Ally B, post 7

Ally Best
post 7

When Representative Richard Armey described an issue of NEA funding, he remarked, “This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of judgement, of values” (Brookman, xv). This seemingly simple statement hints at a not-so-simple debate. Is there really more to art than its aesthetic elements? Does it have the power to influence behavior? Why is art so much more potent, and therefore controversial, than other forms of art and who, if anyone, should be held responsible for its effects? These questions have been debated for years by artists, politicians, scholars, and housewives alike and yet society seems no closer to reaching a consensus than it did when the debate first began. One particularly heated battle was sparked by the exhibit of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe titled “The Perfect Moment.” The controversy was centered around Mapplethorpe’s X-portfolio, which depicted men engaged in what some considered to be “obscene” sexual acts (xvii). For many, these images became a point of contention not simply because of their subject matter, but because they were partially financed by the NEA (41). Critics argued that there were better uses of governmental funds than these “explicit” photos. On the other side of the debate were those who argued that the photographs held aesthetic significance. Janet Kardon, for example, analyzed the photographs in terms of their artistic aspects rather than their subject matter, focusing on the images’ “sensitive lighting, texture, and composition” (Steiner, 9). This analytical view of the art removed much of the emotion by which the opposition was fueling the fire. By examining the art in terms of its formal components, Kardon managed to make the photographs seem more legitimate as pieces of artwork, rather than pornography.

In The Scandal of Pleasure, Steiner recalls an instance when one of her students objected to one of the films she presented on the basis that it promoted drug use. She goes on to explain the positions of both the student and school faculty by saying, “The student believes in the power of art to control behavior; the professor, chairman, and dean believe in the power of art to describe the world and in the responsibility of teachers to inform students about such representations, and hence about that world” (3). These two distinct attitudes represent, on a larger scale, the two conflicting arguments in the debate of art censorship and decency. On the one side, there are the people who argue, as the student did, that art can influence behavior. The foundation of their argument is that, by seeing what they consider “immoral” themes depicted in artwork, society begins to view these themes as commonplace, and even acceptable. As actions spring from thoughts, their theory is that immoral pieces of art lead to immoral thoughts and values, which, in turn, lead to immoral behavior. This reasoning reminds me of the theory behind clothing ads. Consider an ad for a particularly hideous leopard print belt. Upon first seeing the ad, you might think “Who in the world would wear that?” However, the more ads you see, the more you get used to that leopard print belt. You begin to imagine that the leopard print belt is a very fashionable style. The more you think about the belt, the more you convince yourself of its merits until you eventually go out and buy the now-very-trendy leopard print belt. While the belt example may seem somewhat trivial, art, on the other hand, has the ability to potentially influence much more integral aspects of life. Philosopher Arthur Danto refers to this phenomenon when he mentions that, “It is healthy for art to vacate the position of pure aestheticism in which conservative critics seek to imprison it, and try to affect the way viewers respond to the most meaningful matters of their lives” (36). With the Mapplethorpe art in particular, the main concern was that, by allowing what some termed “pornography” to become more common, society would lose track of traditional family values and, as a result, there might be an increase in battery, rape, and/or general unrest. Richard Nixon expresses these sentiments when he explains that, “if an attitude of permissiveness were to be adopted regarding pornography, this would contribute to an atmosphere condoning anarchy in every other field- and that would increase the threat to our social order” (Steiner, 39). This theory is easy enough to understand, but is it accurate? Nixon and others who use this logic rely on the assumption that pornography and, really, any “inappropriate” images do, in fact, have a negative effect on the viewer. This point is where the other side of the debate disagrees. They argue that there is no proof that viewing images such as those by Mapplethorpe has any adverse effects whatsoever. For their evidence, they cite numerous studies that deny the existence of a link between what a person views and how a person acts. For example, one study concluded that there was “no correlation between lewd representations and lewd acts” (Steiner, 39). While this side is by no means asserting that art doesn’t affect behavior, what they are saying is that “obscene” images are not necessarily detrimental to society. The critic Peter Schjeldahl commented that pieces of art such as Mapplethorpe’s should be appreciated, “as not only a refined pleasure but also an oracle of worldly change” (Steiner, 57). Clearly, Schjeldahl recognized that art does hold the power to influence. Yet he believed this influence to broaden the viewer’s horizons rather than corrupt them. This theory of art places more responsibility on the viewer and the viewer’s individual willpower. While the supporters acknowledge that art can influence people’s thinking, and perhaps they even encourage this influence, they hold the viewers themselves accountable for their own actions. In fact, some art intellectuals feel that society has often used art as a sort of “scape goat” to take the blame for society’s problems. As Steiner put it, some people may be “punishing art for real problems that they are unwilling to address” (7).

