When the Austin City Council announced The Hormel Institute’s images of cancer tissue won the annual Austin ArtWorks Festival City Purchase Award, the Herald editorial board had two conflicting opinions, and we want to hear what you think.

On one hand, it’s a unique way recognize the hard work of Institute and the complex beauty of life; but on the other hand, that money is one of the few local funding sources directly supporting local artists.

The Institute displayed several microscopic images of cells and tissues at the Austin ArtWorks Festival. The winning image was of an overexpression of Cox2, a cancer-related protein, in rat oral cancer.

You can view the image at https://www.austindailyherald.com/?p=621400 or on the fron page of the Thursday, Sept. 4, Herald.

Council members Jeremy Carolan and Michael Jordal selected the Institute city’s purchase award — a $500 prize.

Opinion 1: The council made the right choice

Looking at the winning image, it’s hard — if not impossible — to deny its artistic value. It’s also difficult to argue against its symbolic significance to Austin.

We agree with the Institute’s Dr.Ted Hinchliffe: “It’s a really beautiful image.”

The image resembles an abstract painting, and like the work of great photographers, it offers an artistic view of the beauty of life.

If Carolan and Jordal had conducted a blind secret judging of the artistic pieces from the festival — not knowing artists or pieces’ origins — it’s conceivable the Institute piece could have won on visual appeal alone.

But in many ways, the council’s annual art award is a symbolic gesture. There’s no better representation of the good things going in Austin than The Hormel Institute. The Institute is on the cusp of a $28.5-million expansion to add 20 new labs and 120 new jobs. It’s one of the true gems of Austin, attracting worldwide attention and recognition, as represented by the Sept. 2 visit by a delegation of about a dozen people from the Henan Province in China.

The picture will be framed and hung in Austin City Hall, and it’s a great way to represent Austin. Officials have discussed displaying local art at the Mower County Government Center and the proposed visitors center being discussed by Vision 2020’s Gateway to Austin committee. Similar Institute images feasibly could be displayed at both.

The $500 prize will go to a good cause, as it will almost certainly go to cancer research at the Institute.

Plus, a gallery of similar Institute images at the Austin ArtWorks Center would likely be well received by the community.

 Opinion 2: The money should have gone to a traditional artist

Without detracting from the fantastic work completed by the Institute, we question if an organization should have received an award traditionally set aside for individual artists.

Like the Institute, Austin’s budding arts scene is great for the community. The ArtWorks Festival and the new ArtWorks Center should be a source of pride.

However, there are few direct funding sources to support local artists and the extensive costs that go into their art. Sure, there are arts grants, but most would tell you it’s not easy to secure one.

Most artists still work day jobs and struggle to pay for supplies. For painters, paints, brushes, canvases and other tools are costly. For digital artists and graphic designers, software can often cost thousands of dollars.

As one person at the Herald said, most artists put far more money into their art and supplies than they can recoup by selling pieces.

Plus, it’s worth noting the Institute partnered with the ArtWorks Festival on events like the Color Dash, so is it fair for a community organization the stature of the Institute to be up against individual artists?

We say this not to detract from the Institute or its contributions to the city. We can’t praise Executive Director Dr. Zigang Dong and his staff enough for what they do.

However, the Institute has Paint the Town Pink and countless other fundraisers. With several such funding sources, does $500 mean as much to the Institute as it would to a struggling artist?

That’s not to argue that it’s better to give to the Institute or its better to support the arts. Both deserve support. To argue that cancer research is more important than the arts isn’t necessarily a fair discussion — it’s apples and oranges.

Both have merits, but the art award is for traditional artists.

We think this is an interesting discussion, and we want to hear what you think. How can you be heard? Send letters to the editor to newsroom@austindailyherald.com, post your comments to the comments section of this editorial online or comment on this story on our Facebook page. We’ll likely run several replies in an upcoming edition.