Maxine Rivera
Part I Influence of art in Mapplethorpe and NEA funding debates
From Plato's Republic to The New York Times there seems to be a universal consensus on the fact that images have profound power. In Damned in the U.S.A Don Wildmon says "media can't tell you what to think, but they certainly can tell you what to think about." It seems to be an accepted fact that art, images, and the media's portrayal of them do have an affect on how we think, but do they have an affect on how we act? It is this fear of power that causes people in power to try and censor the art available to "the masses." I highly doubt that Hitler would have banned art if he thought its influence ended with a few deviant thoughts, it is the actions that art is given credit for inspiring that is the cause for concern.
In the debates over NEA funding and the Mapplethorpe case art's ability to influence to the point of action was key. Many conservative thinkers (politicians) were afraid and simultaneously outraged at the provocative art produced by Mapplethorpe and other's who had received NEA funding. The paranoia over the affect art could have on behavior was mostly preventative, right-wing conservatives spotted the opportunity for unfavorable actions in response to the radical art being displayed. Much of this came from the homophobia that ran rampant through the conservative world at this time in history, the AIDS epidemic had just started gaining attention and homosexuals were receiving the blame. Conservatives and anti-gays were afraid that if people saw homosexual art displayed equally next to heterosexual art they would begin to think and feel that homosexuals were not so abnormal or ill, they might think that it was okay. Homosexuals did not fit into the "right" kind of family, the "American Way" that conservatives were desperately trying to maintain, and the American people that they were trying to protect. (Steiner 30)
Homosexuality was not the only evil behavior that could result from the controversial images, that for the sake of this discussion we will call "art." Taking the homosexual aspect out of the photographs, the viewer was still left with the erotic aspect that raised debates over what qualified a piece as art versus pornography. This was especially sensitive in the case of child nudes which were also a part of Mapplethorpe's exhibition. Judith Reisman testified "that the display in museums of photographs of nude children could be used by sex offenders to make other children cooperate." (Steiner 49) Again a preventative concern, but one can see the validity in it. These points were brought up as reasons that NEA funding should be cut, if the art they were funding was making child abuse and homosexuality more prevalent in society, they were clearly doing something horribly wrong.
Part II Creation = Advocacy?
Andy Grundberg said "the subject matter of photographs is often mistaken for their meaning and value." (Steiner 40) From this point of view, making something does not necessarily mean advocating it. That concept of separating the artist's personal views from the art he or she creates is hard to swallow for most people, myself included. This may be because of the society we live in, where images are constantly advocating/ advertising something, ans Steiner mentions at the bottom of page 41. "It is no wonder Senators Helm and D'Amato have trouble distinguishing representation of sadomasochistic sex from the advocacy of sadomasochistic sex when the normal function of photography in the 'real world' is to promote products."
Due in part to this class, I am able to understand that there can be a difference between creation and advocacy, even if it goes against my initial instincts. I personally feel; why create something if you do not believe it? But I have come to accept that belief and advocacy do not have to be equivalent either. One example is Serrano's Piss Christ. Serrano, a Catholic, took a photograph that many religious people regard as highly offensive blashpemy. To those who feel personally wronged by the photograph of the symbol of their faith immersed in urine, it would look as though Serrano is advocating a "piss on the Lord" sentiment. In interviews, however, Serrano says his piece is an expression of his faith, not an attack on the religion, he was not advocating the message that many interpreted. This situation shows us that advocacy, like much else in the world of art, may be up to interpretation.
Part III Difference between visual and textual impact
"A picture is worth a thousand words." We grew up hearing that phrase, having it ingrained in our minds, so it makes sense that the visual and textual would impact the spectator differently. Images, especially photographs are much "more potent than either painting or literature" for several reasons. (Steiner 42) First photographs (and images in general) are more accessible to the public on all levels, the highly educated and the illiterate alike can view a painting and receive the same message from it (even though it is unlikely given their different circumstances that they will interpret it exactly the same.) We also credit a certain amount of realism to photographs that we do not to paintings or text. Both are easily altered and can stray from reality as far as the author/ artists imagination cares to go, however "The premise of photography is that an artist inhabited some reality at a particular moment- intruded himself onto it- but that reality was not created by him." (Steiner 40)
This helps us to understand why there was so much controversy surrounding the photographic exhibitions such as Serrano's and Mapplethorpe's. To take a photograph shows the people that this is really happening, there are ways of life that have not been presented to you, but that does not mean they do not exist. The conservative contingency would rather have the masses sheltered from such images and keep knowledge of the existence of people like Mapplethorpe hushed up. "And now photography, ensconsed in painting's place, responsible for giving us the real world, tried to turn the world upside down with images of things we have never seen or wanted to see..." (Steiner 42) Text can create powerful images through metaphors and writing techniques, but 'seeing is believing.'
