Washington - Artistic groups have expressed dismay at a ruling of the US Supreme Court upholding a law which is used to ban federal funding from art considered as indecent, Joe Carroll writes.
The ruling follows a controversy lasting nine years since the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was attacked for aiding exhibits of homoerotic photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe and a work called "Piss Christ" which featured a crucifix in a basin with the urine of the artist, Andres Serrano.
As a result of the controversy, Congress in 1990 passed a law instructing the NEA to take into consideration "general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public" when giving grants.
Ms Karen Finlay who performed in a theatre as a chocolate-covered nude was one of four artistic performers who challenged the law as infringing the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression. Two lower courts struck down the law as unconstitutional but now the highest court has upheld the decency test for awarding federal grants.
In their eight-to-one decision, the justices ruled that the law contained only "advisory language" and did not actually ban federal subsidies for what is seen as indecent art. The judges also said that if the law was invoked to impose "a penalty on disfavoured viewpoints" it would violate the First Amendment.
Ms Finley, who is now performing in New York in "The Return of the Chocolate-Smeared Woman", said she was "stunned and saddened" by the decision reversing early court rulings. She said she used her performances to make a statement about the abuse of women and that her work had been "eroticised" by Congressional critics.