etibbetts post 7

Erica Tibbetts
The biggest complaints people had about Mapplethorpe’s retrospective was that federal text dollars (contributed by the American Public) was going to pay for art that offended this very same public. First of all, the public that went to see this exhibition was not “forced to suspend all conventional sensibilities to affirm this individualism- under the guise of artistic license- that debases universally accepted moral standards” as Leila Little claims. No one was “forced” to see this exhibit; anyone who entered it did so of their own volition. The public was interested in what there was to see. As Brockman points out, “In twenty-five days almost fifty thousand people came to see Mapplethorpe’s work for themselves…Fewer than two dozen complaints were received from across the country.” (Brockman) According to this statistic, about a tenth of a percent of viewers were offended by what they had seen. This sort of percentage is negligible and everyone who saw the exhibit was warned.

Lipman claims that, “In the case of the disputed Mapplethorpe pictures, [art] consists of the attempt to force upon the public the acceptance of the values of a sexual sub-culture that the public at large finds loathsome. We are being asked to accept the unacceptable in the name of art.” (Lipman) Again, there is this claim that Mapplethorpe’s’ art is being forced upon people, as if these people have no choice but to walk into the nearest museum, walk up the Mapplethorpe exhibit, and then seek out Portfolio X. Also, defining Mapplethorpe’s images as representative of a “sexual sub culture” means that Lipman thinks he can speak for everyone, for every American. And this is something he definitely cannot do. We are not being asked to accept the unacceptable, we are being asked to question our beliefs, we are being challenged, our horizons are being broadened. AS brockman says, censored “art will offend no one and challenge and inspire no one. Creativity and human spirit require exploration and risk, as does life.” (Brockman)

The section of the exhibit that was offensive was marked, and viewers were told that the material might be offensive. So, censoring this work does not protect a vulnerable public. Those members of this public that would be vulnerable to the material were not coerced in any way to see the works. And, while it could be argued that they have every right to see it, and should be provided with something that anyone could enjoy, even this argument is faulty. Many things are funded with tax money that not everyone can enjoy: money goes to military endeavors, money goes for public works that not everyone will use, money is allotted to different sectors of the society that certain others do not need to take advantage of, or want to take advantage of. Not all money is allotted equally, so not everyone should expect to benefit from every public work. So, the first point in this argument is that no one had to see this art work. Even, if art could be blamed for causing behavior (which I don’t think it does) only those seeking to have the behavior caused in themselves need see the exhibit.

The next problem, the problem of whether art can cause behavior is a little harder to decide. However, it seems hard to single art out as a causing factor of any sort of debased or immoral behavior, and it also is hard, if not impossible, to objectively define what is “debased or immoral behavior”. How can a critic claim that art causes debased behavior if there is no real definition of what this behavior is. To Mapplethorpe, the behavior he is depicting is not revolting, disturbing, or debased. These actions are a way of life for him.

So, looking beyond the idea of whether or not the behavior that is (or is not) being caused by art, one must look at how people react to this art, the type of people who look at this art, and what kind of power any text or image has to influence behavior.

The people who claimed that Mapplethorpe’s art was subversive belonged to a group that thought his art was being viewed by pedophiles and sexual deviants. They thought that Mapplethorpe was not only condoning such behavior, but that he was advocating it. His pictures of “Honey”, the young girl captured by photograph with her vagina showing, caused massive uproar. As Steiner points out, “Photography interrogates the very act of viewing, making the viewer self-conscious, drawing the photographer’s role as viewer into the dynamics of the work, and questioning the subject’s role as victim or accomplice in viewing.” (Steiner 43). Somehow photographs place more responsibility upon the viewer than other art forms, because of the formal issues, the acute reality, and the ability to capture every detail. People are able to relate to the subject matter, can place themselves within the scene, and are more affected by photographs than by any other medium. This ability of photographs to draw people in and to make people “feel” they are involved with the action makes it an original and peculiar form. This doesn’t mean that photography can inspire behavior, it just means that photography has the ability to affect people viscerally. If it were indeed true that people looking at a Mapplethorpe photograph were more tempted to sexually abuse children, then this might be a problem. However, I doubt that anyone who looks at Mapplethorpe’s pictures would be incited to violence or sexual crimes. Steiner puts this idea as follows, “Thoughts alone do not figure in a real world of injury, culpability and punishment, in which gay photographers are not automatically child molesters.” (Steiner 49) He means that the ideas and images conveyed in photographs are not reality, and they cannot be construed as such. Especially in Mapplethorpe’s tightly constructed, minutely manipulated shots, the image captured is not “real”. Also, Steiner is saying that just because the audience knows the photographer’s sexual orientation, political beliefs or ideologies, that does not necessarily mean that the photographer is trying to force his or her views upon the audience. Nor does this part of the artist’s identity say anything about him or her as a person. Although this detachment of identity from art does not allow for the kind of personal responsibility espoused by the likes of Susan Sontag, it does allow for art to be art, and for images to be appreciated for their aesthetic value.

I think that photographs don’t have the persuasive elements of text, because they are not literal in the same way that written language is. In a way, photographs say more and less than text. Images leave nothing to the imagination (as far as the particular moment the photograph is taken goes). When language is written, no matter how descriptive the diction and style, the reader is still allowed some creative license in creating the image and experience in his or her mind. When images are involved, there is no need for the viewer to extend his or her creative power. But, at the same time, written language leaves for less interpretation. Written language can extol views, it can incite, it can charge, it can raise passion, and it can do so directly, unambiguously, and without the artistic subtleties of art. While there is not much subtlety to Mapplethorpe’s work, it does not judge, it does not say what is right or wrong, it merely presents an image, a moment, a certain sense of beauty. So, in this way art is almost more dangerous, because it doesn’t really explicitly say anything. It can be interpreted in different ways so any viewer can get a different idea of the message and can create his or her own response. “What is said in art- like what is said of it- is ambiguous, needs construal, and is interpreted according to the interests of the interpreter.” (37 Steiner)

One of the arguments for the idea that photography creates behavior is that photographs usually act as advertisements. As Steiner says, “the normal function of photography in the “real world” is to promote products.” (42 Steiner). Thus, when people see images, they see them as promotions of ideals or physical/material aspects of life. And, in this sense, they are trying to convince the audience of something. This could be seen as a subversive element, but only because our society is bombarded by advertisements and commercials.

In the end, images are only what the viewer makes of them. They can be subversive if the viewer wants to see them as such. They can be inciting, debased, enraging, if that is how the viewer chooses to see them. But they do not need to be any of these things, because in the end, images are ambiguous and merely glimpses into the mind of the artist.