Who decides what is and isn't art?

As the saying goes, "Art is in the eye of the beholder." An artist creates a work of art, and shares it with the universe via galleries, exhibits, friends, festivals and, of course, the internet. The artist creates with intention, whether it is to bring joy, amusement, mystery, melancholy, bold thought to make one think, or simply to relax the soul. In 1965, The National Endowment for the Arts was established. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation. He stated, "We fully recognize that no government can call artistic excellence into existence…Nor should any government seek to restrict the freedom of the artist to pursue his own goals in his own way." When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980, he attempted to abolish the NEA but lacked Congressional support. He was an artist, right? An actor. Hmmm. What some members of Congress and their constituents really wanted to do was decide what is and isn't art. They wanted to censor art. Fortunately for the world, it backfired. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent federal agency that is the largest funder of the arts and arts education in communities, serving all 50 states. By advancing opportunities for arts participation and practice, the NEA fosters and sustains an environment in which the arts benefit everyone in the United States. One of the most controversial artists of our time is Robert Mapplethorp, whose art was erotic. There was quite an uproar about a particular piece of his art, that I can't share the details of in this family paper! People talked. People criticized. People still recognize him as an exceptional artist. Sometimes controversy is good public relations! Frankly, I don't think duct-taping a banana on a white wall is art, but it happened. And it sold at a Sotheby's auction for $6.2 million. Google for details. It's interesting. Sometimes the viewing critics (us) don't know the background of the artist or about the art they are diminishing. For instance, The Arts Garage (TAG) recently had an exhibition of Seth Bordner's art. His art showed deep concern and thought about our world. Some were satire. Some were dark. Some were fun. Each work of art was accompanied by a description. (Please always read descriptions in the future before judging.) A couple of pieces were heavily criticized, by only a few people, but they trickled down. Should children see them was the concern. In fact, nothing Bordner captured in his art was as controversial as many other paintings by some of our most famous artists. Have you seen "Guernica" by Pablo Picasso? "Luncheon on the Grass" by Edouard Manet? "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp? "The Face of War" by Salvadore Dali? "Massacre of the Innocents" by Peter Paul Rubens? Michelangelo's "David"? Should children be denied seeing them? Their artistry? Is it protection or censorship? Shouldn't children be trusted to analyze and embrace each piece of art and decide what meaning it has to them? All art can't be "Mona Lisa," "Starry Night" or "The Girl with the Pearl Earring." Museums, art galleries and exhibits around the world are filled with controversial art. Children with their schools, or with parents, go to museums regularly. We are all bound to see something that offends us, we don't appreciate, or that we feel we need to shield our children from. Will we stop going? Nope! Criticism of art is part of the process, but all art is meant to be seen, embraced, analyzed and understood. Barbara Radebaugh is a local artist. You can reach her at radstar47@gmail.com.