Intention creates art. No matter the work--whether a painting, a dance, a piece of music--if an artist creates something he or she intends as art, then it is art.

ast August, I received a call from my brother-in-law, Mike, asking me to settle a debate between Karin and him about the artist Karen Finley. In 1990, Finley was vilified by conservatives because some people found that her art was "obscene," resulting in her NEA grant being revoked. For those of you who haven't heard of her, Finley is a performance artist who creates her art pieces in front of live audiences. During one of her performances, she removed all of her clothing and smeared herself with chocolate (see photo). According to her bio, this performance "addressed people who are oppressed for political, economic, social or sexual reasons and how they are kept in the position of the victim by a white, patriarchal system." Upon discovering her method of expressing these ideas, conservative politicians pressured the NEA into denying her grant application.

Karin and Mike wanted to know if I thought Karen Finley was in fact making art. My answer, without hesitation, is "yes" based on only one supposition: Karen Finley sincerely intends her performances to be art. I must confess that I did not review her grant application nor have I seen her perform, but from all that I've read and the art that I have seen and studied, I have no reason to believe that she is not sincere in her expression. The more important question to me is: is her art any good--does her art deserve to be funded above other artists--is it worthy of a grant? To me, this question is far more complex.

The value of art

I propose that any viewer determines the value of a work of art based on the three things:

• The viewer's cultural relationship to the artist
• The viewer's personal experience with art and art education
• The viewer's affinity with the perceived subject matter and theme of the work.

1. Cultural relationship: The NEA consideration of Finley was undoubtedly colored by their cultural relationship to the applicants, influenced by their geographical place and time (the USA in the late 20th century) as well as the board's political leanings, social and economic status, their level of education, etc. All viewers bring with them the context of their cultural influences, including interpretation of symbols, words and metaphors presented by the artist. Works of art from any artist at any time are always viewed within this context.

2. Experience with art: The NEA board is presumably highly experienced with viewing and evaluating many varieties of art and is, presumably, interested in and educated about what has been done in the past and whether an artist is expressing an idea in a new and interesting way. Along with originality, they must evaluate the quality of execution compared with the technical expertise of other artists in a variety of media, from painting to music and performance. Someone who had not studied art and had not been exposed to a wide variety of artistic expression would, more than likely, use different criteria for choosing exemplary artistic expression and technical execution than members of the NEA grant board.

3. Subject and theme affinity: The NEA surely looked for subjects and themes that they presumed our culture (i.e, the U.S.) should understand and acknowledge. We all look for something to relate to when looking at art, and, for whatever reason, I assume that the NEA thought that what Finley was trying to say, probably based upon what she said about her work in her grant application as well as her reputation in the art world, was important enough and special enough for others to hear. The NEA board had faith that the money they might give her would further encourage her expression.

Was it worthy?

So, is Karen Finley's work art? As I said earlier, I believe the answer is yes, because I believe that any expression, no matter how unprecedented, even bizarre or offensive, may be art if that's what the artist intends.

The more difficult determination is whether or not Karen Finley's art is "good" art, so good that she deserved an NEA grant. Since I haven't seen her perform nor have I had the opportunity to compare her performances to other artists, that's very difficult for me to answer. I do believe that someone was worthy of the grant and grants should fund a wide variety of artists and expression, including expression that is new and potentially controversial. I support the NEA's role in making that determination even if I wouldn't have made the same choices.