Rudy Giuliani: Artificial Art Official
by Shumon Alam

New York City's much hated mayor, Rudy Giuliani, has now expanded his mayoral duties to art criticism. He called the art show Sensation, a collection of work by young British artists at the Brooklyn Museum, "sick stuff." The Mayor thought that all the art in the exhibition is offensive, but singled out The Holy Virgin Mary as most offensive to Catholic beliefs and values.

The Holy Virgin Mary, a collage by Nigerian born artist Chris Ofili, features a female figure made of elephant dung and cut outs from pornographic pictures. Mayor Giuliani didn't just stop at commenting, but also threatened to withhold the city's subsidy to the Museum. The Brooklyn Museum gets almost $7 million every year from the city; almost one third of its $23 million budget. He also threatened to withhold another $20 million that the museum is supposed to get this year from the city for renovations. Mayor Giuliani also condemned the museum for violating their lease, because the museum is asking for $9.75 to enter the show and requiring an adult companion for viewers 17 and younger.

The Mayor's justification of his comments and action is that "You don't have a right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's religion, and therefore we will do everything that we can to remove funding for time until the director comes to his senses." He demanded immediate cancellation of the show.

Mayor Giuliani is entitled to criticize any art according to his personal tastes and desires, but when his comments are followed by dictatorial and undemocratic action, he is violating the law. The Mayor's threats of withholding funds to the museum because of what he perceives as hateful to his beliefs and values is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment does not permit government officials to prosecute any individuals or organizations because of their beliefs or views on any subject. Art is not only an expression of an individual's experience, but it is also subject to individual interpretation. Individuals and groups can interpret art as offensive or degrading although the artist might not intend it to be so.

That's why the First Amendment gives special protection to artistic expression.
In 1998, when two artists were denied funding from the National Endowment of Art, the Supreme Court suggested that "a penalty on disapproved viewpoint" would violate the First Amendment. Legal experts suggested that if the city really withheld the funds from the museum, it would be a clearer case because the funds were already given to the museum.

Many also point out that art has to be patronized by the government. Artistic patronage is dependent on business, individual, or government contributions. In this day and age of commercialism, only popular and profitable art will get funding from business, and individual contributions have never been enough to support artistic expression. Also, businesses and individuals always have agendas that may go against artist values. An artist will not get funding if he or she challenges the goals or the values of particular businesses and individuals. Only government funding through a legitimate authority can make sure that every idea and expression gets fair and equal opportunity.

The Brooklyn museum is a legitimate organization and has been exhibiting art works from many countries for many years. It-not the mayor-has the authority and expertise needed to organize an art show.

This is not the first time Mayor Giuliani has violated the First Amendment. A few years ago he closed down city hall steps to protesters. After the killing of Amadou Diallo by four city cops, mass demonstration and civil disobedience forced the city hall to open its steps to the public. Now the mayor has again closed the city hall steps to public demonstrations. This year he tried to deny a permit for the Million Youth March because he thought the organizers of the march incite violence and racial hatred. When the court ruled in favor of the March organizers he ordered hundreds of police to patrol the march.

Many suggested that the Mayor's recent comments on the exhibition were not motivated by his religious faith, but were a political stunt to pull votes for the year 2000 Senate election. He is trying to get the Republican Party nomination for the 2000 Senate race. Unfortunately for Mayor Giuliani, the Republican Party is still reluctant to announce him as their nominee because in the past few years he has become less popular in the city because of his total disregard for stopping police violence and failure to improve life for city residents.

The Mayor and his advisers understand that their new constituency for the Senate race is not the voters from New York City but from upstate. Realizing that his new constituency is 44% Catholic, he thought the denouncement of the show and threat to postpone their funding may give him sizable support. Unfortunately, his action did not help him that much. A recent Daily News Poll shows that 70% of New Yorkers disapprove of the mayor's action.

All museums in the city and many cultural and political organizations condemned the Mayor's decision and hundreds of people demonstrated against him at the opening day of the Exhibition. Despite all the threats from city hall, the show opened as planned and the Brooklyn Museum reported that they are having record numbers of viewers each day. This despite subway service that was interrupted near the museum on opening day due to trackwork the Transit Authority claimed needed to be done.

The whole debate will now be decided in the courts. The Museum sued the city and the Mayor for violating the First Amendment. Whether the court decides against City Hall or not, this incident has a real life impact. Artists, who once thought they had a right to free expression, now will be more cautious in picking their subjects. The threat of government prosecution might restrain artists from choosing a controversial form or content.

The 1950s anti-Communist witch-hunts led by Senator Joe McCarthy ensured self-censorship of Hollywood for many years. This incident may similarly ignite self-censorship by artists and museums for many years to come.