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

[grain]

Here's a response from a heading about originality I posted a while back that applies:

 

 

Alexander Thompson , may 14, 2004; 09:21 p.m.

Sorry, been away for a few days. where was I? oh yea...

 

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.

 

 

I went to see the show, and between admission and 'T' fares to and from, was out more than the show was worth: It sucked.

 

 

The hubub surrounding the controversial dead artist catapulted him to hights. He's now known to almost all of you, and is listed as a Master on some sites. ____________

 

 

I imagine most readers are saying this has nothing to do with the current thread. But it does, for now that we've allowed Mapplethorpe a place in the pantheon, not only will good work be emulated, bad work will also.

 

 

Boy, I am an opinionated S.O.B.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Censorship is a non issue in my opinion. Bad art speaks for itself. There is such a thing as masterfully done art photography that broaches subject matter that some find objectionable. (Erotica, War, Homelessness, Babylon etc.) However this isn't mass media, and the viewer seeks it out, so there should be no 'decency' matter involved.

 

It's kind of like the old joke: Patient: "Doc, it hurts whenever I do this!" (View unpleasant art, for instance.) Doc: "Don't do that, stupid!".

 

Good luck.

I hope you got fair marks, that you chose this forum as a place to start should be good for points.

[beeman458]

Alexander wrote<p>

 

<i>It's kind of like the old joke: Patient: "Doc, it hurts whenever I do this!" (View unpleasant art, for instance.) Doc: "Don't do that, stupid!".</i><p>

 

A flaw in the logic, you're solution precludes one from even going to a museum as opposed to the museum sectioning off the displays according to subject matter so the patron can choose which rooms to go into.<p>

 

When the lines of decency are blurred to the point on no distiction in galleries or museums, then the person's only choice is to not go when there is an easy solution, again, segregating the artistic efforts so people have the choice of not doing it or not.<p>

 

The other difference, chances are, the shoulder is going to heal, or the surgen can perform an operation so as to correct the problem and the person with the hurt shoulder has a choice. The museum goer doesn't have the ability to censor what they see as they go unexpecting from viewing gallery to viewing gallery. Forced is forced when you have no choice and the shocking nature of the images are sprung on the viewer without prior consent. At least when one goes into a topless bar, or Hooter's restauraunt one knows why they're there; Hot Wings!:)<p>

 

Not saying you're doing this but many don't want to acknowledge that much artistic material, intentionally, is created to be offensive because the act of offending others, floats their boat. So the shock created by the forcing of others by nature of one being the unsuspecting, gives the individual creator great thrill as these shock artists like messing with another person's unsuspecting brain.<p>

 

If works are segmented off, in seperate viewing galleries and a sign is posted as to a warning of offensive, graphic or sexually explicit material being inside and unsuitable for the younger or more easily offended, then once you voluntarily cross into the viewing gallery, you lose the right to whine and complain as you did it to yourself.<p>

 

At least give the patron of the arts a choice.<p>

[GerrySiegel]

Matt,now that you have started your essay,let's work on getting a B+ or an A. The conflict in censorship is as your teacher proposed, Who gets to decide? And how far does the restriction reach. Who are we protecting in society? We are all opinionated S.O.Bs when it comes to what we want to see in a movie house or say in a museum that might be host to tours of grade school children,so there is always a decision on what is appropriate for selection in an exhibit. That is not the big issue. It is what someone said,the evil banning of art and books from anyone seeing or reading them. Entarte Kunst the phrase above is a reference to degenerate art. What the Third Reich decided noone could see or produce in those days in Germany. Then there was the list of books,and images, forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church for much of its history. And not to leave good old USA out of the history, the restriction on importing books by Henry Miller. The including of the book Ulysses in the public libraries of certain place. The list gets pretty long. The problem has been to confine censorship to where it fits in, identifying it for the consumer(the Zappa committee) and to transcripts) and to not ban something from a society altogether. Read Fahrenheit 541 by Ray Bradbury for a fictional view of the censor gone mad. Once again,just as you pick the subjects of your photography and select the content of your photos in their frames,remember: Don't wander all over your subject. Crop.Crop some more,if you can. Good luck and aloha.GS

[will_perlis]

"Censorship is a mechanism that helps maintain the status quo."

