Christopher Post 7

Christopher McCauley

One of Steiner’s main points is that art influences behavior, therefore art should be censored, or at least those who believe art influences behavior think that such art should be censored. Mapplethorpe’s The Perfect Moment, is a perfect example of this kind of thought process.

In 1989, the exhibition, which was supposed to be shown at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington DC, was cancelled because the subject matter was very explicit in including depictions of homoerotic acts and poses. The gallery believed the artwork would lead to too much controversy. In trying to avoid the possibility of a controversy, however, an even bigger one arose. The country was then made even more aware of the art (which was publicly funded) because of the controversy of the cancellation, and issues of censorship, AIDS, and homosexuality were brought about. Grace Glueck, an art critic for The New York Times posed an interesting question—“Should [public funds and] support include the right to sanitize art?”

“…America has propelled art into the realm of politics, where the virtuality of art, its symbolic reality, its subtle contradictories are simplified into a literalism that confounds practitioners, experts, and laypeople alike.” (Steiner, 10). When art is shoved into politics like it was in Mapplethorpe’s case, the question of “sanitizing” art is very relevant. At the time, the US government, mainly republican Senators, was severely outraged by Mapplethorpe’s photography. There was a claim that the photography had no “artistic value” (Steiner, 9), however counter claims showed that there was in fact beautiful symmetry, “strong and opposing diagonals,” and extreme centrality. I think the issue of free expression and the first amendment come into play here. Perhaps there is no answer to this question, but is freedom of expression though art protected under the first amendment (which guarantees free religion, assembly, press, petition, and speech)? I believe that this is up for interpretation, and can not be answered until a concise decision is made and added to the amendment (an addendum to an addendum, perhaps?). And, is it okay for public money to be used to fund creation of such art? Yes, I think that if an artist applies for an NEA grant, and the committee reviews his plan and agrees to fund it, it should be so (as was the case in Mapplethorpe’s work).

Advocacy is also, I believe, equated with making something visual. Robert Mapplethorpe was gay; his depictions of gay men showed that he advocated the lifestyle, and sexual acts between them. One of Mapplethorpe’s less graphic photographs, entitled Ken Moody and Robert Sherman, 1984, (image in original context) depicts two men, one black and one white, embracing, one in front of the other, as though they are in a relationship. Many of Mapplethorpe’s photographs involved interracial couples. These images are depicted so positively, especially in a world where a homosexual interracial relationship is so looked down, or frowned upon. As someone who was involved in such a relationship for quite a long time, This image speaks very positively to me, and makes me feel good about myself, and about the relationship in which I was invested because of the advocacy and positive nature this photograph emanates.

I think that a visual image would stimulate a much better response or reaction than a textual one, because of how obvious, blunt, or accurate a depiction might be. Take the image used above as an example. I could describe this picture as a white man sitting behind a black man, embracing him. That sounds like a nice picture, yes? However, when I show you the picture, you can actually see the minute details, the coloring, the lighting, and you can form your own thoughts and opinions based on the image, rather than based on inference of what the image may or may not look like.