Amanda D. Post # 7

Those who oppose the artwork of Mapplethorpe and controversial pieces by other artists all seem to feel that art can and will influence the behavior of the people, apparently because of the ever-increasing dependence on and attention paid to visual representations, figures, or images instead of the textual. In the cases of Mapplethorpe’s photographs, particularly those depicting what some may call child pornography, conservatives began to feel that their values and morals, and those of the rest of the “conservative” public, were being threatened, and that the “good” and patriotic American culture was faltering. Their fear is that the viewing public will be affected enough by these works that their behavior will change for the worse, breeding immorality and the loss of “American values.” The idea that people’s behavior can be influenced by artwork or images simply gave the conservative officials the excuse to promote and defend their own beliefs, establishing “themselves as defenders of the American Way” (Steiner 31), especially since the only factual evidence found by the Meese Commission and the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was that there is no “firm connection between pornography and antisocial conduct” (Steiner 38). This would lead to the conclusion, then, that “there is no predictable correlation between any image and any act” (Steiner 39). However, the controversy was so widespread and heated that the NEA was made to include an “anti-obscenity clause” requiring “grantees to sign a pledge not to produce obscene art” with their funds (Steiner 29), preventing the NEA from properly doing its duty to the arts by restricting the aid it can grant to artists and performers solely on the basis of one group’s definition of “obscene” and its application in art.

As the debate rolled on, the idea seemed to surface within the opposition that Mapplethorpe’s work somehow promoted homosexuality and by visually representing it, advocated the lifestyle to the viewers. It is rather difficult, though, to make the accusation that visualizing something such as homosexuality in art is the same as encouraging it. As Steiner says, a work does not “speak for itself,” but rather the meaning is conceived in the mind of the viewer (Steiner 33). Visual images and art are therefore given interpretation by the “beholder” based on individual influence (Steiner 33). Thus, a work itself is not capable of influencing the behavior of an individual: the individual brings his or her own judgment and interpretation and acts accordingly. The problem, though, stems from the increasingly fine line between images for art and images for commercial and marketing purposes. It is all too easy to assume that any image has a hidden meaning and tries to propagate an ideology or sell some sort of product (or, perhaps, lifestyle, in the case of Mapplethorpe’s images). However, Steiner points out that art is not merely “pure form,” but that it is not completely devoid of a message or idea. It would seem that, in many cases, art will consider an idea or pose a question for the viewer, but that hardly means that it advocates one answer or another. It is entirely possible to introduce a concept for thought and questioning without promoting or supporting a singular (or any, for that matter) conclusion. As Steiner implies, one cannot try to suppress art because it “conveys ideas” that people may take too far within their own interpretations as that would also mean that the Bible “should have been suppressed…since it is ‘responsible’ for immeasurable violence and suffering” (Steiner 37).

However, it is not difficult to see how images can threaten the ideologies and beliefs of certain groups on the public scale. Images and other visual media are considerably easier to comprehend than text, as they utilize less thought on the part of the “average” viewer, especially critical thought and analysis. Also, images are widely distributed and require far less imagination than a text would, and so more people are likely to refer to an image over a document. This would put more power to the image and whatever idea it may contain. Furthermore, there is more room when viewing an image for making one’s own interpretation or bending the image to support a specific position, whether it was intended to or not. This allows for anyone to create its connotation because nothing is literally written out to explain the visual. The visual image captures “a fragment of a larger world,” and is easier to take for reality than words on a page (Steiner 40). This reflection of the familiar world would make it considerably more real for the viewer than a book or article could possibly be.