging their hands into this program and try altering the funding, but one question arises: Who can really define who should and shouldn't be funded?

• Is it whoever the majority finds pleasing? But wouldn't this be an invasion on the freedom of speech? "Sure, you can create your art, but we won't give you any of the money set aside for creating art."
• Is it whoever a small group of artists deems appropriate? But who is this small group of people to decide how to spend the taxes of 300 million Americans? "Unless your artwork meets our stringent standards, we won't give you any money."
• Or should it just be whoever creates art, completely random? The NEA has a limited budget, and there really cannot be a way to decide who receives the money. As much as we'd love to define what completely neutral art is, we just cannot. As much as Christians hate to see their beloved Jesus Christ submerged in urine, I hate seeing the manifestation of one's suburban American Dream, there will always be lovers and haters.

Although I can undertand the Conservative unrest at the NEA, there is still no reason for the aggression in protesting it. This is a situation where things should just be talked over, not where Conservative activists outright call artists heathens and Satan incarnated. We all have certain things that anger us, and these are not as easily defined as anyone would like to believe.