Amy I post 7

Amy Iarrobino

Post 7

As with all of the political and gender views that have been studied, the Mapplethorpe case acknowledged the influence and power of art on the public. For example, Plato warned of its power, the Nazis and Soviets used art for propaganda and restricted dissension and feminists feared the perpetuation of the male gaze through art. Thus, throughout history groups and leaders have come to realize the power of art and its influence on behavior. In the case of Mapplethorpe’s work and NEA funding, arguments from Congress against the display of the work were based on the influence of art on behavior. For example, because government control of the content of art meant government control of the public and restriction of personal freedom, the “NEA charter forbids any interference in the content of the art it help funds” (Steiner, 13). From the beginning of the NEA, leaders have been aware of arts’ influence as demonstrated by their concern for too much government influence. The case of Mapplethorpe was set in the time following Serrano’s Piss Christ which set the stage for greater intolerance of controversial art. The argument was brought up that “Millions of tax payers are rightfully incensed that their hard-earned dollars were used to honor and support Serrano’s work” (Steiner, 13). In the same way, Mapplethorpe was funded by the NEA which drew from taxpayers’ funds. Those against Mapplethorpe’s art interpreted that honoring and supporting Serrano’s work meant promoting the ideas portrayed, thus increasing such behavior. The congressman appealed to the idea of art’s influence to make it seem that tax payers were indirectly encouraging Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic and sometimes pornographic behavior. In a way, perhaps the portrayal of the “pornographic/obscene” art indeed had an influence on behavior, although not the negative result expected. “Evidence actually suggests that exposure to pornography and a healthy sex life are connected” (Steiner, 38). Thus, the influence of images may not be detrimental but surprisingly positive.

On the other hand, the validity of the argument used by those who would censor art may be brought into question. They draw their premise of art’s influence from the idea of a prima facie which does not exist (Steiner, 33).The argument follows that because art has a universal meaning, this meaning causes a specific negative behavior in the viewers. However, by the conclusion of the Mapplethorpe case it became evident that “artistic meaning, like all meaning, is a matter of interpretation” (Steiner, 33). Thus, since a singular meaning cannot be derived upon viewing a work of art a direct causal relation to a specific behavior cannot be validly established. Rather, multiple interpretations of art lead to such a variety of behaviors that art’s influence is difficult to factor in resulting in merely a correlational study. As with psychological experiments, correlational studies are less conclusive than causal relationships and can not establish causation. Also, based on the guidelines of philosophical argumentation, since the first premise of the prima facie is false the argument that results is invalid.

Making something visual equals advocacy. Unlike the aesthetician Benedetto Croce’s view, art’s function is to portray ideas, not merely beauty (Steiner, 13). When art is produced it is necessary for the artist to give it thought, planning and emotion. Thus, art springs from ideas. As learned from the reading about feminist art, there is no neutral view. Therefore the idea must advocate some position; the art would then reflect that position to the artist. Susan Sontag agrees that visualization is advocacy in “On Photography” in which she states, “Like sexual voycurism, [photography] is a way of at least tacitly, often explicitly, encouraging whatever is going on to keep on happening” (Brookman, 57). Reisman then states that Sontag “implies that unless one protests such photos, one is an accessory” or supporter of the event portrayed (Brookman, 57).

Unlike Sontag’s view, although visualization in the form of photos or art is advocacy of an idea, the failure to protest is not necessarily advocacy. Based on the idea of personal freedom, the artist should be allowed to express and advocate his or her opinion. The artist’s work should not be protested as everyone’s view should be allowed to be expressed. Part of the privilege of having freedom of expression in this nation is the ability to respect differing opinions. The question is rather how overtly the artist should display his or her point of view in the art. Artists may be considered the “gadfly of the state” as Socrates would phrase, in which their purpose is to question and prod issues in an effort for change. Thus, by definition if a work is meant to stimulate change, it must be controversial enough to stimulate reactions among the public. Once the artist’s point is made and change results, perhaps the work will no longer be seen as controversial and “disgusting” as Mapplethorpe’s work was.

The visual act differs from the textual in its distribution, descriptiveness and versatility. For example, “annual visits to American museums [were] rising… and attendance at cultural events exceeded that for live sports” during the time of the Mapplethorpe controversy. Thus, Americans are more exposed to visual images in museums, cultural events and the television than to textual portrayals. The visual images are more ubiquitous among the public and with additional exposure the act receives more attention. In addition, the cliché that “a picture is worth a thousand words” holds true with art. The visual act contains more details than the textual act and would provide the spectator with more information than a comparable amount of text would. Also, textual acts are subject to translation between languages but visual portrayals transcend language barriers. Visual images also offer far more room for interpretation by the viewer. Thus, one image could evoke a different idea or emotion in each viewer. On the same note, this versatility may even leave too much room for the spectator to possibly misinterpret the artist’s meaning which in some cases may make textual portrayals more precise.