Art on trial: mapping public reactions to scandalous cultural goods in public institutions

Publicly funded cultural institutions sometimes exhibit and host cultural goods perceived as scandalous, initiating public debate over government intervention. This article investigates public opinion on punitive actions, such as censorship or funding cuts, against such institutions, emphasizing the role of political alignment. Using latent class analysis on US survey data collected after the controversy surrounding Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary at the Brooklyn Museum, we identify four distinct normative positions on punitive actions. The relationship between political orientations and support for these measures is not straightforward a priori: while conservatives may advocate such actions to defend traditional values, liberals may support punitive actions to prevent perceived harm to vulnerable groups. Our findings reveal a structured link between ideological orientation and preferences for government intervention in the arts, with self-declared conservatives being stronger supporters of punitive actions.