A group called California Lawyers For The Arts is sponsoring an art exhibit in the cafeteria of the state Justice Department Building, home to Attorney General Bill Lockyer and his staff, which includes a depiction of the United States going down a toilet, and the words, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." More from the SF Chron:

Among the works was one by Stephen Pearcy, a Berkeley lawyer best known for hanging an effigy of an American soldier outside the home he owns in Sacramento with a sign saying, "Bush lied, I died." For this show, Pearcy offered a rendering of the United States sinking into a toilet. Next to it was the phrase, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." That lit a bonfire under the seat of the politically red portion of California, and word roared through conservative blogs and Web sites and from conservative radio talk shows.

...The offended conservatives don't want to censor the pieces inside the building, said Melanie Morgan, a talk show host on radio station KSFO in San Francisco who is heading to the capital to spearhead the exhibit and accompanying rally. "It just doesn't belong in a government building," Morgan said.

...Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin...(said)..Lockyer "isn't a fan of that particular piece (involving the toilet),"....nor is he supportive of the political message behind a few of the others.

"But he will not engage in censorship. He has no plans to remove the art (before the temporary display is taken down Aug. 30.)," Barankin said, even if talk show hosts are now referring to his boss as "Baghdad Bill."

What a brave, principled California Attorney General is Mr. Lockyer. Standing tall in the saddle for the right to display, on government property, a depiction of The United States in the crapper, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." One's heart swells with pride.

The underlying issue here is government sponsorship of the arts, which quite often takes the form of subsidies for works both controversial and less so, rather than displays directly placed on government property. Art is wonderful, sometimes. We've got quite a bit of it the walls of our family's home (cheap prints nicely framed, not too many originals; and scads of music recordings.) If you want to talk about Carvaggio, Paulo Ucello, Heironymous Bosch, Salvador Dali, or the ouvres of Boogaloo Joe Jones, Pat Martino, Ellen McIlwaine, The Residents, Pere Ubu, Zani Diabate, and Three Mustaphas Three, I'm game.

But one must seriously question whether it is a core, or even desired function of government to subsidize art. Can't artists stand on their own two feet? And must we assume portions of the public are incapable of approaching art without the benevolent hand of government showing the way?

Additionally, when controversial temporary exhibits such as "A Creative Merger" are placed on government property, it seems there are often messages in certain works that are virulently anti-American.

I know, I know. Art is supposed to make you think. So here's what this imbroglio makes me think. 1) If there is to be government-funded art, leave overt partisan politics out of it...I enjoy a city-sponsored summer concert series as much as the next music hound, just give me Lil' Ed and The Blues Imperials instead of Jello Biafra, OK?; 2) The self-defeating rage of the American Left knows few bounds; and 3) Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat reportedly planning a run for State Treasurer, is really far less interested in free speech than partisan posturing to curry favor with his urban, Bush-loathing base via surrogate "artists" such as Berkeley lawyer Stephen Pearcy.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 28, 2005 11:57 AM