The Helms Amendment on Controversial Art

Would a religious painter be ineligible for NEA funding on the ground that he promoted sadomasochism by painting the martyrdom of St. Sebastian?

If, like Raphael, he painted a Madonna and nude baby Jesus, would he be a child pornographer?

Are we going to put fig leaves on Greek statues? Will some zealous senator put the National Gallery’s Leonardo painting in the basement because it was painted by a homosexual? And are we going to censor pictures in the Sistine Chapel because they are by another?

Would a Shakespeare be eligible for an NEA grant? There are a lot of sex jokes in those plays; besides, with the new rules about art that offends various ethnic and religious groups, he’d be in real trouble.

Forget Rabelais, Swift, Lewis Carroll. Come to think of it, the “Song of Solomon” is racy too.

The Senate’s guidelines so limit NEA funding for representational art that nothing much is left to fund but instrumental music--as long as there are no program notes.

WES CHRISTENSEN

Los Angeles