Justin Wright
Art does in fact influence behavior. Obviously so, since Mapplethorpe’s and Serrano’s art influenced politicians and conservatives across the country to condemn and attempt to censor any art that provoked them. But rarely does art influence us in an explicit way; for example, Mapplethorpe’s photographs of homosexual sex acts cannot change someone’s sexual orientation. Art does influence people to act due to their interpretations of it, though the message it contains. For example, “the effect of
Depiction is not necessarily advocacy. One of the reasons there was such opposition to the work of Mapplethorpe and Serrano was that some did not understand their message. They only saw the photographs for their shock value. Serrano himself said that in his photograph Piss Christ, he was “attacking the debasement of religious symbolism in a commercial world.” (p. 11) By submerging a crucifix in blood and urine, he was representing the more abstract processes going on in the world that he wanted to condemn. The fact that Serrano was Catholic should have cast doubt on blasphemy being his sole objective. The misinterpretation on the part of Senators Helms and D’Amato was a factor in their tirades against the NEA funding. They confused Serrano’s depiction for advocacy, when actually it was satire.
The same goes for Mapplethorpe’s photographs. His depictions of sadomasochism are more about documenting an era that will never repeat itself than just shocking the audience. In the 1970s, homosexuality lost much of its stigma and sadomasochism became popular, and Mapplethorpe took the photographs then as a form of documentary. The picture with the bull whip is called “self-portrait,” as Mapplethorpe shows that this is who he was and what he did. What Mapplethorpe mainly tryed to do was garner awareness of homosexuality, and from this get people to consider accepting homosexuals. Steiner comments: “It is no wonder that Senators Helms and D’Amato have trouble distinguishing representations of sadomasochistic sex when the normal function of photography in the ‘real world’ is to promote products.” (p. 41-42) Mapplethorpe was not trying to get people to go try these things, since the shock value definitely would prevent that, and such a proposition is preposterous anyway. But conservatives thought that Mapplethorpe was trying to corrupt the nation, and destroy Christian morals.
Interestingly, most who opposed the works by Serrano and Mapplethorpe did not understand them. They simply made a false connection between depiction and advocacy. “This belief in a prima facie, univocal meaning for art, evident to any ‘normal’ person, seems to be one of the hallmarks of conservative thinking.” (p. 33) While this is an overstatement about conservatives, those opposing Serrano and Mapplethorpe certainly saw their works this way. In the trial in
Visual art is more prone to objection and censorship because the visual is more potent than the written at stirring feelings. There is a general notion of “out of sight, out of mind” among most people, and they would object to seeing something, but read a description of the exact same thing and find it acceptable. Extreme violence and sexual imagery stir the most feelings in people. Seeing images of torture causes one’s stomach to turn, while reading about it is somewhat more palatable. The same goes for sexual images. Pornography is almost always visual, because this is the easiest way to arouse someone. Artists take advantage of this difference and can cause us to contemplate things differently if we see them in art than if we merely read them. Also the stakes are higher – images that scare or arouse are more often condemned, because they are a step closer to reality than text.
3 comments:
You say that art influences behavior in its potential to shock and to invite censorship. However, can art cause the precise behaviors that censorship aims to prevent?
Can homoerotic masochistic art incite masochistic homosexuality?
While the above statement might not seem plausible to you or me, we could not assign the same instant rebuff to the following statement:
Can feminist art that portrays the worth and liberation of a woman incite women to strive more resiliently for their freedom?
Indeed, the concept of influential art is a complex one.
I think your analysis of art influencing interpretations is insightful.
The way ultra-conservatives they interpreted Mapplethorpe’s art as grotesque and immoral led to its subsequent censorship. The way that Hitler interpreted modern art as divisive and cultivating-of-discontent let to its subsequent censorship. The way that Dondero interpreted abstract expressionist as synthetic and unnatural led to its subsequent censorship.
The meaning inherent in a work, arguably, cannot incite behavior. However, one’s interpretation of it, whether false or perhaps more true to the artist’s intent, can incite behavior.
Another insightful point that you made was that the prosecutors in the Mapplethorpe case believed the images would “speak” for themselves. However, the conservative jury’s ensuing acquittal of those involved is a testament to the power and importance of interpretation. Their interpretation was that this was beautiful art even though its content may have been immoral or grotesque. Artistic elites were able to facilitate them in their process of constructing meaning from the work.
This view is reminiscent of Brand’s in her “Introduction to Aesthetics…” She expounds upon the lamentable ignorance of contextual consideration in aesthetic evaluation. Similarly, the prosecution thought that the content would speak for itself, however, when it was contextualized, the construction of its meaning by the jury took on a different direction than the prosecution had hoped.
You say that images are a step closer to reality than text. I think that this is “true” or at least widely perceived because images are compounded with “real” elements. Texts and paintings are materialized from the mind. Even though the truth-value of an image can be compromised by the artist’s technique (frame, lighting, background, focus, etc.), we as an audience assign a higher reliability to it because it is a snapshot of “reality” – a glimpse into a past that did in fact occur, even if it occurred much differently than the creative techniques of the artist lead us to believe.
Justin, I like your argument on how art influences behavior. I wanted to submit an additional line of thought in support of your reasoning.
In one of the film clips, Rev. Donald Wildmon said something to the effect of (to paraphrase) "art cannot tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to think about." Thoughts can influence behavior (i.e. "the power of suggestion") and therefore those realms that influence thought--such as art or philosophy--can by association influence behavior.
Also, I think you make a very good point about art as advocacy. Mapplethorpe had to realize that his images would be seen as repulsive to many and therefore would be at least ineffective, perhaps even detrimental, if it tried to act as an advocate. Art can act as advocacy but it does not have to. Artists must realize that sometimes when they try to advocate unpopular sentiments through their works, the outcome can actually be counterproductive.
Justin, I completely agree with your comments concerning the senators and congressmen who so vehemently criticized Serrano's Piss Christ in a courtroom setting. It is ironic almost to the extent of being hilarious that these men could so easily overlook Serrano's actual intentions in creating the photograph, and instead use it as an attack on those who they viewed as overly liberal blasphemers. Perhaps Serrano, when creating Piss Christ, predicted this sort of reaction from those with ultra-conservative views on art politics, and used his photograph as a means of exposing the sheer blindness of some when making immediate judgement on art and its creator. Whether or not eliciting this sort of reactions was Serrano's intention, he certainly did achieve it when using Piss Christ in one of his publicly exhibited catalogue's of work, and thus the photograph must be given historical recognition as a work of art that brought to light a very valid and heavily debated-over question.
Post a Comment