Connection Post #1 - Censorship10/31/2018 Personal Opinion and Analysis
Censorship is a prevalent issue in the artistic community today. Despite the promotion of free speech in democratic societies like the United States, politicians and people in power still work to censor artistic expression that may offend them or oppose their ideology. For example, in "The Art of Controversy," Kwame Holman explores the "Sensation" art exhibition which caused public outrage with the piece "The Holy Virgin Mary" and provoked Rudy Giuliani to threaten the museum with cutting funding. The museum appealed to the courts and refused to take down the work or close the exhibition. Throughout the transcript, questions regarding the ethics of censoring this work, especially since the museum is a publicly funded institution, are raised and debated. Primarily, if the government can censor a public institution, would that infringe on free speech? In my opinion, in this situation, the government can censor the Brooklyn Museum. The government is funding this institution, and they have the right to have a say in what is presented to the public. If the museum was privately owned, then they could definitely show this exhibition, but since it is not, it needs to listen to the people who give them the majority of their money to exist or risk losing that funding and support. Although I disagree with the way that Rudy Giuliani reacted to the exhibition without ever stepping foot in the gallery himself, I understand where he is coming from. The museum is bound by contract to "have open access to the public, to train young people in artistic things, and to really put on an appropriate show for the citizens of the city" (pg. 3). If they fail to meet these guidelines, then they are liable to punishment. In defense of the museum, I believe that the government should have a consultant in matters like this who specializes in art who can educate the policymakers in how they should consider situations like these. Someone who knows the significance of these pieces and their messages should be advising those who have a say in the fate of these exhibitions. Furthermore, I believe the public needs a larger role when it comes to censorship in publicly funded institutions. If there was indeed widespread public outcry, as Giuliani and his constituents claim, then the exhibit was damaging to stability and there are grounds to take it down. In the end, these facilities are created to help the public, and, if they are not achieving that goal, then they can be shut down or changed. However, if claims of unrest are untrue, then the government has no grounds to take it down especially if it is just a handful of policymakers who dislike the art. Obviously, a society not as "free" as the United States would make a more concerted effort to censor art. For instance, in China, Ai Weiwei is frequently attacked by the Chinese government for his open critiques of them. This is a different situation because it is clear that China is in the wrong. Ai is not displaying any of his work in publicly funded institutions, but China continues to block his every move, even going as far as destroying his Shanghai and Beijing studio. In "Is Ai Weiwei China's Most Dangerous Man?" the writer explores Ai Weiwei's role in society. I found particularly interesting how China's best attempts at censoring Ai really only make him more popular. This begs the question, is China really censoring Ai Weiwei if his message is just further disseminated by their actions? China is definitely trying to censor Ai Weiwei. However, they just raise more support for him in the process. In our technologically advanced world, nothing is truly secret, and China's acts are causing social media storms that increase Ai's prominence. Sure, they stop him from making art by destroying his studio and keep him on his toes with the amount of security cameras they have set up around his residence, but every time Ai makes work, everyone is watching. This audience can be partially attributed to people's outrage at China's attempts to censor Ai. Ai said it himself in the article when he stated "'They create me rather than solve the problems I raise'" (pg. 3). Ai's quote brings up an interesting perspective. Instead of addressing Ai's discontent, they try to stop him which brings media attention to the Chinese government's anti-free speech stance instead of the other serious issues Ai tries to comment on. In a way, this is a form of censorship. By drawing attention to something else, the government is hindering Ai's communication. That is, if it worked. I believe that if this is China's intended strategy, then it is horribly executed. Through their very public acts, they are drawing negative attention to themselves and Ai's work is very easily interpreted. The media focuses on China's actions that is true, but they also convey Ai's message to show what the government is trying to suppress. Furthermore, sometimes Ai's work is commenting on government censorship, and, if China tries to suppress that, it would be irony at its finest. Following along with the idea that censorship just perpetuates a work and an artist, this phenomenon also presents itself in the "Sensation" art exhibition. People came to Brooklyn from far and wide to see what all of the controversy and anger was about. There were people lined up to get into the gallery. In this situation, I believe it is not truly censorship until they have to take the art off the walls and close down the gallery. To conclude these four loosely related paragraphs, I believe that the government has the right to censor a gallery when they are funding that gallery, but only with the consent of the people who are funding the government and with adequate reasoning. Furthermore, censorship is not truly censorship until the art is not able to be accessed by anyone. Comparing The Two Articles and Some Opinions About How They Were Written These two articles both explore the meaning of censorship and the reaches of it. When put together, the articles reveal the differences between a democratic and non-democratic society. Both governments exercise censorship but with very different reaches. The US can only censor that which belongs to them or is funded by them, and even then, that draws controversy, whilst the Chinese government is free to censor whatever it likes with the ire of every free-speech loving country in the world. "The Art of Controversy" was very fun to read as there was a real interview conducted between two contrasting opinions. "Is Ai Weiwei China's Most Dangerous Man?" was much more expressive and stylistic with great quotes from Ai Weiwei that really enriched the article.
2 Comments
I am still not sure what my own views are on wether or not the government should be allowed to censor a public institution. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this as it posed one side of the debate in a clear and measured manner. I do agree with the fact that the public needs to play a larger role. The art and the institutions are presumably for the public and should seek to meet their needs and wished, not just those of a few people in governmental power. I talked about Ai Wei Wei in my sketchbook and agree with your assessment that the attempted censoring of Ai Wei Wei actually served to make him more popular. I wonder if that could be applied to the BK Museum debate? Did the controversy make more people hear about "Sensations"? Is this a positive or a negative? How did the media play a role in that debate?
Reply
Renny
11/6/2018 07:04:25 am
I'm very iffy on the case of public censorship. In the case of "the Art of Controversy", while I do understand where you're coming from, I don't think I agree. Obviously, it's a very slippery slope, but I don't think that the government has the right to censor this particular exhibition. Specifically because I believe it infringes on the free speech of both the artist and the curators. And while your argument about it being a public institution is very valid- and I do agree- I just think that the guidelines given by the government to the museum were very vague. "… have open access to the public, to train young people in artistic things, and to really put on an appropriate show for the citizens of the city" (Page 3) This seems really vague. Who is to deem what is and isn't appropriate? The government? I beg to differ, but as I wasn't personally offended by any of the work, my opinion is probably a stark contrast compared to others. So again, a slippery slope.
Reply
Leave a Reply.author.jacqueline. she/her. senior. virginia, usa. art v. archives.
March 2020
categories.
All
|