Ashley C. Post 7

Ashley Cannaday

Robert Mapplethorpe’s artwork had been in shows and museums for over a decade before it actually caused controversy. His photographs of flowers, figure studies, self portraits, portraits of celebrities, and homoerotic works were well known in 1987, when the Philadelphia ICA put on a retrospective show of Mapplethorpe’s art. In this show, which toured not only the United states but also the world, all 175 pieces of Mapplethorpe’s collective works were on display, including the more controversial X, Y, and Z portfolios. The Mapplethorpe exhibit happened to coincide, more or less, with Andres Serrano’s creation of Piss Christ, which depicted a plastic crucifix submerged in urine. As a result, both artists came under attack by the government, and a review of NEA funding was held. Seven of Mapplethorpe’s photographs were charged with obscenity and put on trial in 1990, and the director of the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, Ohio was indicted on charges of “pandering obscenity and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material” (Steiner, Pg. 32). However, there was not a conviction because the jury decided that Mapplethorpe’s photographs had artistic value, and therefore were not classified as obscenity.

One of the major debates regarding Mapplethorpe’s work is whether it has a right to receive government funding through the NEA. Many believed that the NEA was wrong to fund and support this art that they considered obscene. Senator Jesse Helms proposed an amendment to bar the Philadelphia ICA and SECCA from receiving federal grants for five years and to prohibit the NEA from funding obscene art, which he described as “depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts.” Also to be excluded from funding was “material which denigrates the objects or beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion or non-religion; or material which denigrates, debases, or reviles a person, group or class or citizens on the basis of race, creed, sex, handicap, age or national origin” (Steiner, Pg. 22). Most conservatives took a stance condemning the NEA, saying that it was unfair that the American taxpayers’ hard earned money was going towards the creation of art that they found disgusting and degrading. Liberals argued that to restrict government funding of art was essentially a form of censorship, and challenged artistic freedom under the First Amendment. This censorship would go against the liberty and freedom of expression of America, making us no better than a totalitarian regime. Helms’s amendment was not passed.

The critics who would have Mapplethorpe’s work censored largely believe in the idea that art influences behavior. If the public views these homoerotic, sadomasochistic photographs, then they will be corrupted and perverse. Consequently, America as a nation will become corrupt and decline. They argue that the NEA should not use government money to fund artwork that depicts perversion because it will lead to perversion. They see the American people as easily persuaded. Indeed, the average citizen commonly comes in contact with art and images in the form of advertisements that are trying to convince you to do or buy something. Most advertisements are trying to tell you what to do, and many are successful. With most Americans in the mindset that images are advertisements, it is to be expected that they would use this same mindset when viewing Mapplethorpe’s artwork. Also, many viewers may believe that because these photographs are in museums, which can be thought of as elite and high-class, and out in the open for everyone to see, the practices depicted in them are acceptable in society and promoted. However, many supporters of Mapplethorpe’s art and the NEA claim that, for the most part, art does not influence behavior. Just because a viewer looks at these perverse acts does not mean that they will take up the practice of them. In most instances, art will not lead to influencing the public to perform the acts depicted, but it could lead the public to think about their feelings on the subject. Art, therefore, does not influence behavior, but influences thought. In two studies on the effect that pornography has on behavior, no link could be established between pornography and antisocial conduct. In fact, there is evidence that exposure to pornography can actually lead to a healthy sex life. There is no evidence that pornography leads to violence against women (Steiner, Pg. 38). By censoring the NEA funding and art, the government censoring thought. They are attempting to control how the public thinks.

What is more disturbing about this issue is even though it appears to line up by political affiliation, with Conservatives championing the people and protecting them from the bad art and artists, and Liberal protecting the people from the jack booted thugs who want to control them mind and body, both sides seem to miss the boat. As a member of the “laity” I don’t need or want anyone telling me what is good for me, or how I should think or act. Automatically, many will protest that it is only Conservatives who are guilty of this, however the Liberal factions engage in the same practices. They believe their propaganda is justified as they have only the best of intentions as we common folk need their guidance. Where do we draw the line? Do we agree with those who would say it is too graphic or obscene for you or with those who say we know best what is art and we say this is so you should expand your horizons. I don’t agree with censorship in any form, but I also find elitism as egregious. The point can certainly be made that tax money should not fund obscene art, just as the opposite point can be made that Uncle Sam should stay out of the studio.