 

Or is designed to change it. See the various rules regarding ads for cigarettes and alcohol for examples.

[jbs]

Very True Will. Social engineering either way.....J

[GerrySiegel]

If maintaining status quo means upholding the norms or values of the majority of sane adult voting people in a community or a society (too big a category for me),then we might agree somehow, gents. Cigarettes,never thought of them in this discussion. I thought that was a public health issue and not a value or norm issue? Limiting advertising without health warnings doesn't quite sound like "censorship"'s definition,but heck we could take this discussion into 2005 batting that one around. Public acceptance of shifts to status quo behavior happen often without social engineering to quell them. Notice in the People Photography section we see a bunch of nudists publicly biking.And the internet has like whatever one wants to see,thus the censoring of computers in libraries. Now that is an issue worth batting around. When I was a kid,there was a locked book section with Lady Chatterley's Lover. It was Boston and Boston was blue nosed but bawdy.We had little trouble getting the censored stuff,you all know that. Bareass biking wouldn't likely happen in Dothan, Alabama. Or Pensacola. Or Houston. Or San Diego. Why not? Censorship keeps naked ladies with genitals out of pictures in the gallery. Why not out of the streets? We are a funny species. Social engineering is for the ad execs. They convince us to learn to love the SUV and vote for you know who.

[jeffrey moore]

Taken within the context of taxpayer funding of art, specifically via the NEA, the censorship argument by the artists themselves and their proponents was, and is, bogus. It was never really about censorship; it was about getting the money. Whenever an entity such as the NEA is established for the purpose of funding art, it is inevitable that it will satisfy no one.

 

Let me expand on that point. Again, I will use the NEA as an example. Here are some indisputable facts about the NEA: 1) The NEA is funded with a finite supply of taxpayer dollars; the money supply is not limitless; 2) There are more applicants for NEA grants than there are NEA grant dollars; 3) Given that 1 & 2 are indisputably true, someone has to make a decision on who gets the NEA greenbacks and who does not; 4) Given that 1, 2, & 3 are all true, some artists will be funded and some will not; those who are not funded are going to feel aggreived. They and their supporters are going to scream censorship, when it has nothing to do with censorship, but has everything to do with who gets the money.

 

So, in a nutshell the NEA's primary function is to decide who gets the dollars. That's it. I contend that this is an impossible function. No one person, nor a committee of ten, a hundred, or a thousand can reasonably decide what is good art and what is bad art, and, more to the point, which art is deserving of being funded with taxpayer dollars and that which is not. But once again, because there is a finite supply of dollars, this decision must be made. It's really a matter of where the line is drawn. When a left/liberal administration is in office the line will be drawn in one place; when a right/conservative administration is in office the line will be elsewhere.

 

And despite the misrepresentations of his positions in some of the previous posts, that is what Jesse Helms was doing. He was arguing for having the line drawn in a place where he thought the majority of Americans stood. And he was right in doing so. No doubt that the majority reading this, and the majority in the "arts community" disagree with where Helms would have that line drawn. But I contend that the "arts community" is more out of touch with the majority of mainstream America on such matters than was Jesse Helms.

 

Let's look at three of the more controversial artists that caused such a stir surrounding the NEA in the late-seventies and the eighties. Andreas Serrano dropped a plastic crucifix in a jar of blood and urine, photographed it, called it art, and got generous taxpayer funding via a $75,000 NEA grant. Karen Finley smeared chocolate over her nude body (a feces metaphor for how the patriarchal establishment was holding her down--how clever) in New York art houses, spouting out her own radical form of man-hating feminism, all the while making a living off the taxpayer dole for a decade or more. Robert Mapplethorpe received numerous NEA grants over the years, for work which covered an expansive subject matter, some of which I liked. But it was a relative handful of his homoerotic imagery which garnered most of the attention and stirred the most controversy. I suspect that most readers know the images to which I am referring.

