Fatema, post 7

Fatema Kermalli

The idea that art influences behavior may have helped to shape and harden the conservative’s stance against the work of Mapplethorpe, and subsequently, NEA’s funding of it. As Steiner notes, the issue for the right was “the use of taxpayer’s money to fund art that the average citizen would find personally offensive and destructive of community values” (29). The fact that community values played a large role in the culture war that ensued can be seen through the type of legislation that they attempted to pass (the Helms amendment) in order to stop the funding and/or viewing of such works. One prime example of this was homosexuality and AIDS, a tabooed subject at the time. “Beyond totalitarianism, the left charged politicians such as Jesse Helms with prejudice against homosexuals and every kind of deviance from stereotyped American morality” (31). The fact that this topic, which was not spoken of in other circles, was also fought against in the art world proves that a connection was maintained by at least some parties between (advocacy of) the actual action and the depiction of it.

With the debate over NEA funding, this link is noticeable in the types of images that were to be prohibited from public funding: “Proscribed were ‘works depicting sadomasochism, homoeroticism, sexual exploitation of children or individuals engaged in sex acts’”… in short, the depiction of things thought to be degrading to society’s values (24). For those who did not consider the images to be influencing such behavior, these prohibitions would appear to be unnecessary and contradictory to American freedoms. Those that did relate the two, however, could only view such action as necessary in order to slow the spread of “evil”.

Belief in the ability of art to influence behavior had a great effect on the way in which the prosecution presented their case in the Cincinnati trial as well. Because of their deeply held views that the images themselves advocated performance of the action depicted, they assumed that the jurors would have the same feelings. It was assumed that as soon as the jurors were shown the images, they would equate them with the actual actions, which they knew to be wrong, and thus immediately judge the images based upon that moral knowledge.

Instead, the jurors were presented with a different way of viewing the pieces by the defense, which provided a “vast web of aesthetic interpretation” (33). This interpretation did not equate the content of the works with real life behavior (for there would have been no way to condone that). Instead, they separated the works from this realm totally, focusing instead on their formal aspects, and “proving” that they were indeed serious art. It was this disparity in thought that provided a basis for much of the argument on either side of the case.

The idea that art has power is long-standing and goes back all the way to the time of Plato. This knowledge retained by the artist regarding the power of his or her images to move people equates to an advocacy on the part of the artist concerning whatever visual he or she creates. The intention here is one of, if not the most important aspect of the work of art. Where an obscenity is shown (i.e. even obscenity which has “serious” value artistically), there can be no excuse for the artist due to his total understanding of his own power (which is being misused). The world has a long history of understanding in the way of how images can affect our ways of thinking and acting… hence the use of them for propaganda. Based on this, it would not be unreasonable to state that any artist would be fully aware of the power that they hold in creating an image. With this power, as with any type of power, comes a responsibility to act with regard for the audience and depict things truthfully (just as a public speaker is not supposed to misrepresent the information he or she is presenting).

Also important to note in this equation is the lack of a real reason for the depiction of this obscenity; the formal aspects of beautiful art could be just as well achieved through the use of moral content. As was stated as an argument against Mapplethorpe’s images in the book, freedom of speech and expression was meant as a safeguard for ideas… not, for example, the exploitation of innocent children in photography.

As Samuel Lipman states, “There are certainly those who will claim that the Mapplethorpe photographs are art, and therefore to be criticized, if at all, solely on aesthetic, never on moral grounds” (Brookman 41). But the two are intertwined; and aesthetics may not be viewed by most people as reason enough to throw away one’s own concepts of morality. Aesthetics simply for its own sake is not protected by the 1^st amendment according to the above given explanation… and indeed, some of the images appear to fit the definition given of pornography, which is also not fully protected (MSN Encarta dictionary: "sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal”).

Artists, then, just as people in all other professions, have a responsibility towards the general public, and cannot be wholly separated from it. The actions of each individual affect those people around him or her. As such, it is the responsibility of each to not only bear in mind the immediate consequences of his actions on himself, but also on the community at large. Obscene “art” thus has no place in the art world. As it is, the idea that serious art can be excluded from obscenity does not make sense, considering the fact that what makes a thing obscene is the content, and that does not change regardless of the formal aspects of a work.

The visual may act differently from the textual due to its ability to immediately evoke responses from the viewers and touch the emotions. This goes back to the ideas voiced by Plato regarding the strength of images… and, according to him, their subsequent need for censorship. Visuals may be imprinted in the minds of the viewers (indeed, even strong texts are said to create mental images which can then stay with the readers). They leave room for people to fill in their own experiences and relate the visual piece with other scenes from their own lives or minds. They are easily understandable, unlike text, which takes much longer to read and digest. Images are open for all people, while text limits those who can access the ideas based on language and education. These differences act on the spectator in varying ways. As has been stated earlier, the things presented in images may actually permeate the thinking of the spectator without his or her recognizing it. Text, on the other hand, must be explicit, and thus cannot usually advocate unnoticed. Images may also be considered more explicit (with regards to obscenity) as compared to text, which must first be processed individually and internally.

Ally B, post 7

Ally Best
post 7

When Representative Richard Armey described an issue of NEA funding, he remarked, “This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of judgement, of values” (Brookman, xv). This seemingly simple statement hints at a not-so-simple debate. Is there really more to art than its aesthetic elements? Does it have the power to influence behavior? Why is art so much more potent, and therefore controversial, than other forms of art and who, if anyone, should be held responsible for its effects? These questions have been debated for years by artists, politicians, scholars, and housewives alike and yet society seems no closer to reaching a consensus than it did when the debate first began. One particularly heated battle was sparked by the exhibit of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe titled “The Perfect Moment.” The controversy was centered around Mapplethorpe’s X-portfolio, which depicted men engaged in what some considered to be “obscene” sexual acts (xvii). For many, these images became a point of contention not simply because of their subject matter, but because they were partially financed by the NEA (41). Critics argued that there were better uses of governmental funds than these “explicit” photos. On the other side of the debate were those who argued that the photographs held aesthetic significance. Janet Kardon, for example, analyzed the photographs in terms of their artistic aspects rather than their subject matter, focusing on the images’ “sensitive lighting, texture, and composition” (Steiner, 9). This analytical view of the art removed much of the emotion by which the opposition was fueling the fire. By examining the art in terms of its formal components, Kardon managed to make the photographs seem more legitimate as pieces of artwork, rather than pornography.

In The Scandal of Pleasure, Steiner recalls an instance when one of her students objected to one of the films she presented on the basis that it promoted drug use. She goes on to explain the positions of both the student and school faculty by saying, “The student believes in the power of art to control behavior; the professor, chairman, and dean believe in the power of art to describe the world and in the responsibility of teachers to inform students about such representations, and hence about that world” (3). These two distinct attitudes represent, on a larger scale, the two conflicting arguments in the debate of art censorship and decency. On the one side, there are the people who argue, as the student did, that art can influence behavior. The foundation of their argument is that, by seeing what they consider “immoral” themes depicted in artwork, society begins to view these themes as commonplace, and even acceptable. As actions spring from thoughts, their theory is that immoral pieces of art lead to immoral thoughts and values, which, in turn, lead to immoral behavior. This reasoning reminds me of the theory behind clothing ads. Consider an ad for a particularly hideous leopard print belt. Upon first seeing the ad, you might think “Who in the world would wear that?” However, the more ads you see, the more you get used to that leopard print belt. You begin to imagine that the leopard print belt is a very fashionable style. The more you think about the belt, the more you convince yourself of its merits until you eventually go out and buy the now-very-trendy leopard print belt. While the belt example may seem somewhat trivial, art, on the other hand, has the ability to potentially influence much more integral aspects of life. Philosopher Arthur Danto refers to this phenomenon when he mentions that, “It is healthy for art to vacate the position of pure aestheticism in which conservative critics seek to imprison it, and try to affect the way viewers respond to the most meaningful matters of their lives” (36). With the Mapplethorpe art in particular, the main concern was that, by allowing what some termed “pornography” to become more common, society would lose track of traditional family values and, as a result, there might be an increase in battery, rape, and/or general unrest. Richard Nixon expresses these sentiments when he explains that, “if an attitude of permissiveness were to be adopted regarding pornography, this would contribute to an atmosphere condoning anarchy in every other field- and that would increase the threat to our social order” (Steiner, 39). This theory is easy enough to understand, but is it accurate? Nixon and others who use this logic rely on the assumption that pornography and, really, any “inappropriate” images do, in fact, have a negative effect on the viewer. This point is where the other side of the debate disagrees. They argue that there is no proof that viewing images such as those by Mapplethorpe has any adverse effects whatsoever. For their evidence, they cite numerous studies that deny the existence of a link between what a person views and how a person acts. For example, one study concluded that there was “no correlation between lewd representations and lewd acts” (Steiner, 39). While this side is by no means asserting that art doesn’t affect behavior, what they are saying is that “obscene” images are not necessarily detrimental to society. The critic Peter Schjeldahl commented that pieces of art such as Mapplethorpe’s should be appreciated, “as not only a refined pleasure but also an oracle of worldly change” (Steiner, 57). Clearly, Schjeldahl recognized that art does hold the power to influence. Yet he believed this influence to broaden the viewer’s horizons rather than corrupt them. This theory of art places more responsibility on the viewer and the viewer’s individual willpower. While the supporters acknowledge that art can influence people’s thinking, and perhaps they even encourage this influence, they hold the viewers themselves accountable for their own actions. In fact, some art intellectuals feel that society has often used art as a sort of “scape goat” to take the blame for society’s problems. As Steiner put it, some people may be “punishing art for real problems that they are unwilling to address” (7).

Steiner claims that one of the most important purposes of art is to “sharpen and complicate our views, providing alternatives to simplistic ideas and revealing the inadequacy of unquestioned orthodoxies” (5). I agree; the primary purpose of art is representation. Art represents the world as we know it and the world we have never known. It represents what life is now and what it could one day be. Art forces the viewer to see things in a different light and from a different point of view. However, this is where art stops. It doesn’t attempt to convince the viewer to believe in certain ideals or values. It does not try to change or lower a person’s morals. Therefore, if the purpose of the art is not to advocate something, then the act of making the art cannot be considered advocacy on the artist’s part. Besides, advocacy is simply too difficult to define and distinguish to be considered a major factor in the creation of art. For any particular theme presented in art, one person could argue it is being advocated by the art while another could just as easily argue that it is simply being represented. As the Supreme Court ruled, “…what is one man’s amusement is another man’s doctrine” (36). In my opinion, the vagueness associated with determining whether or not a piece of art is advocating a theme or idea eliminates advocacy as a reasonable assumption when viewing art. Because there is generally no way to determine for certain whether a piece of art advocates a certain idea, it is important to stick with viewing art as a representation. Otherwise, there is the possibility of drawing very inaccurate conclusions from the art.

Bloom once said, “The interpreter’s creative activity is more important than the text; there is no text, only interpretation” (Steiner, 6). Thus we are launched into the debate of words verses pictures. How many times have you heard the phrase “the image was burned into my brain”? Ignoring the obvious physiological impossibilities of this statement, it does bring to mind an interesting point: the power of the visual. Images gain their power from the effect they have on the brain. When reading text, the reader is first required to view the text, then interpret it, and finally create a mental picture of what the text is “saying.” However, the visual cuts out this intermediate step and instead forces the viewer to see the image as the artist intended it, rather than how the viewer’s own experiences and personality mold the image in his or her mind. Simply describing a Mapplethorpe work to someone would almost certainly not have the same effect as forcing him or her to view it. Most likely, no matter how detailed the description, the viewer could not, or would not, imagine the photo as graphically as Mapplethorpe had pictured it. Our brains create mental pictures from text based on images we have already seen. However, if we have never seen the images being described, or anything like them, the images our brains generate from text are not nearly so powerful as those we can actually see.

Art is, in many ways, similar to religion. People develop different views about what is “right” and what is “wrong” and, because the debates are about morals, the arguments become heated. The key to surviving these battles is to be accepting; to stand behind your beliefs, but allow others to have theirs as well. Just as people have the option of going to a particular church and reading a particular bible, people should have the choice to visit museums and view art that they find thought-provoking or enlightening. No one tells Jewish people they have to go to Catholic mass, just as no one tells people who are offended by certain types of art that they have to view it. One article discussing the censorship of the Mapplethorpe exhibit asserted that, “Creativity and the human spirit require exploration and risk, as does life” (Brookman, 38). As faith forces people to step out of their comfort zone, creativity requires its own “leap of faith.” Without creativity, life would be colorless and dull. So, while some art may be hideous and vulgar, it is still worth being seen, or at least having the opportunity to be seen.

Rob H, post 7

Rob Hoffman

I have written before about art’s ability to affect and influence the individuals who view it. The method by which art accomplishes this task is what I termed non-propositional argumentation. Normal arguments use fairly clear premises to lend support to a specific conclusion; art, however, does not behave in this format. There is almost always a conclusion that any given work of art is meant to make, but the argument lacks the established premises of normal verbal or written arguments. This has the interesting but perhaps dangerous quality of influencing viewers who are unaware that they are even being exposed to an argument. Since they do not recognize the artwork as an argument given its hidden propositions, most people are therefore more willing to accept the argument (usually subconsciously) without mounting the kind of rigorous examination and critical review with which they would ideally ordinarily respond to any argument.

This seems to present a rather clear method by which art could influence a person’s ideas and thoughts, but can art go so far as to influence their actions as well? To properly answer this question, it seems important to address the next issue of whether or not depiction in art equals advocacy. This does not, however, seem to be too terribly difficult of a question. Certainly any violent and disturbing image of war (i.e. Guernica) created for the purpose of making an anti-war statement could not be considered advocating the bloody scenes it depicts. What about images that are not meant to be critical or satirical then? Can an artist create a work that carries with it strong connotations without being an advocate of the themes that accompany the image?

Although it is a more difficult question to answer, I still believe that advocacy is not necessarily implied in depiction. An artist’s possible motivations and arguments for any given piece are virtually limitless. Without knowing what any piece in particular argues it is impossible to know anything about what is being advocated; still, it seems a stretch to say that no artist is capable of depicting an image that he or she does intend to advocate.

Even if it is possible for artists to create work that they do not necessarily advocate, the point is still secondary to interpretive elements of the art. What the artist is advocating in the work becomes an important distinction in cases such as Riefenstahl’s and in other cases where obscenity is an issue, but whether or not an image is considered offensive or obscene in the first place is still a function of how the work is perceived and interpreted by the viewing public. If the public sensibilities are offended by a given work of art, chances are the artist will be automatically assumed to be possessing of the same values that are allegedly espoused in the work. This was certainly the case with Serrano and Maplethorpe, and it was part of the reason that they themselves were attacked as they were.

Much of the attack, however, was also directed at the NEA and other elements of the academic community who were being held indirectly responsible for the direction in which art was moving. The issue with the NEA is an interesting one that is perhaps not without its merits. As a government organization, the NEA and the grants that it provides to artists are all funded by taxpayer money. Therefore, and much to the outrage of individuals such as Rev. Wildman, the taxpayers were the ones paying artists to create such “offensive” works of art. Many of the taxpayers themselves were upset about where and how their money was being spent. While this argument (that taxpayers should not support with money that which they find morally questionable or abhorrent) has merit and has been argued at least since Henry David Thoreau, it is also far from an isolated case. How many taxpayers have issues with the use of the military in recent years, and yet their money continues to fund these operations.

In addition to being outraged that their money was being spent on that with which they vehemently disagreed, the detractor of Serrano’s and Mapplethorpe’s work were upset that the NEA would recognize such work and promote it. Given art’s ability to influence (as per above), what groups like the NEA select is far more important than simply what will go in the galleries. The art that is selected will presumably have a deeper, more widely felt impact and influence on both the ideas and possibly the actions of the general populace. Steiner touches on this issue by bringing up the divide between the politicians and the academics. Those opposed to the art being produced blame the academics of high jacking the culture of the country. It is as though they are in a conspiracy to alter the common mores and ideas by directing art in directions that are more in line with their sensibilities.

Why does art have so much power? Other than its nature as non-propositional argumentation, what does it have going for it? Why is there a more outspoken reaction to visual art than written art? I believe that it is due to the power that images have over us. Seeing is believing, and we have automatic and subconscious reactions to what we see. We internalize it and respond to it without ever even knowing that we have done so. It’s this internalization and instantaneous consideration of what we see that gives images so much power of us. Seeing things is far more visceral, far more real than simply hearing about them. We form mental images that stay with us in ways that things we hear or read might not. We are more likely to be moved to disgust or subtly moved toward imitation by something we see. Perhaps in this way, art does have the ability to influence what we do.

The interpretation of visual data occurs almost instantaneously and without command whenever we receive visual sense input. We cannot help this interpretation any more than we can prevent it or control it. Art is, in many ways, all around us, and we take it in with a much more casual, unnoticed manner than that in which we perceive textual information. This is all part of what makes art so powerful, and therefore so controversial. If it were just a matter of avoiding images that one found offensive, this would be an easier problem. The real solution probably lies closer to this: support for artists needs to become more widely distributed, thus allowing a greater variety of artists to produce their work. Hopefully this would make everyone happy and have the added bonus of creating a more cultured society in the process.

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.

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.

Jessica D., Post 7

"My approach to photographing a flower is not much different than photographing a cock. Basically, it's the same thing."
–Robert Mapplethorpe

The unwavering power that art has in influencing an individual’s opinions, ideas, emotions, and perceptions, has been evident since the dawn of time and has been utilized by many as a potent tool. Both political figures and artists alike have strived throughout history attempting to harness the innate power of art in order to propagate their own personal agendas (Steiner 37). In politics, art is equally exploited by all sides to promote and advance their own political agendas. This is especially true in today’s political arena where perception is reality and citizens frequently base decisions on an orchestrated presentation from a group or candidate. This was true in the time of the Pharaohs and is still true in our modern day society. In the art world, artists use art as a medium to freely express and communicate their deepest thoughts, beliefs, and values. Though these expressions may initially seem unique and personal to the artist; they are in fact more subtle reflections of the issues of the time and culture of the society in which the artist lives.

In the film clips we watched of Damned in the U.S.A., it was quite comical to watch these political censorious zealots so passionately outraged by art that they claim threatens to disrupt all “public morality” and “social order”. It echoed the cries of Hitler’s unrelenting attack on “degenerate” art, Stalin’s denouncement of art that was not Socialist Realism, and George Dondero’s vendetta against American Abstract Expressionist Art. Perhaps what surprised me most was that in the 20th century our American Democracy, a government that separates church and state, would even consider exercising censorship on a moral basis. It was not only the inherently defiant nature of contemporary art that caused it to attract so much controversy and “really touch raw nerves”, but also the fact that NEA was using taxpayers’ "hard earned money" to fund these artists (Bolton 41). Robert Mapplethorpe’s art shocked the public because many of his works were explicitly sexual and homoerotic in nature; definitely deviating from “traditional” American values and exploring taboo territory. It was immediately branded by conservatives as obscene and immoral and criticized because it refused to conform. It seems rather irrational that the government would try to censor art work that was “immoral” or “obscene”; when in a nation as diverse as the United States, it is impossible to get a unanimous definition of what the terms moral, obscene, indecent, corrupt, and beautiful mean. If we were to test the “community standards” of Rollins College would there be a unanimous consensus to what is obscene, indecent, moral, or beautiful?

It seems ironic to condemn an artist for communicating their ideals, beliefs, and values when the purpose of art is to allow individualistic unrestrained self-expression. It is crucial to remember that we live in a nation that highly values an individual’s right to express themselves freely; therefore, when artists create art to express what they feel, we as spectators need to be tolerant and respectful of their right to express themselves even when it conflicts with our own morals and beliefs. The proverb, “A picture is worth a thousand words”, succinctly expresses the dominant power that the visual has over the textual. The textual leaves much to the imagination; the visual explicitly divulges its contents to the viewer thereby allowing them to interpret them as they wish (Steiner 33). Making something visual in some sense automatically brings it to life, but this does not necessarily translate into advocacy. Visual art can serve to advocate, denounce, or even choose to remain completely neutral concerning social, political, or cultural issues. For example, Picasso’s famous painting, Guernica, a distorted depiction of the bombing of Guernica by the Nazis, does not advocate violence or war, but instead actively serves to denounce the pain and suffering that war and violence has on humanity. On the other hand, the images in Mapplethorpe’s X-Portfolio, extremely sexually explicitly in nature, I believe do serve to advocate the “gay subculture” that Mapplethorpe was proudly a part of (Bolton xvii). However, this does not mean that viewing these photos will impose upon the viewer and cause them to abandon their own morals and partake in a homosexual lifestyle. These photographs are a candid extension of the artist himself and therefore are to be tolerated and respected.

Artists are not trying to forcefully impose upon the public their own beliefs, ideologies, or values, but instead merely attempting to communicate them through an artistic medium. When artists create art whether consciously or subconsciously they are expressing a relevant topic, view, or concern of the society in which they live. The value of the art they create is neither temporary, nor static and can even change over time. Be it cave paintings in France, hieroglyphics in Thebes, or frescos in Italy; the artists that created these art works did not realize at the time they were in fact creating invaluable historical documents. Art is a mirror not only of its creator’s situation, but also of the society in which the artist lives. Art along with film, literature, and music are all main sources that aid future generations in understanding previous eras and therefore present a very strong argument against censorship of any kind.

Not only is beauty always in the eye of the beholder, but so too is art. Especially with Contemporary art; the viewer is confronted with the dilemma that “art doesn’t have to be beautiful or pretty” or more importantly does not always have to uphold their own moral beliefs and values in order to be considered art (Steiner 33). When art is branded as being morally “bad” or “corrupt” whose morals are we judging it by? Are we judging by the morals of Jesse Helms, Alfonse D’Amato, Reverend Donald Wildmon, Andres Serrano, or Robert Mapplethorpe? The close minded belief that someone’s personal taste or morals have legal precedence over someone else’s is not only a belief that is detrimental to social tolerance and respect, but also directly threatens the very principles of American Democracy. We must remember that we are not a “homogenous and dissent-free model of society”, but instead a diverse nation in which each citizen is guaranteed the freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution of United States of America (Steiner 43).

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges our nation faces is not falling into the trap that so many dictatorial regimes tyrannically enforced; censoring that which does not conform or defiantly deviates from a “traditional standard”. Not only is censorship anti-democratic, but it also a direct and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. In order to preserve our freedom and the very principles our nation was founded upon we need our government to put more faith in the ability of American citizens to make responsible and well-informed decisions on what they want to read, write, watch on TV, listen to on the radio, and see in art museums. Ultimately, allowing each individual to be the “expert” of his or her own life.

