The Controversy Over Mapplethorpe’s Art

Times writer Allan Parachini misses the point about the controversy surrounding the works of the late photographer Robert Mapplethorpe (“Arousing Art,” July 11).

Ancient Greek sculptors did not use my tax money to create their art; Mr. Mapplethorpe did. Using public money for what is a very private matter--art--is bound to run into difficulties.

Bullwhips protruding from buttocks (as in a Mapplethorpe self-portrait) are, to most, more offensive than the bestial detail of a mythical creature!

In addition, Mr. Mapplethorpe was primarily a photographer, and the status of photography as art is still a point of contention among many aestheticians.

But all of this only serves to illustrate that public money should not be spent on art or religion--for the same reason--and that the National Endowment for the Arts has no more right to exist in this nation than would a “National Endowment for Religion.”

If the state endowed any religion with taxpayers’ money, it would be asking certain individuals to subsidize and promote what they consider to be offensive or evil.

The only reason for a program such as the National Endowment for the Arts is to extort money from unwilling contributors in order to subsidize projects that would not be subsidized voluntarily.

Therefore, such a program cannot, by its own nature, “represent” American interests but only serve a few Washingtonian highbrows’ appetites for art-world prestige and power.

CASEY FAHY

La Canada