16 February 2001
| Pablo Picasso once said: "Art is never chaste.
It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact
with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is
chaste, it is not art."
He is constantly proven right on both parts of that idea, most recently at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. A photography exhibit containing a portrayal of a nude, black, female Christ at the last supper has infuriated Mayor Guiliani: "I think what they did is disgusting, it's outrageous," Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, adding that anti-Catholicism "is accepted in our city and in our society."First of all, the work is not "anti-Catholic." Its message is critical of the Catholic church over particular issues, notably the overwhelming sexism within it. Just being critical of some organization doesn't make one "anti-(said organization)." Such work does not imply a hatred of Catholics but a disagreement with aspects of the organization, an organization which has the ability to change (no, the rules have not existed since eternity, they change frequently). Changes are frequently the result of people standing up and shouting and making their opinions heard. Good criticism is designed to improve that which is being criticized. (On a side note, that's some generalization to go from one disputed work to a generally anti-Catholic society.) Second, never mind whether or not the work is "anti-Catholic." It's still art, and if someone objects to its message, they don't have to see it, and have the freedom to produce works with alternative messages. Tied in with this is the question of what, specifically is being objected to. Is it a nude? Nudes are traditional throughout art history. Is it a black, female Jesus? That's part of a trick called artistic license, namely, that an artist is free to interpret their subject matter as they wish, usually to further the message of their work. The objection, generally, is obviously to freedom of art. But without freedom, there is no art. There is no clearer way to state this. The solution that is proposed is absolutely wrong. To allow only specific works, approved by a committee, is censorship, and destroys art. Art is supposed to challenge predominate ideas, views, and norms as well as support them; it is a dialogue. Once one side of the dialogue is removed, then the other loses its innovation, and becomes stale and eventually messageless. Which, Picasso would note, makes it two things: chaste, and thus not art. It is propaganda. For if the only "art" supported is that which "promotes the public good," art is the propaganda vehicle of what is often called "the Establishment," the group whose worldview and politics dominates the society. It entrenches their authority at the expense of every dissenting individual and group, and restricts, with the attempt to eliminate, the possibility of changes in the system. There are only two alternatives. The first is for our governments to continue supporting art with as little censorship as possible. Preferably cutting down what censorship there is, even. The second is to fund NO art. By this choice is meant either remove all the funding or remove the deception. If the funding goes only to censored works, it is not funding art. Remove the deception. Call it what it is. Call it propaganda. ***********
|
copyright 2001 by Orion.