Morgan, Post 7

Morgan Frost

Visual images can act differently on the spectator than text because they are more readily available to the mind in visual form than in textual. One is not required to know the language of the work or interpret the words into their meaning; the meaning is in your face. When one reads something he or she must comprehend the connection between the words and what they signify to get the meaning (Sturken & Cartwright). True, there also must be an interpretation of the meaning in visual art, but it requires only a look. It is not to say that the translation is clearer with visual representation, but it can be more quickly received. Thus because it does not require reading, visual art can be found to influence people more because it has the capacity to reach people across different languages, the illiterate, different ages, etc.

The influence of art on behavior holds a critical role in the debates on Mapplethorpe and NEA funding. Wendy Steiner claims that images depicting questionable behavior do not necessarily lead to the mimicry of this behavior, but to “lead viewers to think about their feelings on the subject” (Steiner 50). The argument arises when opposition to the funding of Mapplethorpe’s and other artists’ provocative work declares that funding and support of the production of these works goes beyond granting artistic freedom. Instead they argue that this support demonstrates advocacy for the behaviors depicted, and thus the promotion of further identical or similar behavior.

Susan Sontag goes as far to claim that the viewers are held accountable for the behavior illustrated in the art, and that accepting the work enthusiastically or even passively means the viewer is an advocate for the behavior shown. The portrayal of something visually does not denote advocacy for what is being represented. Certainly, it can, but possibility is hardly obligation. An atheist can appreciate the beauty in a religious painting without advocating prayer or sacrifice or anything religious the work may portray. In fact, he or she can oppose what is being depicted and have no reverence whatsoever for its beauty. But a respect for those who do find beauty and meaning in the work can be present. This individual need not take government action to ban the display of these images or the funding of images like it. So why can the acceptance not go both ways? Why must a non-religious person accept displays of religious acts but a religious person cannot tolerate a display of non-religious behavior? The same concept applies for other individual perspectives other than religion. Beliefs and moral values of an individual or group cannot be permitted to limit those of another.

One critic believes Mapplethorpe’s work should be kept in the private sphere because placing it in museums “forces upon the public the acceptance of the values of a sexual sub-culture that the public at large finds loathsome.” Does he understand what he is saying? This author has just defended the suppression of minorities. He wrote that “acceptance” should not be tolerated—he does not say advocacy, but merely “acceptance” (Brookman 56). Specifically he is saying that the minority of homosexuals should not be allowed to express their lifestyles publicly. What of the other minorities? This author is biased against homosexuals. Other people are biased against women, African-Americans, religious peoples, etc. So as a result of their lifestyles not being in agreement with that of the majority of the public, their artistic achievements have no place but obscured in their own homes? To support the banning public of representation by minorities and the limitation of funding for such works is a thought that completely contradicts the freedoms of America’s democracy.

Associate director of research for the American Family Association Judith Reisman claims that by showing the works, Mapplethorpe and the national museum was “’encouraging’ the sadistic acts” Mapplethorpe committed in his lifetime associated with homosexuality (Brookman 58). Here we see his work being judged by a criterion that is narrow-minded and biased. Would this woman say the same thing of homosexually connected works of art by Da Vinci, Michelangelo, or Caravaggio (Steiner 23)? As a result of her furiously negative opinion on homosexuality, she makes claims about this art that if used to examine all art, pieces by these highly praised artists would also be censored. Why does the creation or display of actions have to encourage those actions? Can it not simply offer insight to the beauty one can find in such behavior? Or maybe the ugliness is worth mentioning, provoking the viewer to see things in a new light. But according to Sontag and Reisman, among others in opposition to the Mapplethorpe displays and NEA funding of them, the purpose must instead be to encourage others to act in the same way. Since we judge Mapplethorpe on this foundation, other art must be held to the same accountability. Surely the pictures of Holocaust are always shown to encourage us to continue genocide. And images shown of sexually transmitted diseases are not a means of education, they must be encouraging the viewers to experience them just as Mapplethorpe encourages viewers to engage in the activities he illustrates.

The arguments against Mapplethorpe offer insight as to why the line of censorship is so ambiguous. What one person can find beautiful, another can find offensive. So art and its beauty are perceived on an individual basis. How then, could we ever begin to censor images? Who gets to say something is too vulgar, evil, or degrading to be shown? Each person has their own perspective, their own lens that they see the world through. This lens is specific to images that the individual accepts. Images that are found offensive are avoided and actions can be taken (or not taken) throughout the individual’s life to so he or she has the choice of experiencing a view of these images. For example, the voluntary decision to enter or not to enter a museum, specifically parts of the museum that are labeled as having explicit content. In this way the individual can choose what his or her personal lens views on a regular basis, functioning like the blinders on a horse.

It is inevitable that images will be interpreted differently by an adult, a child, a woman, a man, a Muslim, an Atheist, a homosexual, a heterosexual, a politician, etc. A set of values is specific to the set culture or individual. But as long as the viewing remains voluntary, no one is imposing their morals upon another group. This ideal secularism, having the choice of what to believe and oppositely what not to believe, is exactly what our country is founded on. America is supposed to be a sanctuary where the individual can make choices about his or her faith and preferences. Art is a world much like the religious world—in fact they are intertwined together even through moral values. And just as a church can offer its services to people, so can art. Just as a church has no right to limit the activities of a mosque, so individuals or groups offended by pieces of art have no right to censor them, but only the right to choose not to view them.

If we were to begin censoring art, assuming we give equal rights to anyone offended to censor any offending image, then each person’s blinders limiting their vision like that of the horse would limit others’ vision. The cartoon by Signe Wilkinson illustrates this point precisely. The image depicts a museum worker humoring NEA-funding of Mapplethorpe-opposed Senator Jesse Helm’s opinion that homosexual art be removed from public display. What Helm was focused on was the inappropriateness of Mapplethorpe’s images, but the cartoon recognizes the implications Helm fails to realize in his own opinion—that other pieces of art would have to be removed on the same basis, and that these works of art and their artists are highly valued and respected throughout history. As the cartoon suggests, censoring works that are found controversial would lead to removal of work by Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, and other notable artists who have created what most people regard as beautiful and significant pieces of art (Steiner 23).

With the selection of each individual further narrowing the public’s access to art, what is the final product but a few neutral images void of meaning or purpose other than to please the eye with color? Then what has become of art? The emotion is gone, and art is no longer the medium through which a human can physically manifest representations of the unconscious or the spiritual or individual vision. Take away the freedom of artistic expression, and the world will lose more than a few offensive paintings. The world will be stripped of imagination, creativity, emotion, and the medium it is released through—art.