Recently I had an opportunity to view a few photographs by the late Robert Mapplethorpe. If you have seen any of his work then you can understand why I was taken aback by the scenes portrayed before me. I could not understand why anyone would want to take these pictures, let alone look at them. But then again my artistic taste usually has a scantily clad female holding a beer.

I thought: Well, to each his own, I guess. Then a disturbing thought entered my mind. If this artist is given money by the National Endowment for the Arts isn't that my money from my taxes. Now I have a concern. I think that an artist should be allowed to paint, photograph or sculpt whatever they want, just do not use my money to do it.

The way I see it there are two facets to this debate, economic and artistic. The economic aspect seems to disturb people the most. Money that comes from the population, in the form of taxes, is distributed by the authoritative aspect of our society. The money that goes to the NEA comes from this process. I cannot see why the people that give the money to the fund should not have the right to establish guidelines for the recipients. Is that not what the alumni does with universities? They give money to the schools and dictate the way it is to be spent.

People have to keep in mind the fact that the population is the deciding factor in the rules and regulations for the NEA. What the people want is what the politicians need to give. If the majority does not want to fund a certain kind of art the government should do its best to appease the people. The opposition is not given a say in this process, but this cannot, unfortunately, be helped. If you were a government official would you rather anger 100 or 100,000? One million? I would have to say that the fewer people angered the better. This notion keeps me healthy and in one piece.

With the country in the state that it is, you would think that there is a more productive way to spend the money. I dunno, maybe feed some hungry people! I view NEA grant money as a gift and not a right. No one is offering me money for my contributions to society. Granted there is not much of a market for my collection of nude John Madden pictures, but I call them art, so why not fund me? The government is not required to give money to the NEA, it elects to. Of course, some will say that this is a violation of the First Amendment. I think that using my hard-earned money to pay some artist to portray things that I find offensive a greater violation.

A counter argument I always hear is that some people do not wish to fund the military but they have no say in the matter. So why is this issue different? If you can draw a similarity between controversial art and an adequate defense then more power to you. What color is the sky in your world? I agree that too much money is spent on the military, but to equate defending your country with this type of art is not a feasible argument.

One question I have is why do these artists need so much money? Andres Serrano has a piece called "Piss Christ", which portrays a plastic crucifix being dropped into a container of urine. Ohhh pretty. He was given $15,000 to do this. How much does a plastic cross and film cost? I assume that the urine is his and not a paid model's. I am definitely in the wrong major and I definitely do not want to pay for this kind of picture.

At the same time I do not feel that artists should be censored by the government, as long as they are not funded by the government. This is the place where the First Amendment should be argued. The freedom of expression is a valued and given right. Andres Serrano wished to express himself in his own way and some people want to see it. I may not have a liking for it (I'd rather watch milk spoil), but to others it is art, let them express it.

Andy Warhol made a movie some time ago that consisted of eight hours of looking at the outside of the Empire State Building. That's it! Not even a big monkey attacking it. Just the building and a few clouds floating by. I say buy a postcard -- it lasts longer. But to other people it is art. Those who want to go see it should be able to see it and those who do not wish to see this type of stuff can come over to my apartment and look at my beer bottle cap collection from around the city.

There is a reasonably simple solution to this problem. Make the NEA a privately funded organization. If people want to give money to these artists they can contribute to the organization. The government should not be able to touch the art and let the galleries decide as to whether or not they will show the work. This way my money will not go to anything that I feel offended by. The organization will be ruled by the people appointed to the board of review. By the way, I have a similar solution for the problems in the government. I say we fire the government officials and set up a 1-900 number on C-SPAN to decide the issues. The 95 cents per call can go into the budget and be put to use. Not bad political theory for a guy who thinks Campbell's makes better soup than they do art.