Tawny N post 7

Tawny Najjar

“’Well, after all, art is a language, and why shouldn’t a man be permitted to speak his own language?’ A bystander responded incisively, ‘If art is a language, this artist is talking to himself’” (Little, 253).

Artists have always used paintings, drawings, and photographs as mediums to convey their ideas and feelings, to support an already established ideal, or to change the way that people view life. However, as the above quote demonstrates, the viewer is not always able to understand what the artist is trying to say or do. Some people look at paintings, and praise them for their aesthetic value and clarity of expression, while others observe that same painting and wonder why it is considered art. These ideas lead to debates that center on the differences between “high art” and “low art,” “normal” and “degenerate,” expressive and too outspoken, and the acceptable and the obscene. During the middle to the end of the twentieth century, a great debate broke out concerning art that was “obscene” and offensive.

A major entity in this debate was the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts). Its purpose was to provide grants to artists, art organizations, and state art councils, based on artistic quality. The decision about who to fund or not fund was made by a peer review council (Preface 2). The NEA was a vital instrument in cultural production, and in order to keep its flourishing business going, it had to avoid supporting art that was too offensive or controversial. This art was what some would consider “obscene, pornographic, blasphemous, politically motivated, or degrading of national symbols;” Further representation of “controversial issues like war, economics, racism, environmental concerns, immigration, multiculturalism, gender representation, sexuality, and AIDS” were also key issues. Artists that created such controversial displays, as well as the organizations that supported the art, were criticized by Congress and the national media for the content of their outspoken work (Brookman 1). The NEA tried to avoid this criticism, and in one case, refused to fund work done by Karen Finley, who had taken pictures of her naked body covered with melted chocolate to show that she was “against violence, against rape, and the degradation of women.” In her words, the smeared chocolate symbolized “women being treated like dirt” (Steiner 28). This “inappropriate art” would have been a negative representation of the NEA. Many artists have complained that by picking and choosing what art to fund is a form of censorship, but as Representative Richard Armey argued, “This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of judgment of values” (Brookman 1).

The photographs done by Robert Mapplethorpe were prime examples of art that was considered inappropriate, offensive, and most importantly, obscene. His photographs depicted “homosexual and heterosexual erotic acts and explicit sadomasochistic practices in which black and white, naked or leather-clad men and women assume erotic poses. Along with these photographs are fashionable portraits of the rich and trendy, elegant floral arrangements and naked children” (Glueck 59). Mapplethorpe’s art was described by varying degrees of distaste, fascination, and awe. Brenson described Mapplethorpe’s work as “not so much shameless as beyond shame. Formally and psychologically, he was fascinated by the relationship between light and dark, black and white…he had the imagination to find the edge between lucidity and pathology, seductiveness and cruelty, submission and domination. And he had the gift to make photographs in which the expression and even the condition of a face seem to be in the process of change” (Brenson 69). Others were less appreciative of Mapplethorpe’s works, and labeled them “homoerotic photos that are nothing less than taxpayer funded homosexual pornography” (American Family Association 71). This last quote captures the very controversy that was raised during this time: how is art deemed obscene and pornographic, and does it really have an adverse effect on society? Mapplethorpe was an artist that had something to say, a point that he wanted to show to the viewers. His ambition was to create something that was entirely different from anything that had been created before. To accomplish this, he turned to the depiction of sexuality, a topic that he believed was the root of everything. His photographs were deliberately manipulated to express eroticism at its peak, and to shock the viewers out of their protective confines of conservative thinking and living. By capturing these moments, Mapplethorpe’s art also expressed a subtle dismissal and acceptance of death. Initially, as Brenson stated, “His images of figures moving towards ripeness are a rejection of death, of which there is no sign” (Brenson 70). He wanted to have mastery over death, and by doing so, he captured his images, freezing them in a moment of “ripeness,” of vitality, which completely rejected death and decay. However, by freezing the moment, he later, in turn, took away the life and movement, which made the figures seem as though they were in fact dead; “Mapplethorpe’s art is at the same time a bitter struggle against death and a wholehearted embrace of it” (Brenson 70). Mapplethorpe’s photographs could be viewed as mediums for him to express himself, yet there is a difference between his photos of sexual acts between adults and photos of children portrayed in a sexual setting. His self-portraits and pictures of men and women were often graphic and difficult to look at, but the subjects gave him their permission to be photographed, and so share some of the responsibility for the artwork. However, when Mapplethorpe took pictures of children, emphasizing their genitals, it was done without their permission and understanding of the situation. In one of his photographs, a four year-old girl is sitting on a bench, with her dress lifted just so to reveal her unprotected genitals. Her face is full of child-like innocence, and it is obvious that she does not understand the meaning of this situation. In another photograph, a boy around six years old is displaying his genitals in an obvious fashion, yet the child knows nothing of sexuality. Mapplethorpe may have wanted to capture the idea of sexuality, but he used children who were unable to control the situation or make any kind of decision about it. In the face of controversy, Mapplethorpe employed children as a medium for expression, again suggesting a reason for the repugnance of art within the current society.