 

Jesse Helms believed that the huge majority of Americans would find each of the three aforementioned examples reprehensible and that they would not wish to fund such "art" with their hard-earned tax dollars. (An aside: If you think he was wrong about that, well, I would suggest that you venture outside of your own insulated enclaves and see for yourselves. Rightly or wrongly the majority in this country do not wish their tax dollars to fund such work. I guarantee you that.) In that we live in a representative deomocracy, Helms was correct in arguing for a position at which he felt the majority of Americans stood.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that on any issue, whatever the majority wants, they get. I am not for mob rule. But on the narrow issue of deciding which artists get taxpayer dollars and which do not, I think being guided by majority opinion should certainly be strongly considered. One could do worse.

 

When discussing the three controversial artists above, I used trite, derisive commentary when describing their work. I don't like their work. I think it is lacking in talent and is primarily possessed of shock value with the intention to offend. I would be appalled to find that my involuntary tax dollars supported work that is so offensive to me. Undoubtedly, there are those who have the opposite opinion. I am sure many believe that if controversial art is not funded, then you will only get dull, homogenous art. You may very well be right. But therein lies the problem. I have my strongly held opinions on such matters, and others have equally strong opinions which are totally contrary to mine. I believe I am right; you may believe I am wrong. But really, no one knows for sure, we just have our own beliefs. That cirle can never be squared.

 

Which leads me back to my original contention that the NEA has an impossible task. When it comes down to deciding which artists get funded by the taxpayers, and which do not, decisions which are amiable to all are simply not possible. It gets down to where each of us wants the line drawn. We'll never all agree. It's not possible.

 

Primarily because I am a free-market conservative, and also for all the reasons given above, if in power, I would completely defund and shut down the NEA tomorrow. I just don't believe there are compelling reasons that the government should be in the business of funding the arts. If one's art can't survive the marketplace, well, that's too bad. I wish I could make my living selling prints of my landscape photography. But I cannot. My work is not appealing to enough people willing to pay an amount which would allow me to live comfortably. Such is life. So, I make my living in manufacturing and pursue my photography as a passionate hobby, selling a few prints here and there, always trying to improve, but most important, enjoying the pursuit. If Andreas Serrano's work cannot survive the rigors of the free market, he, like me, needs to find other work. I do not wish to subsidize his existence, either lavish or modest.

 

And lest you think I am applying my position only to "controversial" art, I am not. I don't believe the government, i.e., taxpayers, should be in the business of funding any art. I love classical music and am a regular patron of my community's (Nashville, TN) symphony orchestra. I am fairly confident that over the years they have been the recipient of NEA grants. They have a perfectly fine hall, no doubt built in-part or totally with taxpayer dollars. But they want, and are getting a new hall built, also, no doubt, with substantial taxpayer funds. But you know what? When I go to watch them play I look around and believe me the audience is not packed with minimum wage workers. These are primarily people of means. The point being that the huge majority of the patrons of the arts are people who do not need their art subsidized. I cannot justify the involuntary taking of the earnings of a single mother working two jobs, raising her children, in order to lower my ticket price by $5 to the Nashville Symphony Orchestra.

 

No artist, not one, has a "right" to be seen or heard. If their work cannot stand on its own merits in the free market, well, that's too bad. And if they are not the recipient of an NEA grant or other equivalent subsidy, they are not being censored. It's not censorship; it's about the money.

[ann teak]

Matt:

 

I hope your essay was a thoughtful success. It sounds like you are well on your way to becoming a wise and creative adult.

 

I agree with Jay Stevens that censorship is a form of social engineering. For example, I read in the local newspaper (I know - I am only mentioning one source, not good research) that as soon as the Bushian administration arrived in Washington DC, nude public statuary was draped! If not so sad, the "modesty" would be laughable.

