Looking at the full-blown controversy that was triggered by John Ahearn's "Bronx Bronzes" shows how sensitive citizens still are to public art even after the "Tilted Arc" controversy. The Percent for Art Selection panel, which included arts professionals and many city officials, selected John Ahearn to be the artist for the Forty-Fourth Precinct. The panel, with the new set of procedures following the hearings over "Tilted Arc" in mind, suggested that the work of art be colorful, and that the artist should work with the community (i.e. South Bronx). Ahearn's three bronzed sculptures fit that description perfectly. So what went wrong? This was a race issue for most people. A white artist and three black figurines represented in a stereotypical way; can't get much clearer than that. The first figurine was a guy in a sweatshirt with his hood up. Next to him was a pit bull with a spiked collar. This was a literal representation of a drug dealer. The black community didn't understand why Ahearn would want to magnify this kind of social problem. Guys like the one depicted by the figurine scare people; they are nothing to gaze with admiration. If looked at symbolically, one can see the possible psychological impact on humanity in general. However, Ahearn might have created these works of art to represent specific individuals who he came across with. Artist, just like musicians, have the right to produce uncensored work. Nonetheless, there needs to be some sort of limit especially if the work produced is damaging to the mold of the community. Arthur Symes, an advocate of the removal of the "Bronx Bronzes", feels that no one has the right to demean human beings, not for the sake of art, artists, music, musicians, etc (Symes 103-9). .
The case of rejected entries in the CowParade NYC 2000 goes to show that the criterion of offensive public art is quite strict. About 500 fiberglass cows were exhibited throughout New York City in June 2000.