The controversy that arose from Mapplethorpe’s works put the art world in complete disarray, challenging previous ideas and ways of viewing art. The event that stirred up this storm was the cancellation of Mapplethorpe’s Perfect Moment exhibit at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in 1989. The museum cancelled the exhibition to avoid becoming entangled in the growing political debate over the sexual implications of Mapplethorpe’s work. Those who ran the Corcoran Museum feared that by showing this art, they would jeopardize the NEA’s chances for the congressional reauthorization, as the NEA had partially funded the show (Brookman 1). Before the museum canceled the show, the press denounced Mapplethorpe’s work as “explicit homoerotic and violent images” (Lipman 41).

The repercussions that resulted from this cancellation came swiftly and forcefully. The art world was thrown into an uproar, for there were now obvious examples of censorship, with the artists and viewers at a loss for how to respond. The message that the cancellation put across to artists was that they should conform to a status quo of “normal” views in order to be accepted and to avoid persecution. To those who had been advocating the cessation of “inappropriate art,” this further encouraged a continued pressure on authorities for radical censorship (Lipman 39). By rejecting Mapplethorpe’s art, the authorities were not merely saying no to one artist’s specific work, but were rather “exercising the right to say no to an entire theory of art” (Lipman 41). Most importantly, this example of censorship brought to light the rivalry between the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and the community perception of what is pornographic or indecent. By the First Amendment, artists are given the right to create whatever art they desire and are given the option to express their beliefs and emotions, but is it possible to abuse that right and take it a step too far?

What qualifies a piece of art to be deemed obscene? Why did the government seem to crack down on art and attempt to stamp out the “artist garbage”? As Lipman stated, artists did not change, nor did their art. The times changed, becoming less tolerant of such art. The proposed definition of obscene art was art that the average people would find offensive and detrimental to values in their community. The ironic fact is, “the law says that obscenity has no artistic value. Art has artistic value. Therefore, art cannot be obscene” (Steiner 37). How then can those obscene images be classified? Can the artists that created them be held responsible for obscenity? Carolee Schneemann, a photographer, once asked, “If my…works have been judged obscene, the question arises…is this because my photographic works are usually self-shot, without an external controlling eye? And are these works obscene because I poist my body as a locus of autonomy, pleasure, and desire?” (Steiner 44). Furthermore, the meaning of a piece of art depends on the interpretation. “Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder, and what the beholder sees is subject to influence” (Steiner 33).

The debate about whether censorship of art should continue goes back and forth between those that support it, and those who advocate freedom of artistic expression. Those who are against it argue that museums that are subject to censorship are not entirely reliable, because they only show a half-truth, a partial view, merely focusing on the conservative, “safe” art that does not cause controversy or offense. Censorship leads to lifeless art (Lipman 38). Art is not always going to be pretty or easy to look at. Art reflects life, and brings to light not only the beautiful, “feel good” images, but more importantly the negative, the imperfections and faults of the human nature. Artists cannot be told what or what not to create, for their impulses cannot be dictated. Furthermore, by hiding the problems in today’s society, there can be no progression. As Hilton Kramer stated in The New Criterion in 1983, “To subordinate art to politics…is not only to diminish its power to shape our civilization at its highest level of aspiration, but to condemn it to a role that amounts to little more than social engineering” (Glueck 68).

In contrast to these arguments, those who oppose obscene art claim that it helps no one, and serves no purpose other than to offend people and question the social norms and values, values that have been set for decades. These values have lead to peace in the art world, and should not be compromised. As Frederick Hart stated in Arts Quarterly, “The flaw is not with a public that refuses to nourish the arts. Rather, it is with a practice of art that refuses to nourish the public…the public has been so bullied intellectually by the proponents of contemporary art that it has wearily resigned itself to just about any idiocy that is placed before it” (Little 253). Advocates for censorship argue that people want beauty around them, but when surrounded by obscene art, are given “the neurotic expression of artists and architects who celebrate…the tensions and anxieties of their age. People may need these things sometimes…but they also want harmony, reassurance, familiarity, and beauty” (Steiner 3). What these advocates should keep in mind though is that this art is not shoved under their noses. It is not always blatantly displayed, nor is there a large pressure for people to accept it and approve of it. Artists create their artwork to make a statement, but their statement is aimed at people who will take the time to stop, look, and read into the art. Even though they may want to affect change, artists are not trying to change the ways of every single person in the society. They are not trying to shove their ideas and views down anyone’s throat, but rather open the viewer’s mind to a different concept.