I think it is naïve to believe art should only be wholesome and represent mom, the flag, and apple pie, however I also believe it is just as naïve to believe that there should be no boundaries. Defining obscenity is akin to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We all see the rainbow and it appears as if we know where it ends, but we never seem to get there. As there are community standards this seems to be a place to start, however please don’t protect me, I can do a great job of that myself. If you are hell bent on protecting me, catch a terrorist. On the other side of the coin please don’t try to convince me that something is great. I don’t need some academia trying to convince me of how amazing a photograph is of a man with a bullwhip in his rectum. For me that is repulsive, not art, and therein lies the beauty. I get to decide what I believe is art, and I get to choose what I will support and what I won’t. Please don’t try to cover my eyes and don’t talk down to me when I don’t agree with your interpretation.

Personally, I do not believe that by visualizing something as a form of artwork, one advocates it. As Steiner states, “aesthetic representation is a crucial stage in our understanding of such phenomena as sadomasochism or homoeroticism, and… these phenomena require our understanding.” Rather, art promotes thought about the subject, “providing alternatives to simplistic ideas and revealing the inadequacy of unquestioned orthodoxies” (Steiner, Pg. 5).
While I find Steiner’s ideas on this subject condescending and somewhat elitist, I agree that representation does not automatically equate advocacy. The artist does not have to be passionate about a cause in order to create art. There is such a thing as art for art’s sake. While creating visual art may not automatically mean you advocate that which is portrayed, so what if it does? Once again, I don’t need anyone to tell me what to believe, just as I don’t need to tell anyone what they should believe in. If you advocate allowing pigs a vote in the national election and your image is that of a swine in a voting booth, so be it. I may just like pictures of pigs and may really think yours is an invaluable addition to my porcine collection. I am more concerned with my interpretation, not the artists’. I also believe that in certain situations art can have exactly the opposite effect of advocacy. Rather than advocacy, it could denounce the subject it depicts. This can be seen in Kruger’s feminist art. In here photograph They Blind Your Eyes, she is not advocating the male gaze. Rather, she is trying to make the viewer understand the issue. She is denouncing the subject.

Usually, the visual and textual act differently on the viewer. Text that describes a painting or artwork could be very detailed, but ultimately much is left up to the spectator’s imagination. When we read a novel, for example, we create the image of what the characters and the world they live in look like in our head, based on the descriptions provided by the author. However, I know that many times one of my favorite books have been made into a film, and while the actors match the descriptions of the characters in the book, they do not match the character I have created in my head. With looking at a visual image, what you see is what you get. You cannot picture it differently, because it is right there before you.

In some instances, however, it is not the actual image that causes controversy, but rather the text attached to that image. This can best be seen in the case of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, which depicted a plastic crucifix submerged in urine. When the image is viewed without the knowledge of its title, it comes off as an amazing piece of artwork. As the New York Times described, it shows “Jesus on the cross in a golden haze through a smattering of minute bubbles against a dark, blood-colored background.” The work takes on a monumental appearance, and comes off as reverential. The viewer would initially see the photograph as stunning and pro-Christian. However, once the title of the artwork is read, it is interpreted differently. With the title, Piss Christ, in mind, the viewer now sees the art as blasphemy. The spectator is not interpreting the visual art anymore, but rather is text. Your view of the meaning of Piss Christ depends on your interpretation of the title. Indeed, this is the case for many abstract pieces of art. Most of the time, the only way you can derive any meaning from abstract art is through the interpretation of its title.

The bottom line is art provokes thought in some instances and in some it does not. If I don’t like your art, I won’t support it. If I want enlightenment, I will seek out the so-called experts to fill my mind, if not, I will stick to artists I know are safe and are like minded to my way of thinking.