 

I hate to burst any artistic bubbles out there, but it seems to me that art reflects society rather than leads it. As one poster mentioned, art creates a record of even the dark corners of our society. Many governments fund the visual arts as a societal obligation to a create a complete record. Therefore, because many Americans are unhappy with some organized religions, it is going to be reflected in art - by crosses in urine or some other way. (Please remember that freedom OF religion also give us freedom FROM religion.)

 

I have seen some of Maplethorpe's work, all of which I felt was beautiful. Even the homoerotic images are technically excellent and to a respectible segment of our population, they are as moving as an image of a heterosexual couple engaged in love making.

 

Never forget, Matt, that our Constitution was forged by the Founders to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, in censorship as well as any number of topics we could mention.

 

All the best, Julia

[beeman458]

Talking with a customer today. And we came to a resonable conclusion.

 

Two points. If the government is going to pass out grants, in regard to the creation art, then the grants, as long as they're artistically orientated, the government at the point of the fund being established, should step out of the game as to who gets the money as art created by approval process, isn't really the intent and spirit of art.

 

The second point we came to agreement on, is that the government has no business passing out grants in regard to the creation of art in the first place as art should succeed or fail on it's own merits.

[GerrySiegel]

"...the government has no business passing out grants in regard to the creation of art in the first place as art should succeed or fail on it's own merits." I would like to agree with this statement,Jeffrey,and call myself a free market conservative too. The only trouble is that I would have to fairly extend this conservatism to other subsidized uses deemed by Congress useful to the public welfare,or the Common Good.(Or call painting and photography something much less) Let's see. Airlines. Farmers. Oil exploration. Livermore labs. National Institutes of Health. NASA. Federal Arts Project. Federal Writer's Project.(even during lean days,but produced a cornucopia).Public TV and Radio.(Corporation for Public Broadcasting.) Art is not a necessity,but a civilizing influence in a society. Often critical of the society. Yet subsidized often by the emperors,Kaisers, and the ruling class (a la the Medici family). So why can't art-experimental,non commercial art make it on its own? That would take another long thread. Experimental,reflectively critical of public behavior or government policy art is inherently not going to be Helms-proof. Counter culture stuff,sometimes shocking,is good for the welfare of the beast. We fund about.0005 of the national budget to promotion of culture and the arts (I made up the figure,but I could get it right if we need.) And once subsidized, of course the funder gets a say in what is too over the threshold. It is a compromise,of small consequence in the big scheme. But of value to we who call art our passion. Or pastime.

[beeman458]

Gerry wrote<p>

 

<i> Let's see. Airlines. Farmers. Oil exploration. Livermore labs. National Institutes of Health. NASA.</i><p>

 

The one flaw, by including the above, is that the the public, at large, benefit directly and creating and protecting infrastructure is the purpose of taxation and government.<p>

 

In the case of airlines, shut airlines down and the world comes to a screeching halt as the world is now knocked back into the 20's and coal fired steam ships. As to farmers, yes there's reasonable question as to the subsidy programs but knock the farmers out of action, for what ever reason and your table will become barren real fast. Oil exploration, same thing, you take energy out of the equation and all mass transit stops in it's tracks as do delivery trucks, emergency vehicles as well as your automobile. Shall we discuss how quickly the combines will stop opperating without oil? NIH? You don't see general public benefit, for all people, in regard to monitoring health issues? <a href="http://www.nih.gov/">NIH</a>. Lawrence Livermore ties directly into the governments prime directive, like it or not, to look out for the protection of this country and it's very clear the Soviets and China were nuclear mortal enemies and rogue nations are breaking their banks to develop nuclear weapons for their use. N. Korea is a perfect example as Iran is also another current example. NASA might be suspect as I consider NASA a form of intellectual welfare but much good comes from the space station programs in regard to medical research, scientific research equipment development and metallurgy research. You may not like the shuttle program but it too is giving back monetarily in products that are created because of it's existance.<p>

