Censorship - "Good" and "Bad" Art...

Alexander Thompson wrote: "I went to a Mapplethorpe show at the ICA in Boston, years ago. The show was all over the news. Many were offended by the naked pensive boy photo, and the bullwhip up the butt photo. Many more were offended that these photo's were produced using an N.E.A. grant."

 

Get your facts straight. Robert Mapplethorpe did NOT receive any funding from the NEA to produce the photos. The public funding was used by a gallery to finance a public exhibit. Jessie the Jackass Helms & others constantly lie about this one. It speaks volumes that after the passage of time they keep coming back to the same tired old "examples" of "public funding of obscenity", yet one of the main 'examples' is a lie.

 

Produce anything you want, any way you want, just don't expect society to fund the showing of it. As far as private institutions, galleries & collectors, what they show or purchase is entirely their own decision.

Taking the argument of Gerry & Daniel and possibly others, with respect to public vs. private censorship, what side of the fence do you fall withrespect to cable or satellite programming. Ok to show gay porn on cable because you "opted" into the system? Or, have we decided that cable is now public even though we must pay for the service to a private company? ....J

"Is censorship a valid form of protecting a groups sensitivities?"

 

Since when is one of an American's inalienable rights the right to not be offended?

Censorship in a "free" society is wrong. Period. Don't want to see Janet's boobie on TV? Turn the channel. Better yet, turn off the TV and read a book.

The government isn't in the business of raising your children, nor should you want it to be. That's one of the great things about America - You can speak your mind, no matter how unpopular, and it's permitted (or at least it once was). Don't like my photos? Then don't come to my exhibit.

I remember in 1989, there was a Mapplethorpe exhibit in D.C. (near my home). Every right-wing nazi with a free hand came to D.C. to wave a sign in protest. (Which is fine; that's there right).

However, the problem I have with them is this: they didn't simply object to the exhibit. Their goal was to prohibit ANYONE from seeing it. That's wrong. Not in America.

Also, when you get a chance, you should research Hitler's "degenerate" art show. Hitler put together a show of works he found offensive, and made a touring show to show all germans what they should find offensive. Most of those artists became (or already were) modern icons of art.

 

b.

For good or bad the government IS in the business of raising your children. That is a FACT. Not a supposition. Speak your mind as much as you dare just be careful who you piss off. I'm not joking....J

I know it is inevitable that discussions on a hot topic like censorship wander into all kinds of political philosophy. Censorship can be taken as oppressive government control and government funding can be seen as sponsorship of something avant garde or out of the mainstream. I myself could argue from any side and take both sides of any issue like this in the same paragraph. Which suggests to me that a statement that ANY restriction of public art or photo display is WRONG is too simplistic. Color it greyscale, guys and gals.... When we get into cases, art is not a free market thing,it can't survive in the free market,never really has. All symphonies,and artists had sponsors and all of the big sponsors have- shall we say "points of view"- not anywhere near mainstream,whatever that is.(Wife's hometown of Peoria maybe(?);I dunno,does anyone) Song lyrics,another thing hot these days, may not be played on the public airwaves without at least some involvement of the people that own the airwave frequencies (that is us) and we do it by an imperfect agency overseen by imperfect committees of elected reps... I don't know where I am leading my train of thought, except I see restriction as something to be very limited,and with a mechanism to challenge the restriction (all we have are the courts) for now. I get to see all the T and A and sadomasochism I want. And my e mail is filled with it. So,if anything,I tend to think the archconservative Helms crowd and the Falwell crowd are not having much influence in the field of popular culture. I mean,do they really scare anybody off, huh? If the NEA did not get any funding,we would have lost last night's Great Performance of Tchaikovsky 4th with Michael Tilson Thomas super commentary (catch it on DVD,electric showing). So, let us give the public funding of arts a break,please. What is the funding? What gets funded. Let us check it out like the gent above said. I do know this. Budget for such has fallen. Too many more armored vests calling for the national gross product,alas. Thank you for hearing out a rambling former New Englander (live free or die).

"I believe in 'free speech' etc... but public funding for anything that only interests a small part of the public is another matter."

 

What a perfect excuse to do away with so many elected officials.