Brynne Piotrowski
The idea that art influences behavior and acts as a means of advocacy played a significant role in the debates on Mapplethorpe and NEA funding in the late 1980s. Art indicating advocacy provided the stimulus for the fear of art influencing behavior to develop. Senators Jesse Helms and Dick Armey were concerned that the art of Mapplethorpe might influence the behavior of its viewers by deadening their senses to such controversial issues and lowering their moral guards. Pat Buchanan voiced his worries that, “‘…American art and culture are, more and more, openly anti-Christian, anti-American, nihilistic’” (Steiner 16). Buchanan viewed representation as indicative of advocacy—if the artist was willing to portray a subject, he or she must be willing to voice an opinion on the subject. (An important side note is that the opinion might be for or against—i.e. many pro-life groups use pictures from abortions in their arguments. They are certainly not advocating abortion; rather, the images serve to advocate against the act.)
The apprehension felt by the aforementioned men and others, such as the American Family Association, had a particular acuteness due to the public funding accorded Mapplethorpe’s The Perfect Moment retrospective exhibition. According to Steiner’s work, Armey “sent a complaint to the NEA for using federal money to support indecent art [and] threatened to attack the NEA budget of $170 million if it did not act against art that failed to ‘pay respect to public standards of taste and decency.’” As Philip Brookman points out in his Preface, “These artists [Andres Serrano, Mapplethorpe, et. al.], who had received NEA funding, directly or indirectly, had struck a raw nerve in Congress and in some segments of the public: federal money, it was thought, should not support the creation and exhibition of ideas that questioned the status quo.” There is validity to the argument that free speech (and thereby expression) is protected by the First Amendment, but public funding of it is not necessarily provided the same safeguard. However, as Steiner argues, “the First Amendment has never been held to disappear just because the taxpayers are paying the tab,” and a 1983 Supreme Court decision stands in this argument’s defense (Steiner 30). Overall, in the debates over Mapplethorpe and NEA funding it is evident that concern over art influencing behavior by serving as an advocate was a prominent issue in the heated discourse.
Visual art can, but does not automatically nor of necessity, equal advocacy. Sometimes art promotes what it represents, sometimes it advocates against its subject matter, and sometimes it is wholly neutral. There is not a hard and fast rule on this issue; it must be examined individually for each work one takes into consideration.
In his 1989 essay for the New York Times Samuel Lipman mockingly mentioned the philosophy of aesthetics in his explanation that “There are certainly those who will claim that the Mapplethorpe photographs are art, and therefore to be criticized, if at all, solely on aesthetic, never on moral, grounds” (Brookman 41). Despite its condescending tone within its context, this statement conveys the basic tenets of an argument that art cannot equal advocacy because it is a purely aesthetic field. However, artists often discuss their intentions, positions, and meanings behind a work. Furthering a rebuttal to the idea of art as purely aesthetic and without the potential for advocacy is Judith Reisman’s observance that, “artists have not infrequently been propagandists” (Brookman 58). Juxtaposing Lipman’s and Reisman’s statements evinces the ambiguity of an answer to the possibility of art as advocacy. Visual art can indeed serve as an advocate (both for or against its representational subject), but it neither a necessity nor an inherent quality that it act in such a capacity.
The visual has a profoundly different effect on the spectator than the textual. It appeals to a distinct human sense and offers an immediacy to the viewer that will not be conveyed if a work is presented in textual form. The visual presents the subject all at once while textual presentation, by its nature, provides a more gradual introduction to the topic. As a result of this innate difference, the visual is given the upper hand in the possibility to provide “shock value.” A very poignant example would be the written description of Mapplethorpe’s self-portrait in Steiner’s book (9) versus the actual photographic image (45). The effect on the spectator is more immediate, profound, and overall very different when the means of conveyance are visual rather of the textual.
In conclusion, Steiner is correct in recognizing the correlation between the notion of art influencing behavior and the debate over Mapplethorpe and NEA funding. Visual work does not necessarily imply advocacy, but then again it is not precluded from acting in this capacity. This ambiguity was another contributing factor to the culture wars in the 1980s and 1990s over government funding of controversial works. The visual has a decidedly distinct effect on the spectator than the textual. Arguments over Mapplethorpe and other provocative artists were, and still remain, very contentious areas that will likely continue to elicit much heated debate in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As Brynne states, it is the question of art’s ability (or lack of ability) to influence the viewing public that makes up the most common argument against or for unconventional, controversial art. Many groups, an overwhelming number of them conservative, feel that their morals and values and, more importantly, the highly regarded place in society that those values occupy, come under attack when artwork like Mapplethorpe’s or Serrano’s are shown in public galleries. Therefore, such groups, like the American Family Association or various senators and Christian organizations, try to push their ideas of morality onto the pieces and, by association, the viewing public, usually under the argument that the works will influence the audience in a negative way and thus contribute to a decaying of “American” values and culture. This would mean, as Brynne seems to suggest, that the way to address this is to consider whether or not art advocates a certain ideology or opinion, because only if it does promote something can it be accused of influencing anyone’s behavior or thoughts. However, as she also concludes, visual works do not “necessarily imply advocacy” as no direct correlation has been made between an image and a behavior, and so it would be very difficult to support the claim that art or images influence anyone through advocating an idea.
Finally, I also agree with Brynne’s thoughts on the power of visual images over an audience versus a text. The visual is much more suited to instantaneous “shock value” and the production towards the viewer of an “immediate, profound” effect; images are much stronger than words in this new, image-oriented society.
Post a Comment