Fatema, post 7

Fatema Kermalli

The idea that art influences behavior may have helped to shape and harden the conservative’s stance against the work of Mapplethorpe, and subsequently, NEA’s funding of it. As Steiner notes, the issue for the right was “the use of taxpayer’s money to fund art that the average citizen would find personally offensive and destructive of community values” (29). The fact that community values played a large role in the culture war that ensued can be seen through the type of legislation that they attempted to pass (the Helms amendment) in order to stop the funding and/or viewing of such works. One prime example of this was homosexuality and AIDS, a tabooed subject at the time. “Beyond totalitarianism, the left charged politicians such as Jesse Helms with prejudice against homosexuals and every kind of deviance from stereotyped American morality” (31). The fact that this topic, which was not spoken of in other circles, was also fought against in the art world proves that a connection was maintained by at least some parties between (advocacy of) the actual action and the depiction of it.

With the debate over NEA funding, this link is noticeable in the types of images that were to be prohibited from public funding: “Proscribed were ‘works depicting sadomasochism, homoeroticism, sexual exploitation of children or individuals engaged in sex acts’”… in short, the depiction of things thought to be degrading to society’s values (24). For those who did not consider the images to be influencing such behavior, these prohibitions would appear to be unnecessary and contradictory to American freedoms. Those that did relate the two, however, could only view such action as necessary in order to slow the spread of “evil”.

Belief in the ability of art to influence behavior had a great effect on the way in which the prosecution presented their case in the Cincinnati trial as well. Because of their deeply held views that the images themselves advocated performance of the action depicted, they assumed that the jurors would have the same feelings. It was assumed that as soon as the jurors were shown the images, they would equate them with the actual actions, which they knew to be wrong, and thus immediately judge the images based upon that moral knowledge.

Instead, the jurors were presented with a different way of viewing the pieces by the defense, which provided a “vast web of aesthetic interpretation” (33). This interpretation did not equate the content of the works with real life behavior (for there would have been no way to condone that). Instead, they separated the works from this realm totally, focusing instead on their formal aspects, and “proving” that they were indeed serious art. It was this disparity in thought that provided a basis for much of the argument on either side of the case.

The idea that art has power is long-standing and goes back all the way to the time of Plato. This knowledge retained by the artist regarding the power of his or her images to move people equates to an advocacy on the part of the artist concerning whatever visual he or she creates. The intention here is one of, if not the most important aspect of the work of art. Where an obscenity is shown (i.e. even obscenity which has “serious” value artistically), there can be no excuse for the artist due to his total understanding of his own power (which is being misused). The world has a long history of understanding in the way of how images can affect our ways of thinking and acting… hence the use of them for propaganda. Based on this, it would not be unreasonable to state that any artist would be fully aware of the power that they hold in creating an image. With this power, as with any type of power, comes a responsibility to act with regard for the audience and depict things truthfully (just as a public speaker is not supposed to misrepresent the information he or she is presenting).

Also important to note in this equation is the lack of a real reason for the depiction of this obscenity; the formal aspects of beautiful art could be just as well achieved through the use of moral content. As was stated as an argument against Mapplethorpe’s images in the book, freedom of speech and expression was meant as a safeguard for ideas… not, for example, the exploitation of innocent children in photography.

As Samuel Lipman states, “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). But the two are intertwined; and aesthetics may not be viewed by most people as reason enough to throw away one’s own concepts of morality. Aesthetics simply for its own sake is not protected by the 1^st amendment according to the above given explanation… and indeed, some of the images appear to fit the definition given of pornography, which is also not fully protected (MSN Encarta dictionary: "sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal”).

Artists, then, just as people in all other professions, have a responsibility towards the general public, and cannot be wholly separated from it. The actions of each individual affect those people around him or her. As such, it is the responsibility of each to not only bear in mind the immediate consequences of his actions on himself, but also on the community at large. Obscene “art” thus has no place in the art world. As it is, the idea that serious art can be excluded from obscenity does not make sense, considering the fact that what makes a thing obscene is the content, and that does not change regardless of the formal aspects of a work.

The visual may act differently from the textual due to its ability to immediately evoke responses from the viewers and touch the emotions. This goes back to the ideas voiced by Plato regarding the strength of images… and, according to him, their subsequent need for censorship. Visuals may be imprinted in the minds of the viewers (indeed, even strong texts are said to create mental images which can then stay with the readers). They leave room for people to fill in their own experiences and relate the visual piece with other scenes from their own lives or minds. They are easily understandable, unlike text, which takes much longer to read and digest. Images are open for all people, while text limits those who can access the ideas based on language and education. These differences act on the spectator in varying ways. As has been stated earlier, the things presented in images may actually permeate the thinking of the spectator without his or her recognizing it. Text, on the other hand, must be explicit, and thus cannot usually advocate unnoticed. Images may also be considered more explicit (with regards to obscenity) as compared to text, which must first be processed individually and internally.