Of course, this case highlights the tension inherent in any public support for art, because Giuliani's contention was that "you don't have a right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's religion" (Barry & Vogel 560). By singling out the potential offensive that religious people might take, Giuliani reveals the truth that any official support for art is inherently problematic, because art exists to challenge the very ideological structures which hold up the official state. Despite nominal movements toward a separation of church and state, Christian ideology still holds an unhealthy sway over American politics, so it is only natural that the mayor of the United States' largest city would find a work that challenges Christianity offensive, because that is similarly a challenge to the political order which has served to perpetuate and protect Christian ideology. Thus, while no one can claim a right to public funding for the arts, and it is in fact in the best interests of the powerful to control what art is deemed "acceptable," removing funding due to a specific work...

On the other hand, pretending to value art while controlling which messages may be transmitted through it is a particularly effective means of retaining power, and thus censorship is used to maintain the status quo and preclude effective resistance. Thus, any censorship is inherently an affront to human freedom of expression, because if there are limits to what may be expressed through art then art itself is reduced to something ineffectual and weak, a tool of oppression and control rather than expression and release.
Works Cited

Barry, Dan, and Carol Vogel. "Giuliani vows to cut subsidy over "sick" art." New York

Times [New York] 23 Sep 1999, n. pag. Print.

Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian…