We all indulge in censorship of one sort of another in our personal lives but most of us resent the idea that governments or institutions should impose censorship on us. No doubt there is such a thing as public standards of decency and a public morality but many in the art world believe that art should not be harnessed to the standards or morals of the majority.
But sometimes censorship is simply a matter of propriety. For example this seemingly harmless bronze sculpture of a naked woman caused considerable concern when first exhibited.
The piece is titled Tumbling Woman by Eric Fischl. On the week of September 9th 2002 Tumbling Woman, which was commissioned as a memorial to those who jumped or fell from the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001, was placed in the lower concourse at Rockefeller Center. Many who saw it and recognised the allusion to that tragedy were deeply disturbed (and understandably so). Consequently, the work was removed. The sculpture was not something the passers-by sought out, it was thrust before them. If they had reason to be in that part of the building they had no way of avoiding it. In a museum somewhere, the work will no doubt find a valued place in the art world for then it will be presented in a different light.
Another work held equally indecorous is this 11 foot high photograph titled Myra made using children’s hand prints and then turned into a monochromatic photograph.
When it was exhibited in New York in 1999 it was part of an exhibition that was closed by the Mayor of New York. Two years earlier this work had outraged Londoners. Myra is a portrait of Myra Hindley imprisoned for life for her part in the murder and torture of five children (the
infamous Moors murders). One Londoner threw eggs at the work and proclaimed that such works had to be stopped before some artist decides to paint a picture of the actual torture.
Like Tumbling Woman, the work itself is not what garners censure. Rather it is the association these works have to relatively recent tragic events. For later generations such associations will have little more than curiosity value. Still, we must ask the questions: “Does a work we find offensive fail as art merely as a result of the offense? Does not an art work such as Myra transcend the offense some people may take from it? Is there a limit where ‘offense’ takes priority over art?
Of course sometimes what is considered improper is merely an inflamed swelling in the eye of the beholder. This was the problem the Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft suffered 2002 when he ordered the statue behind him draped.
He didn’t want photographers taking pictures of him with the bare breasted Spirit of Justice in the background. Silliness reigns in the American Hall of Justice.
For some people works of art are ‘speech acts’ and consequently subject to moral considerations; we are morally responsible for what we say.
This work is Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary, a painting depicting a reinterpretation of a popular religious icon. At first glance it seems little more than a harmless cultural re-statement. But when audiences were informed that the medium used to create this work includes elephant dung splattered onto the canvas and cutouts of women’s buttocks some became outraged. There is no evidence to suggest the artist had a desire to mock the religious icon or the person it represents. The use of bodily fluids and excrement as a medium for art is common in a number of cultures.
The Ofili work was part of an exhibition of ‘Young British Artists From the Saatchi Collection’ presented at the Brooklyn Museum. The exhibition was eventually closed because Mayor Rudolph Giulani (who is Catholic) threatened to cut off New York City’s $7 million dollars in annual support to the museum if it went ahead with the exhibition.
Censorship of works that notoriously re-present religious icons would be laughable were they not taken so seriously by ultra-conscientious Christians. If we were ignorant of the fact that elephant dung was used as part of the medium of this painting I doubt that many would see the work as objectionable.
Commenting on this digital collage of a bikini-clad Virgin Mary By Alma Lopez when exhibited at the Museum of International Folk Art in Santa Fe, the Archbishop of Santa Fe complained that “No one would dream of putting Martin Luther King in speedos and desecrating his memory by putting him in some outlandish outfit. But somehow it seems open season on Catholic symbols.”[i] But, of course, it is just what ‘no one would dream of doing’ that fuels the imagination of many artists. In this example, Alma Lopez confided that she wanted to find a meaningful connection with La Virgen de Guadalupe.
Another work that caused equal consternation for Christians Is Renee Cox’s “Yo Mama’s Last Supper”.
William Donohue, the head of the Catholic League for Legal and Civil Rights described this photograph as ‘Catholic-bashing propaganda and morally objectionable’. Mayor Giuliani was so outraged that he promised to create a “decency panel” to monitor publicly funded artwork in the city.
In the Ofili work the outcry was against the medium (elephant dung) that was used. In these latter two examples it was how the subject matter was depicted that raised the hackles of concerned citizens.
In Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ it was the medium (and to some extent the title) that caused public consternation. The work is a cibachrome photograph (100 x 150 centimeters 3X5 feet) of a plastic crucifix floating in ox blood and the urine of the artist. It has caused a public furor wherever it has been shown which is ironic because the work is very attractive. If the title had been omitted I suspect fewer people would have found cause to reject the work (A duplicate of this work is titled Pieta II). While a title is not essential to most works it often pays to ask ourselves why a title is offered. It is not immediately obvious that urine has been used to make the work. We marvel at its size and the golden, ghostly appearance of the crucified Christ emerging from a blood red back ground. But it is only when it is discovered that the red is actually ox blood and the golden hue is urine that some become outraged. They tend to overlook the technique of the artist. They fail to acknowledge that the blood and urine is enhanced by the cibachrome paper. The paper is ultra glossy, showing the depth of colours as seemingly three dimensional and liquid in appearance. For me the work generates the revelation that is necessarily entailed in the creative act and clearly demonstrates its integrity.
I doubt that art lovers seriously believe Serrano took it upon himself to mock the religious icon that so many cherish. But when the work was displayed by The National Gallery of Victoria in Australia, the then Melbourne Archbishop George Pell tried unsuccessfully to procure an injunction to prevent the work from being shown arguing that it was blasphemous. Of course only the title could be construed as blasphemous for the work, without a doubt, honours the Christ figure. Still, even when the work was viewed some were driven to destruction and one patron is reported to have actually removed the work from the wall and kicked it.[ii] As a result of this and other incidents by outraged patrons the exhibition was closed.
As it is absurd to think that a teetotaler would find Christ’s act of turning water into wine an impropriety, it is equally absurd to think that a religious apostle would find Serrano’s act of turning urine into a work of art an impropriety.
No doubt, religious apostles have become ultra sensitive to artistic endeavors for religious icons seem to be popular ‘fair game’ for artists who present what some hold to be shocking examples of art. But I doubt that Ofili, Lopez, Cox or Serrano were attempting to parody the images they depicted.
If we are truly interested in art then we are forced to come to terms with what it is we believe art to be. I can accept that a work of art is a speech act but what it says is itself. As the philosopher Wittgenstein says; “The work of art does not aim to convey ‘something else’, just itself. Just as, when I pay someone a visit, I don’t just want to make him have a feeling of such and such a sort; what I mainly want is to visit him, though of course I should like to be well received too.”
Launt Thompson
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=Launt+Thompson&url=search-alias%3Daps&x=16&y=9
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=Launt+Thompson&url=search-alias%3Daps&x=16&y=9
No comments:
Post a Comment