Shea post 7

Art influences behavior in the same way that life influences behavior. Encounters are teachers. The new perspective granted by one's first trip to India or one's first part time job is comparable to that obtained by means of looking at a work of art. There is a wealth of fear associated with this concept. As Rev. Donald Wildmon puts it "Art can't tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to think about." The notion here is that art, by definition, is meant to act as an example for human aspiration. The tabooed newness of postmodern artwork like Mapplethorpe's is seen as an effrontery to the artistic standards that have stood the test of time. They are thought to stage an intentionally fatal attack on those standards, thereby eliminating the traditional aesthetic in favor of their own. If this supposed objective were to be realized, if no static models of tranquility and beauty were to remain, then what would the people strive for in their own lives? Arguably, they would strive to meet the new standards in all their radical chaos. This chaos, however, does not prevail in Mapplethorpe's photographs. His meticulous attention to formal detail are repeatedly praised by experts, even to a level of suspended reality. "He was very formal, very detached, very clinical, very studied in his approach. There's hardly any spontaneity ever, there's hardly ever any life-likeness." (Phillip Yenawine) The chaos is perceived not in the photography but in the changes they present. In this way, change is rebellion, rebellion is chaos, and chaos is bad.
Another reason that fear is attached to the proposition that art influences behavior comes with the concept of rape by imagery. The threat of offensive artwork is in its ability to thrust unfamiliar perceptions and questions into the innocent and victimized minds of its viewers. The viewers are powerless against, and may quite possibly be injured by such an uninvited intrusion. This metaphor is particularly applicable in the case of Robert Mapplethorpe as his most controversial artwork contains portrayals of violent sex acts. Art as action leaves "laypersons" to feel unprotected from whatever potent and unknown powers a work of art might possess. This sets up an opposition between the experts and the laypeople, thoroughly addressed by Wendy Steiner, that extends further into political division between liberals and conservatives, the left vs. the right. Artistic connoisseurs are antagonized as flaunting their knowledge as a defensive mechanism against the strength of artwork and knowingly exposing the defenseless to its harm. A Mapplethorpe critic who spoke for Damned in the USA demonstrates this rivalry by explaining the verdict in favor of Dennis Barrie's innocence on charges of 'pandering obscenity' and 'the use of children in nudity oriented materials' as a result of misunderstanding and intimidation. "The poor jury was confused" and reached the verdict of not guilty due to "their humility". The political division is outlined by the following: "The left's contention was that the controversy was about the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression, whereas the right steadfastly denied this. For them, the issue was the use of taxpayer's money to fund art that the average citizen would find personally offensive and destructive of community values." (Steiner, 29)
The comedian featured in the documentary presented a valuable counterpoint to the concept of art as action, or more specifically, rape by imagery. "It's a picture. It's not like artists are going around the country inserting bull whips into unsuspecting people's rectums."
This brings up the second question of representation as advocacy. It is in fact just a picture. This is something that happens in real life regardless of whether or not we want to observe or participate. So what's the harm in acknowledging that it exists? Who is forcing us to participate? The prosecution of the Cincinnati trial equated the role of the jury to that of the villagers in The Emperor's New Clothes. "You are the townspeople who could tell the art-world emperors that they are not wearing any clothes at all." (Frank Prouty, Steiner, 31) Mapplethorpe's attention to nudity is all too appropriate for this argument. Through this analogy, Prouty suggests that the subjects of this artwork must be covered up, which is, in itself, a qualifying statement in favor of the artwork. It may be shocking or indecent but it is most certainly true. In terms of visual human depiction, what is more true than nudity? This same sentiment is reflected in Wildmon's assertion that being given new things to think about is dangerous to society. If people are educated in processes or manners that do not resemble their own, a reasonable reaction would be introspection. With these new perspectives in mind, their options are broadened and their limitations loosened. His presumptions about art and how it ought to be handled favor censorship in every way. Andres Serrano addressed the fear that accompanies the loosening of limitations by saying that much of his work touched on people's worst fears about themselves. According to a juryman who sat the Cincinnati case, much of the art's value came from its educational components. "Pornography and pornographic art are important because they mark the bounds between thought and deed, and like every such liminal zone they are fraught with fear - fear that fantasies will come true - and the opposite fear, that there will be no such crossover..." (Steiner, 38)
When contemplating representation as advocacy it is useful to consider the artist's intentions. Depending on what is meant by the picture, the gallery on whose walls it is displayed may be advocating any number of things. Consider for example that Serrano meant this painting as a challenge to comfortable sight. Perhaps he meant his viewers to see the image, appreciate it as beautiful and then become horrified at their own misconception upon reading the title. In this case the gallery would be advocating meticulous appraisal when assigning beauty. But if the viewer's interpretation is to be accepted as the true value behind art then it is impossible to say what the gallery is advocating because it is impossible to know the individual interpretations of all its customers.

The visual acts differently on the spectator than the textual in regards to timing. Images confront a viewer immediately while volumes are chronologically introduced to a reader. The encounter is much less stressful. The author has a medium which allows for the deliberate presentation of her/his case. The artist experiences more difficulty guiding the spectator through an effective ponder of her/his work because aspects like depth and shading can be used to symbolize different things in different scenarios. Writing is more concrete and less intimidating. What is meant to be known first is written first.