My Happy Pencil

Vanessa Valle

Ok,now my Topic of Interest (College assignment, 1999.) ...

My topic of interest is..... yes, exactly a man covering his face. No! No! My topic of interest is ART. By the way I am the one who drew the picture you are probably looking at {Gary Oldman}. And it is copyrighted up the wahoo so don't anybody even touch it!

Art is one of the most valuable forms of expression there is. Especially for me, because it is the one I choose to use. In my own work I have not found it necessary to become explicit or graphic or offensive. However, what I would like to address is where the line is drawn between what should be considered Art and what shouldn't. Specifically, I shall refer to a recent news item from New York where some artists' show was going to be held. Among their works were: a version of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and clips from porn magazines, and a cow that had been cut in half and placed in 2 containers of formaldehyde--so you could walk through it. (Talk about family fun!!) Mayor Gulianni did not want the show to be held.

Anyway, is THAT ART? What is art? Is it subjective or objective? Should it be regulated--when it is taxpayer money that is funding the programs the artist are part of?--Can you Regulate Art without it turning into censorship? Hmmm. Artists should be able to do what they want--aside from displaying impaled cadavers or something grotesque (or illegal) The artists may say, "If the public doesn't like it--then they should not look at it or think about it or worry about it." BUT if the artists are using the public's money to make their art then they should be considerate of who is funding them. They should use their OWN discretion and that way they would not fall to the will of another party, i.e. a panel of censors. And that's all I have to say about that.

OK, now we move on to my Pet Peeve--well, PeeveS. Plural, Big Time plural..

Don't hate he because I am Looney