At least he's giving money to the arts, rather than decreasing funding or adding nothing (a la Clinton).
It's more accurate to say that he's promised
more money, secure in the fact that the Republican-led Congress will never actually pass such an appropriation.
excesses such as Serrano's infamous photograph have left a bitter taste for the NEA in the mouths of most Americans.
You're confusing, I think, Serrano and Mapplethorpe; the former's work was a sculpture (well, sort of). Project grants are made before the work is actually executed; without having actually seen the grant proposal, I can guarantee you that what was funded was something like, "a rexamination of the role of religion is society," or something similarly vaguely worded.
Why should taxpayers involuntary pick up the tab on art that is highly offensive to 90% of the population?
With that criterion, we'd have no Rite of Spring
, no Eiffel Tower, no Waiting for Godot
And why does everyone instantly assume this is an election year tactic?
I'm looking out my window right now and I see a bird. It's waddling. It's quacking. Y'know what? I'm going to assume it's a duck.