So I know we’ve been talking a lot about art the past few days, so I’ve found a couple of pieces of artwork that have undergone a lot of controversy about whether or not they should be viewed by the public or placed in a public museum.
Go here: http://www.your3dsource.com/holyvirginmary.jpeg to view a controversial piece of art by Chris Ofili. The following was said about the controversy:
In 1999, the city-funded
As a countermeasure, the museum filed a suit in federal court against the city claiming violations of the first ammendment, and seeking a permanent injunction against the city to keep it from withholding funds. U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon, sided with the museum, and granted them a preliminary injunction. The city was also ordered to resume the museum's funding, and to stop any eviction proceedings.
(Visit http://www.your3dsource.com/controversial-artwork.html to view more instances of controversial art.)
**Consider the following questions:
What do you think should have been done about the “Holy Virgin Mary”?
Do you think Judge Gershon was justified in siding with the museum?
Putting this in a broader sense, should anything that is expressing an opinion, no matter how offensive to any kind of people, be allowed in a public place, and be funded by the money of taxpayers?
What types of knowledge issues are relevant in dealing with these kinds of cases?