Late- Lacy response

Some interesting questions came up for me during the reading of Lacy's writings. One of the questions that intrigued me most were: Should art that is potentially offensive and or politically incorrect be funded by the government? And what exactly defines art and/or an artist, and who is it for? Being at CalArts for the past 3 years has really opened my eyes and mind to the "definition" of art. I have concluded that there really is no set definition HOWEVER if it had to be put into words i would simply say, art could be defined as something someone has had on their heart or mind and has found a way to physicalize it and share it with others. I don't believe that art should be censored, as much as i may dislike some peoples versions of art, i am no one to judge, nor do i know why they created it or what they went through to get to the point of sharing. As far as who can be qualified as an artist i think just about anyone at any given time can create SOMETHING of value that someone can deem as artistic. I believe that art should not be censored and should not be specific to a certain type of person or group of people, therefore i think artists of any kind should be able to gain government funding. There are no LAWS against being rude, offensive, or politically incorrect. Only cautions and warnings. If people like to challenge that, i have no problem with it. It isn't permanent, you don't have to love or accept it, or even deal with it on a daily basis. but of course if it really still seems to bother you at the end of the day, you can use art to express yourself and let it all out! art is for and by any and everyone and no one at all.. all at the same time.