Ashley C. Post 7

Ashley Cannaday

Robert Mapplethorpe’s artwork had been in shows and museums for over a decade before it actually caused controversy. His photographs of flowers, figure studies, self portraits, portraits of celebrities, and homoerotic works were well known in 1987, when the Philadelphia ICA put on a retrospective show of Mapplethorpe’s art. In this show, which toured not only the United states but also the world, all 175 pieces of Mapplethorpe’s collective works were on display, including the more controversial X, Y, and Z portfolios. The Mapplethorpe exhibit happened to coincide, more or less, with Andres Serrano’s creation of Piss Christ, which depicted a plastic crucifix submerged in urine. As a result, both artists came under attack by the government, and a review of NEA funding was held. Seven of Mapplethorpe’s photographs were charged with obscenity and put on trial in 1990, and the director of the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, Ohio was indicted on charges of “pandering obscenity and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material” (Steiner, Pg. 32). However, there was not a conviction because the jury decided that Mapplethorpe’s photographs had artistic value, and therefore were not classified as obscenity.

One of the major debates regarding Mapplethorpe’s work is whether it has a right to receive government funding through the NEA. Many believed that the NEA was wrong to fund and support this art that they considered obscene. Senator Jesse Helms proposed an amendment to bar the Philadelphia ICA and SECCA from receiving federal grants for five years and to prohibit the NEA from funding obscene art, which he described as “depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts.” Also to be excluded from funding was “material which denigrates the objects or beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion or non-religion; or material which denigrates, debases, or reviles a person, group or class or citizens on the basis of race, creed, sex, handicap, age or national origin” (Steiner, Pg. 22). Most conservatives took a stance condemning the NEA, saying that it was unfair that the American taxpayers’ hard earned money was going towards the creation of art that they found disgusting and degrading. Liberals argued that to restrict government funding of art was essentially a form of censorship, and challenged artistic freedom under the First Amendment. This censorship would go against the liberty and freedom of expression of America, making us no better than a totalitarian regime. Helms’s amendment was not passed.

The critics who would have Mapplethorpe’s work censored largely believe in the idea that art influences behavior. If the public views these homoerotic, sadomasochistic photographs, then they will be corrupted and perverse. Consequently, America as a nation will become corrupt and decline. They argue that the NEA should not use government money to fund artwork that depicts perversion because it will lead to perversion. They see the American people as easily persuaded. Indeed, the average citizen commonly comes in contact with art and images in the form of advertisements that are trying to convince you to do or buy something. Most advertisements are trying to tell you what to do, and many are successful. With most Americans in the mindset that images are advertisements, it is to be expected that they would use this same mindset when viewing Mapplethorpe’s artwork. Also, many viewers may believe that because these photographs are in museums, which can be thought of as elite and high-class, and out in the open for everyone to see, the practices depicted in them are acceptable in society and promoted. However, many supporters of Mapplethorpe’s art and the NEA claim that, for the most part, art does not influence behavior. Just because a viewer looks at these perverse acts does not mean that they will take up the practice of them. In most instances, art will not lead to influencing the public to perform the acts depicted, but it could lead the public to think about their feelings on the subject. Art, therefore, does not influence behavior, but influences thought. In two studies on the effect that pornography has on behavior, no link could be established between pornography and antisocial conduct. In fact, there is evidence that exposure to pornography can actually lead to a healthy sex life. There is no evidence that pornography leads to violence against women (Steiner, Pg. 38). By censoring the NEA funding and art, the government censoring thought. They are attempting to control how the public thinks.

What is more disturbing about this issue is even though it appears to line up by political affiliation, with Conservatives championing the people and protecting them from the bad art and artists, and Liberal protecting the people from the jack booted thugs who want to control them mind and body, both sides seem to miss the boat. As a member of the “laity” I don’t need or want anyone telling me what is good for me, or how I should think or act. Automatically, many will protest that it is only Conservatives who are guilty of this, however the Liberal factions engage in the same practices. They believe their propaganda is justified as they have only the best of intentions as we common folk need their guidance. Where do we draw the line? Do we agree with those who would say it is too graphic or obscene for you or with those who say we know best what is art and we say this is so you should expand your horizons. I don’t agree with censorship in any form, but I also find elitism as egregious. The point can certainly be made that tax money should not fund obscene art, just as the opposite point can be made that Uncle Sam should stay out of the studio.

