Friday, October 12, 2007

kelly post 7

A relationship between art and behavior is undeniable. We interpret artwork, we are moved by artwork, and we respond to artwork. But to say that artwork affects our instinctual actions is a hard argument to make. More specifically, in this case, the argument that pornography is directly correlated with bad behavior is an even harder case to make. The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the Meese Commission haven’t been able to establish a relationship between pornography and social debilitation. Contrary to Christian belief, studies actually show that pornography promotes a healthy sex life: “Exposure to pornography and a healthy sex life are connected (Moretti, p.45). The sociologist Carole Vance claims that no responsible study has ever established that pornography produces violence toward women. It may incite sexual feelings toward women but as Judge Frank in the Roth decision claimed, if pornography leads to normal sex, it cannot be socially harmful because without sex the human race would disappear!” (Steiner, p. 38) To reaffirm this clause, Steiner discusses Walter Kendrick’s take on the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography’s 1970 report: “There is ‘no correlation between lewd representations and lewd acts,’ Kendrick says (pp.216-217), they ‘must also agree that there is no predictable correlation between any image and any act.” (Steiner, pg. 39)

The defense has a strong argument considering that sociologists and psychologists agree that pornography does not necessarily promote unhealthy behavior. They also have freedom of speech and expression on their side, and additionally many intellectuals interested in the arts fund exhibits similar to this one. Still, the art world and the government cannot partake in a fair fight. The government has many resources, as does the art world, but the art world gains the majority of its resources from the government. If congress were to lower the budget for the NEA, a government funded agency, then the art world would be suppressed. It is the argument that poor behavior and pornography are not linked that will most enable the art world to maintain their freedom.

Most artists use their art as a form of expression. Some of those artists consider their art as an escape. If we were to only paint the things that make us happy, the only colors we would use would be pink, yellow, and orange. Violent, in-your-face images are moving. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they move people towards violent actions. An artist might be advocating an anti-violent disposition while painting something that appears dark and evil. Interpreting art is difficult in itself. Interpreting art and then determining what the artist is attempting to advocate is again even harder. This would require research on the artist and their intentions while making their art. Very few museum-trotters go to such great lengths. Some go to see the pretty paintings. Others go to see their favorite artist. Very few research a specific artist, their intentions, and then plan to go inspect the art to see if that intention was accomplished. This activity is normally reserved for art critics. Because of this, painting a specific picture doesn’t necessarily mean one advocates that picture’s depiction. Unless the artist was to blatantly explain that, the majority of the public would overlook that advocacy: “Artistic meaning, like all meaning, is a matter of interpretation. What the prosecution did not realize is that we react to interpretation; we judge interpretations; there is no such thing as work that speaks for itself.” (Steiner, p. 33)

Visual art affects visual people much greater than textual art might. Textual art requires an imagination to create a picture in your mind. The difference is showing versus telling: visual art shows the viewer what it is attempting to convey while textual art tells the viewer what it is attempting to convey. One has to use their own imagination to paint a visual picture in their head while reading textual art. It truly depends on what type of person one is and how their brain functions best in order to determine which is more moving.

1 comment:

Shealyn Fuller said...

I think that opponents who argue that displaying these images will increase the likelihood of sexual violence or unrest are working more off of the fear that seeing these images will cause people to admit to their subject matter's actual existence. Dealing with abstract art, whose subject matter is always a matter of opinion and usually of confusion, is one thing. It doesn't exactly confess to anything in particular, but work like Mapplethorpe's makes known things that 'common' people would prefer not to know, or at least to ignore.