Yet one more reason why I have not renewed my magazine subscription to Smithsonian.

Mr. Jeffrey, perhaps the best definition for art is quite simply an externalization of the artists soul. Whether that outpouring is one celebrated my the many, but a few, or even no one but the artist themselves, does that decrease its validity as art? I would have to say, no, it does not.

Most great art has weathered the tests of time as it appeals to greater numbers of those who view, read or experience it.

Many other works fade away into obscurity due to a lacking of appreciation or embracement by those who view, read or experience it, yet its validity as an outpouring of the artists soul, still remains regardless of whatever level of acceptance it achieves.

All art appreciation resides within the one appraising it. However, whether you, I, or anyone else appreciates it, or even agrees with its subject matter or overall content, it is still art :>)

"All art appreciation resides within the one appraising it. However, whether you, I, or anyone else appreciates it, or even agrees with its subject matter or overall content, it is still art."

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . .

As a secondary to what's stated above: Well appreciated (great) works of art can garner millions of dollars from those who seek it while greatly lesser (appreciated) works can be had for pennies or sometimes simply given away ;>)

Art is a product for consumption and nothing more. It possesses no more intrinsic greatness than a McDonald's cheeseburger. The fact that more people like and thus consume a cheeseburger vs. a Monet or Shakespeare doesn't render it less of an accomplishment or reduce it's importance in human experience. People that consume "art" are simply inflated egos looking around a museum for suitably arrogant kinship. the fact that the NPG is diplaying these vulgarities is simply a testament that, just like most of TV, the "creative" folks are just out of ideas.

Just about everybody out there likes a pretty or interesting picture just like they like a good cheeseburger. There are various ideas of what is really good due to different tastes, but nobody wants feces on their cheeseburger and all reasonable people agree on that. Why would I want feces in the picture on my wall? I wouldn't.

And thus, why should I the taxpayer be forced to pay for feces to be hung in the Smithsonian? If the wacko's want funding for the crap being produced now in the name art they shouldn't be using money from us unappreciative knuckledraggers. Only idiot wealthy benefactors should commission these works and their names boldly printed on the description plates....

If the so-called "artists" who produce this sort of thing were truly in demand they would find themselves an old-fashioned patron to commission these works as Marcus so aptly suggests. Since taxpayers are forced to provide the funding for these obscene images that would seem to prove that there IS no demand for such an exhibition.

The art springing from the tormented souls of these LGBT ( GLBT? BLTG? ) artists can be expressed in their private atleiers if it will make them feel better. As a heterosexual I am afforded no such free stage upon which to work out my childhood issues and I seem to make my way in the world just fine-except for missing the money the government takes out of my pocket to fund someone else's therapy!

Great Art? Sorry, the Emperor is wearing nothing!

There is art and there is trash. It is fairly easy to tell the difference, unless you have an agenda to push.

Art students I knew in college made it very clear they thought art was then a nihilistic mockery of classical, beautiful art of the ages. I see little has changed in 30 years. Back then, I suggested nailing a cow pie to a board and calling it art - they were impressed with my creativity.

It is our government and our "leaders'" attempt to normalize the gay / lesbian and low moral life-style... That is a crime in itself. But be real, there are very few programs that do not push the "alterante lifestyle" and low moral character in both television and government any more. Check the popular shows on CBS. I now prefer to watch "Antiques Roadshow"

Get a life, guy. Art isn't a one way street and sex isn't only missionary.

Art should invoke the emotional response desired by the artist in the person experiencing it. Therefore, if the "artists" providing the "art" in the Smithsonian are desirous of disgusting their viewers (which I think is highly likely,) then I would say that their art is extremely successful.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Government to fund "art" in any form. The Smithsonian would be much improved by being taken over by private subscribers with the right and the cajones to take out the trash.

A subsciber of NGM since the '60's, I dropped my subscription because I got tired of reading about global warming and not the other side about this issue.

I will also cancel my subsription to Smithsonian since they have brainless policy makers of what is "art".

I can define art for everyone. I am not an artist. I know that. I can carve rude figurines, or paint 2nd grade quality pictures, but I am not an artist. Art is what I cannot do, meaning an unusually skilled and talented presentation of an idea or picture or whatever. Photos of fags dressed up in SM gear is not art because any sixth grader in the country can create that trash with cheap camera and some props. Mapplethorpe is not an artist. He is a stupid jerk. The people at the museum who wrote the descriptions are hilarious. They even take themselves very seriously. However, as Charles Pehl stated above, "The emperor has no clothes on!" Real art sells well. Crap needs to be subsidized.