I think it is naïve to believe art should only be wholesome and represent mom, the flag, and apple pie, however I also believe it is just as naïve to believe that there should be no boundaries. Defining obscenity is akin to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We all see the rainbow and it appears as if we know where it ends, but we never seem to get there. As there are community standards this seems to be a place to start, however please don’t protect me, I can do a great job of that myself. If you are hell bent on protecting me, catch a terrorist. On the other side of the coin please don’t try to convince me that something is great. I don’t need some academia trying to convince me of how amazing a photograph is of a man with a bullwhip in his rectum. For me that is repulsive, not art, and therein lies the beauty. I get to decide what I believe is art, and I get to choose what I will support and what I won’t. Please don’t try to cover my eyes and don’t talk down to me when I don’t agree with your interpretation.

Personally, I do not believe that by visualizing something as a form of artwork, one advocates it. As Steiner states, “aesthetic representation is a crucial stage in our understanding of such phenomena as sadomasochism or homoeroticism, and… these phenomena require our understanding.” Rather, art promotes thought about the subject, “providing alternatives to simplistic ideas and revealing the inadequacy of unquestioned orthodoxies” (Steiner, Pg. 5).
While I find Steiner’s ideas on this subject condescending and somewhat elitist, I agree that representation does not automatically equate advocacy. The artist does not have to be passionate about a cause in order to create art. There is such a thing as art for art’s sake. While creating visual art may not automatically mean you advocate that which is portrayed, so what if it does? Once again, I don’t need anyone to tell me what to believe, just as I don’t need to tell anyone what they should believe in. If you advocate allowing pigs a vote in the national election and your image is that of a swine in a voting booth, so be it. I may just like pictures of pigs and may really think yours is an invaluable addition to my porcine collection. I am more concerned with my interpretation, not the artists’. I also believe that in certain situations art can have exactly the opposite effect of advocacy. Rather than advocacy, it could denounce the subject it depicts. This can be seen in Kruger’s feminist art. In here photograph They Blind Your Eyes, she is not advocating the male gaze. Rather, she is trying to make the viewer understand the issue. She is denouncing the subject.

Usually, the visual and textual act differently on the viewer. Text that describes a painting or artwork could be very detailed, but ultimately much is left up to the spectator’s imagination. When we read a novel, for example, we create the image of what the characters and the world they live in look like in our head, based on the descriptions provided by the author. However, I know that many times one of my favorite books have been made into a film, and while the actors match the descriptions of the characters in the book, they do not match the character I have created in my head. With looking at a visual image, what you see is what you get. You cannot picture it differently, because it is right there before you.

In some instances, however, it is not the actual image that causes controversy, but rather the text attached to that image. This can best be seen in the case of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, which depicted a plastic crucifix submerged in urine. When the image is viewed without the knowledge of its title, it comes off as an amazing piece of artwork. As the New York Times described, it shows “Jesus on the cross in a golden haze through a smattering of minute bubbles against a dark, blood-colored background.” The work takes on a monumental appearance, and comes off as reverential. The viewer would initially see the photograph as stunning and pro-Christian. However, once the title of the artwork is read, it is interpreted differently. With the title, Piss Christ, in mind, the viewer now sees the art as blasphemy. The spectator is not interpreting the visual art anymore, but rather is text. Your view of the meaning of Piss Christ depends on your interpretation of the title. Indeed, this is the case for many abstract pieces of art. Most of the time, the only way you can derive any meaning from abstract art is through the interpretation of its title.

The bottom line is art provokes thought in some instances and in some it does not. If I don’t like your art, I won’t support it. If I want enlightenment, I will seek out the so-called experts to fill my mind, if not, I will stick to artists I know are safe and are like minded to my way of thinking.