 

The point of the above, there's a huge difference between looking out for the welfare of a nation, food, energy, transportation, space exploration, defense and health issues as opposed to putting a few clinkies in the pockets of a group of intellectual derelicts who can't make it on their own and need a hand out to survive with their failed art which lacks mass appeal.<p>

 

I'm in agreement with you and we may be saying the same thing. I just didn't see coupling the good which government provides with the nonsense the government provides, state supported art projects that goes against the grain of so many:)<p>

[GerrySiegel]

Thomas, you are funny. It is because the arts are lesser than the sciences that they need some help to stay alive.

[sam_richardson]

I just didn't see coupling the good which government provides with the nonsense the government provides, state supported art projects that goes against the grain of so many:)

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I see way more people pissed off at the huge waste of money on weapons programs than I do on government supported art!!!! As usual you totally exaggerate the situation. Just because you hold a grudge doesn't mean that the rest of the people do. If it "goes against the grain of so many" why don't we see protests? Why is this area not the main subject of local or state elections? Because most people have the common sense to see that even if they do not understand the art themselves, that there is value in supporting it. Government support of the arts is ubiquitous, not only in the US but in most countries in the world.

[GerrySiegel]

Of course,what Sam says at the end.Noted also, It doesn't foster intelligent discussion to take a couple over- the- top "projects" that offended many people with redwood logs on their shoulder most of the time re so called artsy fartsy things, even some who consider themselves liberal (but ready to just plain put up with brazen for brazen sake),and use that as an overeaching argument to 'deep six' the National

Endowment for the Arts. As this administration likes to say "Mend it,don't End It"(in another context). Also,it goes without saying,that what is acceptable in art funding changes with the culture we are dealing with. I gotta go now. Nice to chat,see ya. PS. Let's also support these here forums if we support the value they serve,however controversial and bickering the verbage may become at times...

[escu]

I know it is late. Still I wish to write my point of view on the initial question.

 

1) The rights and the freedoms are about civilisation: the freedom of somebody has to stop when it cuts on the rights of somebody else. In other words, the rights are taking over the freedoms.

 

2) Is art, as an expression of freedom, cutting on somebody else's rights? I know only a case when it does: the copyright, might it be another piece of art by another artist, or the subject in it (example: the person in a portrait). And this issue is a legal one, not a censorship.

 

3) Anything else, that can bother some people, keeps only with offences. But offences have nothing to do with rights, just with feelings and morality. And here comes the censorship: to protect these feelings of individuals, and these moral values of a society, both in a certain place on the Earth, and at a certain moment in the history.

 

The censorship did, does, and will never protect any rights!

[h._p.]

"The censorship did, does, and will never protect any rights!"

 

Granted that English is not your first language, I think you have made a factual mistake here. Censorship, in most western countries, is used to protect the rights of people who may be insulted or demeaned by a work. For example, you would not be permitted to publish an anti-semitic novel in Britain, nor would you be allowed to put on a play which represented all Arabs as fanatical terrorists.

 

In this way, censorship does protect rights.

[escu]

Of course, all I previously wrote are for democratic societies only. And yes Harvey, English is not my first language, but let me ask you something: is English the only language spoken in "western" countries, as your intervention suggests it? I should have write "did, do and will never?", sorry for the typo.

 

As for what you say about censorship, protecting workers, Jews or Arabs rights (and dignity is one of these rights too), you make confusion: law protects them, not censorship. And low is not censorship! These things are under the first point in my previous intervention. I repeat, this happens in democratic countries only. And democratic countries are also at east of your home yard.

[h._p.]

My comment wasn't meant rudely, only as a preface. As someone who can't speak any other language I'm always impressed by those who can.

