You of course can form your own opinion. Is this art? And, does the 1st Amendment protect only "great" works of art, you know, like Michelangelo? Apparently, the local zoning ordinances of the central Texas town of San Marcos compelled the authorities thereof to order that this junked Oldsmobile, er ..., creative repurposing of a vintage car, be removed from public view.
According to the Supreme Court Insider:
Debate over the artistry of Cezanne and Matisse, Stravinsky and Brancusi, is not the stuff of which Supreme Court briefs are usually made.
But there the artists are, front and center in an amicus curiae brief filed to support a cert petition in the case of Kleinman v. City of San Marcos, Texas, that the justices are considering later this month.
"It was a lot more fun to write than the average brief," said David George, partner at Connelly Baker Wotring in Houston, author of the brief filed on behalf of artists' groups and individuals as well as Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts.
The summary of the amici's argument in their petition for certiorari is as follows:
The Fifth Circuit held that only “great” art is
entitled to First Amendment protection. While the
court also considered – out of an abundance of caution
– whether the artwork could be banned if it had First
Amendment protection, its holding that only “great”
art is entitled to First Amendment protection is
binding on all courts within that circuit.
The Fifth Circuit’s test will require courts to act
as art critics and determine whether the artwork in
question is suitably great to be entitled to First
Amendment protection. History shows that it is
difficult to determine whether artists and art are
great. History is replete with examples of artists who
were denigrated during their time, but who are
regarded as great today.
By limiting First Amendment protection to only
“great” art, the Fifth Circuit improperly bases constitutional
rights on a court’s subjective aesthetic
judgment. This Court has warned that, in the First
Amendment area, subjective judgments can be a
public rationalization of an improper decision. Under
the Fifth Circuit’s test, there is a danger that
government-approved art will receive First Amendment
protection, while art that is not in favor will be
deemed “not great,” thus falling outside the First
Amendment.
This Court should grant certiorari and hold that
all works of art – wherever they may fall on the
spectrum between ordinary and “great” – are fully
protected by the First Amendment because they have
some expressive content.
Weigh-in all you art critics...