Steiner claims that one of the most important purposes of art is to “sharpen and complicate our views, providing alternatives to simplistic ideas and revealing the inadequacy of unquestioned orthodoxies” (5). I agree; the primary purpose of art is representation. Art represents the world as we know it and the world we have never known. It represents what life is now and what it could one day be. Art forces the viewer to see things in a different light and from a different point of view. However, this is where art stops. It doesn’t attempt to convince the viewer to believe in certain ideals or values. It does not try to change or lower a person’s morals. Therefore, if the purpose of the art is not to advocate something, then the act of making the art cannot be considered advocacy on the artist’s part. Besides, advocacy is simply too difficult to define and distinguish to be considered a major factor in the creation of art. For any particular theme presented in art, one person could argue it is being advocated by the art while another could just as easily argue that it is simply being represented. As the Supreme Court ruled, “…what is one man’s amusement is another man’s doctrine” (36). In my opinion, the vagueness associated with determining whether or not a piece of art is advocating a theme or idea eliminates advocacy as a reasonable assumption when viewing art. Because there is generally no way to determine for certain whether a piece of art advocates a certain idea, it is important to stick with viewing art as a representation. Otherwise, there is the possibility of drawing very inaccurate conclusions from the art.

Bloom once said, “The interpreter’s creative activity is more important than the text; there is no text, only interpretation” (Steiner, 6). Thus we are launched into the debate of words verses pictures. How many times have you heard the phrase “the image was burned into my brain”? Ignoring the obvious physiological impossibilities of this statement, it does bring to mind an interesting point: the power of the visual. Images gain their power from the effect they have on the brain. When reading text, the reader is first required to view the text, then interpret it, and finally create a mental picture of what the text is “saying.” However, the visual cuts out this intermediate step and instead forces the viewer to see the image as the artist intended it, rather than how the viewer’s own experiences and personality mold the image in his or her mind. Simply describing a Mapplethorpe work to someone would almost certainly not have the same effect as forcing him or her to view it. Most likely, no matter how detailed the description, the viewer could not, or would not, imagine the photo as graphically as Mapplethorpe had pictured it. Our brains create mental pictures from text based on images we have already seen. However, if we have never seen the images being described, or anything like them, the images our brains generate from text are not nearly so powerful as those we can actually see.

Art is, in many ways, similar to religion. People develop different views about what is “right” and what is “wrong” and, because the debates are about morals, the arguments become heated. The key to surviving these battles is to be accepting; to stand behind your beliefs, but allow others to have theirs as well. Just as people have the option of going to a particular church and reading a particular bible, people should have the choice to visit museums and view art that they find thought-provoking or enlightening. No one tells Jewish people they have to go to Catholic mass, just as no one tells people who are offended by certain types of art that they have to view it. One article discussing the censorship of the Mapplethorpe exhibit asserted that, “Creativity and the human spirit require exploration and risk, as does life” (Brookman, 38). As faith forces people to step out of their comfort zone, creativity requires its own “leap of faith.” Without creativity, life would be colorless and dull. So, while some art may be hideous and vulgar, it is still worth being seen, or at least having the opportunity to be seen.