Art affects society, in both positive and negative means. As Steiner wrote, “Art is a realm of thought experiments that quicken, sharpen, and sweeten our being in the world (Steiner 8). Artists draw upon what they see and experience, transferring those images onto a canvas or through a camera lens. That imitation of reality can either be a straight forward, clear version, or a twisted, disfigured view of how life is. Either way, the artist is trying to speak to the viewer’s emotions. What people see and experience in life is not always pleasant and easy to live with. When artists are inspired by the world around them they are not always drawn to the “lighter” side of life. There is more emotional intensity to be evoked from depicting life’s raw and painful aspects. Glueck supports this statement by saying, “Artists are important to us because they express what is in our subconscious” (Glueck 59). Art is supposed to be a stimulus and an inspiration. It resides in the soul (Little 253). By looking at a piece of art and allowing it to beget emotion, viewers can assess those feelings and use that assessment to find out who they truly are. Their morals, experiences, expectations, and ideals are all fundamental parts of how they assess art and relate to it. Art can also show us the “relation between what we respond to and what we are, between our pleasure and our principles. As a result, it inevitably relates us to other people whose pleasures and principles either do or do not coincide with our own. Comparing one’s pleasures to others’ makes one compare ideologies” (Steiner 59). By comparing ideologies, viewers can open their minds to alternative concepts and ideas, allowing for a more liberal perspective on life.

Photography is one such example of visual art that acts as a powerful stimulant to the viewer. Unlike paintings and drawings, photography gives off a sense of reality, and makes it seem that what is depicted in the picture was a real event. People take photographs literally, because they are so familiar to them. Photography is used in everyday life to capture moments, loved ones, and special events. Thus, people are more likely to believe that a photo contains truth, as opposed to a painting or drawing. In a painting or drawing, the artist’s manipulations of objects, colors, and lighting are more apparent. A photo gives off the impression that this is how it was when the moment was captured. Though a photo may give off a false impression of reality, it cannot fully bring about the same kind of emotion that a painting can cause. As Susan Sontag stated in On Photography in 1977, photos tend to “subtract feeling from something we experience at first hand and the feelings they do arouse are, largely, not those we have in real life.” They “recycle” the real, transforming its meaning and moral force into the “interesting” (Steiner 40). Ironically, photos are the most influential kind of art, yet they are not truly considered art. They take reality and transform it into art, yet they are a mere mimesis of what the artist sees. For photography, a machine does most of the work in creating the art. Yes, the photographer must have “artistic vision” and manipulate the setting to make it exactly as wanted, but does photography require the same artistic journey that painters take? Regardless of this, photos can also be shocking, rude, and in-your-face, and by doing so, they make the viewer consider his or her reactions to it, and assess the almost guilty pleasure that they take from that shocking photo. When Mapplethorpe’s photographs were displayed in an exhibit, one viewer exclaimed, “I’ve been here four times already and this show disgusts me more each time I see it” (Brookman 3). Even though photographs can be disturbing and disquieting, they have a tendency to draw in viewers.

When the controversy arose over Mapplethorpe’s art, one of the issues raised was that of pornography. Many people who advocated censoring Mapplethorpe’s work believed that his work was blatant and disgusting porn. In their minds, porn had no redeeming value, and its sole purpose was to corrupt the minds of people, which would lead to a decline in morality. They believed it was a waste of their tax money. However, when the government did two studies on how porn affects behavior, it found that there was no firm connection between porn and antisocial conduct. No study yet has shown that porn produces male violence toward women (Steiner 38). Furthermore, “If the 1970 report is right that there is ‘no correlation between lewd representations and lewd acts,’ Kendrick says, they ‘must also agree that there is no predictable correlation between any image and any act’” (Steiner 39). If these statements are true, then porn, though offensive to some people, may not have a destructive influence on behavior towards others. The influence becomes internal, based on how the viewers interpret and apply what they see to their ideas and beliefs. Pornographic art is important because it “marks the boundary between thought and deed, and like every such liminal zone it is fraught with fear – fear that fantasies will come true, will invade the world of public action – and the opposite fear, that there will be no such crossover, that the pleasure and energy and justice will have no realization outside it” (Steiner 38). Pornographic images do make the viewer feel self-conscious and ill-at-ease, which makes them almost feel a sense of guilt, a guilty pleasure. A key part in this controversy is that people are afraid to not reject porn or obscene art because they feel that if they do not reject it, they are in a way supporting the ideas that it brings forth. For example, a viewer is afraid not to take offense at a porn photo because he or she feels that that is a form of acceptance, which will lead to the corruption of his or her thoughts and morals (Steiner 58).

Visual art, whether it is a painting, drawing, sculpture, or photograph, speaks to the viewer in ways that words could never attempt to imitate. By seeing a piece of art, the viewer can let it bring forth those emotions that are triggered from their interpretation of the art. Art is ambiguous, and its meaning depends on the viewer’s interpretation, which is based on previous experiences, ideals, and beliefs. Since art is ambiguous, it is often difficult to tell whether it is a representation of an idea, or whether it is making a statement that supports that idea. Ultimately, it all comes down to how the viewer interprets art. Art speaks to people in different ways; some will praise a work for its beauty and the message that it brings across, while others may be offended by that same work, and read into it in a completely different way. Art is based on the viewer, not necessarily on the art or the artist.