Part I Influence of art in Mapplethorpe and NEA funding debates
From Plato's Republic to The New York Times there seems to be a universal consensus on the fact that images have profound power. In Damned in the U.S.A Don Wildmon says "media can't tell you what to think, but they certainly can tell you what to think about." It seems to be an accepted fact that art, images, and the media's portrayal of them do have an affect on how we think, but do they have an affect on how we act? It is this fear of power that causes people in power to try and censor the art available to "the masses." I highly doubt that Hitler would have banned art if he thought its influence ended with a few deviant thoughts, it is the actions that art is given credit for inspiring that is the cause for concern.
In the debates over NEA funding and the Mapplethorpe case art's ability to influence to the point of action was key. Many conservative thinkers (politicians) were afraid and simultaneously outraged at the provocative art produced by Mapplethorpe and other's who had received NEA funding. The paranoia over the affect art could have on behavior was mostly preventative, right-wing conservatives spotted the opportunity for unfavorable actions in response to the radical art being displayed. Much of this came from the homophobia that ran rampant through the conservative world at this time in history, the AIDS epidemic had just started gaining attention and homosexuals were receiving the blame. Conservatives and anti-gays were afraid that if people saw homosexual art displayed equally next to heterosexual art they would begin to think and feel that homosexuals were not so abnormal or ill, they might think that it was okay. Homosexuals did not fit into the "right" kind of family, the "American Way" that conservatives were desperately trying to maintain, and the American people that they were trying to protect. (Steiner 30)
Homosexuality was not the only evil behavior that could result from the controversial images, that for the sake of this discussion we will call "art." Taking the homosexual aspect out of the photographs, the viewer was still left with the erotic aspect that raised debates over what qualified a piece as art versus pornography. This was especially sensitive in the case of child nudes which were also a part of Mapplethorpe's exhibition. Judith Reisman testified "that the display in museums of photographs of nude children could be used by sex offenders to make other children cooperate." (Steiner 49) Again a preventative concern, but one can see the validity in it. These points were brought up as reasons that NEA funding should be cut, if the art they were funding was making child abuse and homosexuality more prevalent in society, they were clearly doing something horribly wrong.
Part II Creation = Advocacy?
Andy Grundberg said "the subject matter of photographs is often mistaken for their meaning and value." (Steiner 40) From this point of view, making something does not necessarily mean advocating it. That concept of separating the artist's personal views from the art he or she creates is hard to swallow for most people, myself included. This may be because of the society we live in, where images are constantly advocating/ advertising something, ans Steiner mentions at the bottom of page 41. "It is no wonder Senators Helm and D'Amato have trouble distinguishing representation of sadomasochistic sex from the advocacy of sadomasochistic sex when the normal function of photography in the 'real world' is to promote products."
Due in part to this class, I am able to understand that there can be a difference between creation and advocacy, even if it goes against my initial instincts. I personally feel; why create something if you do not believe it? But I have come to accept that belief and advocacy do not have to be equivalent either. One example is Serrano's Piss Christ. Serrano, a Catholic, took a photograph that many religious people regard as highly offensive blashpemy. To those who feel personally wronged by the photograph of the symbol of their faith immersed in urine, it would look as though Serrano is advocating a "piss on the Lord" sentiment. In interviews, however, Serrano says his piece is an expression of his faith, not an attack on the religion, he was not advocating the message that many interpreted. This situation shows us that advocacy, like much else in the world of art, may be up to interpretation.
Part III Difference between visual and textual impact
"A picture is worth a thousand words." We grew up hearing that phrase, having it ingrained in our minds, so it makes sense that the visual and textual would impact the spectator differently. Images, especially photographs are much "more potent than either painting or literature" for several reasons. (Steiner 42) First photographs (and images in general) are more accessible to the public on all levels, the highly educated and the illiterate alike can view a painting and receive the same message from it (even though it is unlikely given their different circumstances that they will interpret it exactly the same.) We also credit a certain amount of realism to photographs that we do not to paintings or text. Both are easily altered and can stray from reality as far as the author/ artists imagination cares to go, however "The premise of photography is that an artist inhabited some reality at a particular moment- intruded himself onto it- but that reality was not created by him." (Steiner 40)
This helps us to understand why there was so much controversy surrounding the photographic exhibitions such as Serrano's and Mapplethorpe's. To take a photograph shows the people that this is really happening, there are ways of life that have not been presented to you, but that does not mean they do not exist. The conservative contingency would rather have the masses sheltered from such images and keep knowledge of the existence of people like Mapplethorpe hushed up. "And now photography, ensconsed in painting's place, responsible for giving us the real world, tried to turn the world upside down with images of things we have never seen or wanted to see..." (Steiner 42) Text can create powerful images through metaphors and writing techniques, but 'seeing is believing.'
No comments:
Post a Comment