 

What I was trying to suggest was that, because English is not your first language, perhaps you miss some of the subtleties. In this particular case, censorship is not something apart from the law but a facet of it. When you write that "law protects them, not censorship", you *are* factually incorrect. Censorship is the mechanism through which the law is applied. Inversely, you might equally well say that the existence of the law implies the existence of cencorship.

 

Of course, in the UK the picture becomes more complicated because censorship is no longer as obvious as it was in the days when we had the 'Lord Chancellor's Regulations'. Now it is is the province of a patchwork of local authorities and Home Office regulations which are applied in many different ways and through many different mechanisms. I can't speak directly for other countries but I imagine that similar systems operate throughout Europe.

[grain]

Been down for a week...

Tho's G.:

Valid point, but of course I wouldn't be responding if their wasn't a "But...".

I am, as I said, very much against censorship of any kind.

As to museums setting up zones for 'offensive' art and others for 'tasteful' art, I'm just not buying it.

Art is not an expression of 'taste' or 'class'.

It is an expression of feelings and emotions.

 

Exposure to the elements of what we deem offensive is as likeley to traumatize as it is to disgust, excite, educate or simply make one aware.

 

Censorship is counter to free thought.

Let's have some faith in our audience, they're capable of making thier own decisions. Even an 11 year old who decides "That's Gross!" is making a valid judgement that we needn't make for them.

[d. light]

Censorship entirely depends on the taste of the executives.

Bad taste will support bad art, good taste will suppot good art. Just look at this forum and ...... visit another place. Moderators here seem to be afraid of certain topics and yet they hang out everywhere and preach tolerance. .................. yaaaaawwwwwwn.

[d. light]

>Censorship is counter to free thought. Let's have some faith in our audience, they're capable of making thier own decisions. Even an 11 year old who decides "That's Gross!" is making a valid judgement that we needn't make for them.<

 

.... and once we are at it, let us throw away also education. Open the gates to all kind of influence. Sacrifice civilisation for stupidity. "An idiot hour can destroy what took centuries to build"

[beeman458]

Alexander wrote<p>

 

<i>Censorship is counter to free thought.</i><p>

 

So where's the line? Should performing art include, in a museum, for all to freely see, on the main floor, some wanker walking the dog? We'll title his performance "A waste of human potential".<p>

 

When it comes to art, pushing the envelope is something that many will take poetic license with. Shall we have some bozo, cutting heads off of animals after they've been euthanized? We'll call the performance, "The Sound of the Master's Voice".<p>

 

How extremely insensitive towards people's sensitivities do artists have to get before even the shock jocks themselves, cry enough is enough, for all time.

 

The point of my above two intentionally extreme examples are, when is it shocking art and at what point does it become necessary to again push the envelope so as to create shock again. How desensitized does humanity have to become to potential behavior before realizing that desensitization is what you're speaking of as opposed to reasonable segregation for the purpose of allowing one free choice whether or not they want their sensibilities assaulted.<p>

 

A little bit of thoughtfulness towards others isn't so much to ask for and yet doesn't prevent those who choose to, to get their sensibilities assaulted. It is possible to be thoughtful towards one group and not be restrictive (censoring) towards other.<p>

[grain]

Oops, ya caught me!

My entire spin was designed to rattle the foundations of our educational system and to promote lewd behavior in museums.

Curses, foiled again!

 

Get a grip.

[john falkenstine]

In Europe, in particular Germany, "art" is heavily subsidized. So they have a lot of art...

[daniel_smith6]

Someone wrote: "I believe our Constitution refers to it as freedom of expression."

 

Where in the Constitution of the US is this clause?

 

Censorship is NOT a good thing. It is a repressive bully tactic. All speech is valid, fighting for acceptance in the realm of ideas. If it doesn't stand the light of day it dies out.

Yes, you CAN yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. You just have to pay the consequences after you do so. With freedom comes responsibility. Those who won't accept the responsibility don't deserve the freedom... they have WtheTush & Chicken Cheney to tell them what to think, when to think it & make all their decisions for them.