Not only do standards come with money but responsibility as well; the responsibility to create something that people of every background can enjoy. Why can we not return to the times when artists were praised for their masterful skill and their beauty in technique? Why can’t we get back to being artists? Modern artists need to identify themselves with great artist of the past who made wonderful contribution to the world that we still value today. They need to identify themselves with art.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing pieces of artwork was a piece done by Marcus Harvey. Harvey had used the handprints of hundreds of children to piece together a portrait of Myra Hindley who was sentenced to life in prison for the sexual torture and murder of five children. (Grace 1). What is the point of idolizing a child molester and killer by creating a portrait of that person, and especially through the use of something so closely identified to their heinous crime? Where are standards of these artists?

The argument of artwork being appropriate and laws being required to ban certain art works leads to the question of censorship. What should and should not be created and/or displayed. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which is a federally funded agency that gives grants to artists nationwide, at one point recognized the need to have some sort of guidelines put in place. They placed and obscenity clause in their applications which required grant recipients to certify in advance that none of the funds would be used to produce materials which may be considered obscene (Lerner and Bresler 742). In 1991 a district court of California found that the obscenity clause was unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment. After the ruling the NEA then placed a decency clause in their applications. This clause stated that all works funded by the NEA would uphold the “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” Just one year later, the courts would find that even this was also unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment. (743).

In 1973 the question of obscenity was raised when Marvin Miller was arrested and charged with distributing illustrated books of a sexual nature. The case of Miller vs. California resulted in a three-prong test for determining whether or not a work of art is obscene. U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision and reaffirmed that obscenity in not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment (Lankford and Pankratz 4).

At a minimum prurient, patently, offensive depiction or description of sexual conduct must have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value to merit First Amendment protection” (Lerner and Bresler 728). The problem with Claudio’s work was the same as many works of art today. The total lack of appreciation for that which is proper and acceptable in today’s society. Arts should meet our standards because we are the one the art is being created for.

Some topics in this essay:
Lerner Bresler, Myra Hindley, Lankford Pankratz, , Laws Coathangers, Douzinas Nead, Virgin Mary, Arts NEA, Marvin Miller, Dennis Barrie, community standards, “art art’s sake”, artistic political scientific, lankford pankratz, “art art’s, art’s sake”, artist intent, political scientific, literary artistic, artistic political, today’s society, literary artistic political, create simply reaction, unconstitutionally vague violation, standards money,