Ted Henderson Post 7

About twenty years ago, the National Endowment for the Arts used $30,000 of its annual government given funds to endorse a retrospective exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographic work. This exhibit contained a group of explicitly homoerotic photographs which were placed into a section deemed the X Portfolio, some of which included but were not limited to images of a man urinating into the mouth of another man, a self-portrait of Mapplethorpe of which the focal point was a bullwhip that was inserted into the photographer’s anus, and a photograph consisting merely of a considerable portion of one man’s forearm inserted into another male’s rectum. It comes as no significant surprise that this public and government funded retrospective of Mapplethorpe’s artwork caused extreme controversy due to the utterly graphic nature of those images that comprised its X Portfolio. One of the biggest arguments made by those who deemed this work of Mapplethorpe’s unfit to be funded by the NEA and publicly displayed in multiple American art museums was that such decidedly immoral visual fodder was bound to advocate and ultimately influence immorality in the behaviors of the American masses. Many counterarguments to the proposals of those who wished for the NEA to cease all funding of the public display of sexually and homosexually explicit artwork such as that of Mapplethorpe were made, and even used as a defense for the exhibition of Mapplethorpe’s work during a court case in which the director of the Contemporary Arts Center of Cincinnati was prosecuted for allowing Mapplethorpe’s retrospective, A Perfect Moment, to be put on display in his museum. These arguments included the assertion that Mapplethorpe’s art, even his more sexually provocative work, consisted of a meticulously thought out and well-crafted nature, and therefore contained within itself the aesthetically key components of fine art. Another case for defense of Mapplethorpe’s work and public exhibition was the belief that visual images did not possess the same influential power over the behaviors of the public as written text for the fact that art is open to far more subjective interpretation by its viewer than writing is to its reader. Thus, the fire of debate between two schools of thought concerning modern art was continuously fueled with material as juicy as that found in Mapplethorpe’s A Perfect Moment, a debate which did not possess any real possibility of decisive conclusion, and thus one that is still discussed and verbally “brawled” over, even today.

Wendy Steiner explains in a chapter of her expository work, The Scandal of Pleasure, a chapter appropriately titled A Perfect Moment, certain mediums of “obscenity” which were outlawed in Cincinnati during the time at which a trial took place in the state concerning a museum exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography. Cincinnati, or at least certain members of its more conservative demographic, proudly boasted that their state, by law, allowed, “…no peep shows, no adult bookstores, no X-rated theatres, no bars that allow(ed) nude dancing, no escort services, and no massage parlors.” Certainly, it can be assumed that the hopes of discouraging lewd and lascivious thoughts played a large part in the overall anti-pornography, and to speak more generally, anti-obscenity atmosphere and laws of Cincinnati during the 1970s and 80s. It is also common assumption that that which entices prurient thought, if reinforced over time, will lead to prurient behavior. Thus, those with law-making power in Cincinnati at the time must have believed that, by illegalizing mostly all mediums which might incite sexually deviant thought within their viewer or buyer, they were essentially fighting against the spread of sexually deviant or obscene conduct of the Cincinnatian public, and therefore creating a safer, more morally sound environment for the inhabitants of the state. There are two thoughts which can be elaborated upon in order to address and question this belief that banning that which is visually obscene is an acceptable and necessary cure for behavioral obscenity within a society. The first of these is a simple question, and that is, “does sexual aesthetic material truly lead to sexually deviant action on the part of its viewer?” Some would undoubtedly argue, and with fervent conviction, that sexually obscene aesthetics do incite obscene actions in reality, and that the elimination of them eliminates the realization of possible obscene actions, thus greatly lowering the occurrence of such actions within a culture. On the other hand, is it not possible that, in viewing sexually explicit material that some may deem “obscene”, one might appease certain sexual desires through mere visual stimulation, thus finding little need or internal pull to act upon these desires? In other words, the thought could, converse as it is to the belief that visual mediums encourage coinciding actions, be asserted that those with unique or even obscene sexual desires and fantasies might find solace in viewing images depicting these fantasies, and in this solace, would be relieved of an otherwise strong and prominent feeling of necessity to act out such desires. A second point addressing this belief that obscene aesthetic material leads to obscene conduct that relates directly to the uproar caused by the public display of A Perfect Moment in Cincinnati can also be presented in the form of a question: “Is Mapplethorpe’s photographic work, even that of it which is most sexually explicit, of the same level of worth as, and therefore worthy of being lumped in with categories of material such as ‘…peep shows…bars that allow nude dancing,’ and, ‘…escort services’?” To put the question in other terms, because of the fact that it was the work of an artist, structured and created with painstaking attention to exact detail, and intended to raise cultural and political questions in the mind of its viewer, was not the art of Robert Mapplethorpe of considerably greater intellectual value to the public than the much more basic and animalistic pleasures which were and are found in, for example, strip-clubs and houses of prostitution? Many would and did argue that the fact that it was created with the intention of raising social questions was, in itself, proof of the validity of Mapplethorpe’s work, and certainly that, in this way, such artwork differed completely from mere fulfillers of immediate sensory desires, fulfillers which are not lasting by nature, but rather quite disposable. Mapplethorpe’s work, offensive as it was to many, was by no means disposable, forgettable, or ignorable. It did contain an aesthetic sophistication, and some would say beauty, and thus quite uniquely combined many of the taboos and abnormalities of a growing sexual subculture with very socially recognizable and universally agreed upon/acclaimed artistic, and more specifically, photographic techniques and stylistic elements.

