Viewing page 7 of 22

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 4

the exhibition, and who has AIDS. Among other inacceptabilities, he called [[strikethrough]] avowed gays' enemy [[/strikethrough]] Cardinal John O'Connor  ^[[ - an awoved ^ namecalling enemy of gays- ]] a "fat cannibal" and a "creep in black skirts ^[[,]]" ^[[strikethrough]] [[which is nothing compared to what he]] [[/strikethrough]] These statements are not only true, but legal under the First Amendment, as even O'Connor himself has conceded.

The Artists Space battle was perceived as a victory for the arts, and in the sense that artists and supporters got together and publicly stood some of their ground, it was. But it was also a dangerous compromise [[circled]] , [[/circled]] [[strikethrough]] given the war ahead. [[/strikethrough]] [[strikethrough]] It [[/strikethrough]] ^[[Intro snap?]] accepted, if only in regard to the catalogue, the insidious language forced on the NEA which prohibits funding for promotion, dissemination or production of materials judged "obscene, including but not limited to, depictions of sadomasochism, homo-eroticism, the sexual exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts and which, when taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." The implication is that it's all right to withhold funding from "political" statements, and art (visual) is severed from art (verbal). Until these Provisions are rescinded and the power to select grantees is fully restored to the artists' poor panels (which will hopefully in the process be made more representative of the arts' diversity), no compromise can be made. An NEA operating under these restrictions fails its mission and is not worth defending.