Let’s get something off the table right away. The Museum of Modern Art in New York does not currently accept any federal funding. That, however, does not affect the central premise of this debate. Centrally at issue here is whether we as a party would issue a normative statement that financially funding an institution that curates, propagates, and praises the broad category of “modern art.” As Federalists, we know that aesthetics are incredibly important in a society. Many members of the body have commented that our last two debates, held in a traditional, (stuffy?) room with stained glass and wooden tables, have been far more enjoyable than the first two held in varying forms of modern, “sleek,” and “innovative” spaces. Some members of the body believe that aesthetics influence culture. Others believe that aesthetics are a product of our culture. In any case, our aesthetic tastes— our art— can reinforce the goodness of our culture or warn us as to its downward trajectory. Is the art produced in today’s world an example of the former or the latter?

In a scriptural sense, God has clearly created the world to satisfy the needs of many different souls. He has imbued us with the ability to create and we have. We have built marvelous churches glorifying God and painted marvelous frescos. In their day, however, these new developments were seen as garish and vain when juxtaposed to the ancient practice of writing an icon. Yet now, we would be ecstatic to visit a church in the United States with a Madonna painted in the traditional style with the formally disavowed reds and blues. Well, some of us would… This begs the question, will the modern art of today become the traditional art of tomorrow? Is our tendency to critique the art of today founded on first principles? Or is it simply an unfounded attachment to tradition? Are there pieces of modern art today that deserve preservation, curation, and praise?

See website for complete article licensing information.