Another argument against the public display and taxpayer funding of artwork containing images of sexual obscenity which ties into that which asserts that such art causes deviant behavior within society is that which assumes that, to create a certain image, be it a painting or photograph, is to advocate the action or representation which is taking place in the image. A perfect example of an utter contradiction to this assertion lies within the controversy that surrounded SECCA’s funding of a body of photographic work by Andres Serrano in the late 1980s. This controversy was specifically caused by the inclusion in this SECCA (an organization funded by the NEA) catalogue of a photograph taken by Andres Serrano that consisted of a small, plastic crucifix immersed in a mixture of blood, milk, and urine. If it is an absolute truth that anything an image or artwork displays it also advocates, and more importantly, its creator advocates, than it must hold true that Serrano advocated what was deemed by many, for instance writers for the Arizona Public as quoted here, as, “…anti-Christian and anti-Catholic bigotry…” (Wendy Steiner, The Scandal of Pleasure, Chap. 2, pg. 13). Many found Serrano’s immersion of a symbol of Jesus Christ during his most holy of moments into a cup whose contents included the human waste product known as urine to be nothing short of sheer blasphemy, an act of utter disrespect to a religious figure, and that by immortalizing this blasphemy towards Christ via his camera, Serrano himself was advocating all blasphemy of the Christian God. Unfortunately for those who believe in this “to represent in an image is to condone” theory as an absolute truth, though perhaps the image created in his piece titled Piss Christ did display some variation of blasphemy towards Jesus Christ, Serrano was in fact himself a strong Christian, and was attempting to raise a question as to how modern society treated the idea of Christ and the values he taught. Thus, in this specific case, Serrano did not advocate blasphemy against nor even disregard of Jesus Christ and his teachings, and though it may appear contradictory at first consideration, the artist portrayed his commitment to and honor of the life and word of Jesus Christ by creating a representation of him that was deliberately blasphemed.

A strong argument which has been utilized by those working towards the freedom of artists to depict that which is their personal vision without authoritative scrutiny and limitation is that which claims visual art to be far less persuasive and influential upon the beliefs and behaviors of the public than written text. The belief that this assertion stems from is that art is far more prone to the subjective interpretation of its viewer than is written text, a medium in which the intentions and beliefs of the creator are usually plainly understood due to the expository power of words. An example of this element of subjective interpretation of the beholder was made apparent during the Cincinnati trial dealing with the public showing of Mapplethorpe’s work. At a specific point during the trial, Janet Kardon was presented with a piece of Mapplethorpe’s and asked by the prosecution, “Would you call these sexual acts?” Kardon gave a simple but, in regards to this point of the subjectivity of art interpretation, profound answer, “I would call them figure studies.” Thus, a stark difference in opinion between to interpreters of Mapplethorpe’s art was made clear, two opinions which held truth to those minds from which they originated, and therefore neither of which could be objectively deemed as incorrect. It is virtually undeniable that a visual image, and in this case study, an artistically created visual image, when viewed without any previous explanation as to the intentions of its creator, can be interpreted in any number of ways, mostly likely having at least something to do with the predispositions and personal beliefs of he/she who is viewing it. This type of subjectivity is not nearly as apparent in the case of the reading of an expository essay, or even, for example, a novel. In both of these cases of spectatorship, the intentions of the writer, though perhaps in the case of fiction writing more ambiguous, are made much clearer than the intentions and beliefs of a visual artist through their own work because of their being explained via the universally used medium of explanation: language.

The debate concerning the freedom of artists to display their visionary insight without any sort of government or societal limitation is an ongoing theoretical quarrel, and one which cannot be absolved with any simple compromise between sides. This debate surfaced into mainstream media limelight and public awareness due to the government funding and public exhibition of the works of Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe in the late 1980s. A lengthy and complex argument took place during this time between those believing strongly in the absolute expressive freedom of the artist and those who thought certain limitations and standards should be set and used to assess art before it is given financial means by government funded organizations and eventually exhibited in public art museums. Within this argument, theoretical and philosophical questions were raised concerning how far the traditional standards of art could be stretched before work was no longer permissible as such, whether or not certain art was too explicit for public display, and what kind of role the intended meaning of the artist played in the ultimate assessment of his or her work and its worth. Due to the fact that their work succeeded in bringing these kinds of questions, as well as many others, to the forefront of public concern, at least for a somewhat significant amount of time, artists Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe, despite what one’s personal opinion of their individual work might be, must be remembered as having participated in, and perhaps even themselves caused something very important to the history of art and its role in society.

Source:

The Scandal of Pleasure, Wendy Steiner, copyright 1995 by the University of Chicago