Art Appreciation; “Dirty Pictures” and censorship
1. What are the three prongs in Miller v. California that our courts use to define “obscenity? A.The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. B.Content must actually be explicit in nature rather than just suggestive C.Is obscene is it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

2. How do YOU feel about the images you’ve seen in the film? Can you defend your beliefs using the three prongs? I personally don't consider the picture in the film to be obscene, taking the first prong it did carry prudent interest due to the explicit content and in no way did it lack artistic value

3. The Mapplethorpe Exhibition was seen by some as a reason to cut funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. Do you believe we, as a public, should have the right to determine what art should be funded and what should not? Why?

I don't believe we as a public should be the ones to decide what art is deserving of funding and what art gets nothing. Everyone is going to have a different taste, a vision of what art is to them and thats the entire point of it. Art isn't supposed to appeal to everyone, its supposed to be in all forms whether obscene or not

Briefly describe your understanding of the real results of the trial

The trial was basically about the art world's and the court's definition of