Jessica D., Post 7

"My approach to photographing a flower is not much different than photographing a cock. Basically, it's the same thing."
–Robert Mapplethorpe

The unwavering power that art has in influencing an individual’s opinions, ideas, emotions, and perceptions, has been evident since the dawn of time and has been utilized by many as a potent tool. Both political figures and artists alike have strived throughout history attempting to harness the innate power of art in order to propagate their own personal agendas (Steiner 37). In politics, art is equally exploited by all sides to promote and advance their own political agendas. This is especially true in today’s political arena where perception is reality and citizens frequently base decisions on an orchestrated presentation from a group or candidate. This was true in the time of the Pharaohs and is still true in our modern day society. In the art world, artists use art as a medium to freely express and communicate their deepest thoughts, beliefs, and values. Though these expressions may initially seem unique and personal to the artist; they are in fact more subtle reflections of the issues of the time and culture of the society in which the artist lives.

In the film clips we watched of Damned in the U.S.A., it was quite comical to watch these political censorious zealots so passionately outraged by art that they claim threatens to disrupt all “public morality” and “social order”. It echoed the cries of Hitler’s unrelenting attack on “degenerate” art, Stalin’s denouncement of art that was not Socialist Realism, and George Dondero’s vendetta against American Abstract Expressionist Art. Perhaps what surprised me most was that in the 20th century our American Democracy, a government that separates church and state, would even consider exercising censorship on a moral basis. It was not only the inherently defiant nature of contemporary art that caused it to attract so much controversy and “really touch raw nerves”, but also the fact that NEA was using taxpayers’ "hard earned money" to fund these artists (Bolton 41). Robert Mapplethorpe’s art shocked the public because many of his works were explicitly sexual and homoerotic in nature; definitely deviating from “traditional” American values and exploring taboo territory. It was immediately branded by conservatives as obscene and immoral and criticized because it refused to conform. It seems rather irrational that the government would try to censor art work that was “immoral” or “obscene”; when in a nation as diverse as the United States, it is impossible to get a unanimous definition of what the terms moral, obscene, indecent, corrupt, and beautiful mean. If we were to test the “community standards” of Rollins College would there be a unanimous consensus to what is obscene, indecent, moral, or beautiful?

It seems ironic to condemn an artist for communicating their ideals, beliefs, and values when the purpose of art is to allow individualistic unrestrained self-expression. It is crucial to remember that we live in a nation that highly values an individual’s right to express themselves freely; therefore, when artists create art to express what they feel, we as spectators need to be tolerant and respectful of their right to express themselves even when it conflicts with our own morals and beliefs. The proverb, “A picture is worth a thousand words”, succinctly expresses the dominant power that the visual has over the textual. The textual leaves much to the imagination; the visual explicitly divulges its contents to the viewer thereby allowing them to interpret them as they wish (Steiner 33). Making something visual in some sense automatically brings it to life, but this does not necessarily translate into advocacy. Visual art can serve to advocate, denounce, or even choose to remain completely neutral concerning social, political, or cultural issues. For example, Picasso’s famous painting, Guernica, a distorted depiction of the bombing of Guernica by the Nazis, does not advocate violence or war, but instead actively serves to denounce the pain and suffering that war and violence has on humanity. On the other hand, the images in Mapplethorpe’s X-Portfolio, extremely sexually explicitly in nature, I believe do serve to advocate the “gay subculture” that Mapplethorpe was proudly a part of (Bolton xvii). However, this does not mean that viewing these photos will impose upon the viewer and cause them to abandon their own morals and partake in a homosexual lifestyle. These photographs are a candid extension of the artist himself and therefore are to be tolerated and respected.

Artists are not trying to forcefully impose upon the public their own beliefs, ideologies, or values, but instead merely attempting to communicate them through an artistic medium. When artists create art whether consciously or subconsciously they are expressing a relevant topic, view, or concern of the society in which they live. The value of the art they create is neither temporary, nor static and can even change over time. Be it cave paintings in France, hieroglyphics in Thebes, or frescos in Italy; the artists that created these art works did not realize at the time they were in fact creating invaluable historical documents. Art is a mirror not only of its creator’s situation, but also of the society in which the artist lives. Art along with film, literature, and music are all main sources that aid future generations in understanding previous eras and therefore present a very strong argument against censorship of any kind.

Not only is beauty always in the eye of the beholder, but so too is art. Especially with Contemporary art; the viewer is confronted with the dilemma that “art doesn’t have to be beautiful or pretty” or more importantly does not always have to uphold their own moral beliefs and values in order to be considered art (Steiner 33). When art is branded as being morally “bad” or “corrupt” whose morals are we judging it by? Are we judging by the morals of Jesse Helms, Alfonse D’Amato, Reverend Donald Wildmon, Andres Serrano, or Robert Mapplethorpe? The close minded belief that someone’s personal taste or morals have legal precedence over someone else’s is not only a belief that is detrimental to social tolerance and respect, but also directly threatens the very principles of American Democracy. We must remember that we are not a “homogenous and dissent-free model of society”, but instead a diverse nation in which each citizen is guaranteed the freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution of United States of America (Steiner 43).

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges our nation faces is not falling into the trap that so many dictatorial regimes tyrannically enforced; censoring that which does not conform or defiantly deviates from a “traditional standard”. Not only is censorship anti-democratic, but it also a direct and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. In order to preserve our freedom and the very principles our nation was founded upon we need our government to put more faith in the ability of American citizens to make responsible and well-informed decisions on what they want to read, write, watch on TV, listen to on the radio, and see in art museums. Ultimately, allowing each individual to be the “expert” of his or her own life.