Share Your Story
Decisions about the arts may affect us all, and may be made by anyone. Have you been asked to censor something? Was something you wanted to see restricted from you? Did you ever try to challenge a work of art? Were you a direct participant in an arts controversy? Please share your story.
Art of Kara Walker
I said I didn't think the one piece of art of Kara Walker should appear on the home page because I couldn't make any sense out of it. What does it signify? Also, I don't think it is artistic.
While I do not believe in censorship in any form, I do think artists and galleries have a responsibility to inform the viewing public if a show contains adult or controversial themes. People can then make informed decisions about whether they want to see a particular show, and whether they should take their children. As curator of a group show, that featured work by and about women, I was faced with the question of displaying art with themes such as homosexuality, masturbation, rape, nudity, sex, and body image in a university gallery only a few hundred feet from a preschool. The preschool shared a main hall with the windowed side of the gallery and the children were often taken to exhibits by preschool staff and parents. While this was not the only time controversial issues had been addressed by works in this gallery it was probably the largest collection of such themes. Because the artists were women, and many were also mothers, the issue was important to all of us. While we would not censor the show, we felt it was important to devise a responsible solution that would provide a buffer for the children without compromising the impact of the exhibit. We solved the problem by covering the lower (kid level) portion of the windows, hanging the work with more adult themes facing away from the doors and windows and placing warnings at the entrances telling viewers that the show dealt with adult themes. This proved to be a solution that worked for all, and an interesting side effect was that the attendance for the show was higher than average. Perhaps a response to the warning that promised a bit of the "forbidden?"
Although I have not been in a position to make a decision about whether a work may be displayed or published, or been subjected to such decisions as the creator of a work, I do live in this society and am affected by the way these issues are handled. I believe freedom of expression is very important. However, I do have a problem when as a society, we decide that there is one standard of free expression for artists and another standard for everyday citizens. Free speech has taken some serious hits recently as a result of laws and findings that people or organizations can be penalized for being "offensive." Equal or greater degrees of offensiveness, it seems to me, are protected with much greater vigor when packaged as art. I do acknowledge the wisdom of the old Oliver Wendell Holmes adage "my freedom to swing my fist ends where the other guy's nose begins." No rights are absolute. We will always face a tough struggle defining the boundaries of free expression. I would simply advocate that there should be no double standard. Artists, members of the press, and everyday citizens should all fall under the same rules.
I don't care what some loser's do in the name of art. I just don't want to *pay* for the few who think.. "a portrait of the Virgin Mary adorned with elephant dung, mannequins with genitals as facial features, a glass tank featuring a fake cow's head and 20,000 live maggots and farm animals bisected and displayed in formaldehyde,î (Quote taken from a message above ). ...that they need my tax money to be as nasty as they want to be... THEY can pay for it THEMSELVES, or get private funding.
interesting title, but nothing to do with art--just some poor guy really pissed of at society in general.
Art is the expression of the soul whether depressed depraved , and brooding or beautiful and fantasic. to censor art is to deny our heritage as a people, a people who has murdered, raped, destroyed and dishonored, a people who has built great cities and great societies , a people who has strived to help its fellow man in times of need and embraced those unlike himself. our art is as important and as varied as our history remember the first step in curing a sickness is discovering one has it. should we cover the blemishes of our society with censorshp we would be doomed come the day the disease is irriverable, and we have done nothing. I dont want them to learn about violence from terminator , or learn about sex on the internet porn sites but as they grow me must teach them in a mature manner about these aspects of humanity.
If we were to look for the work that has contributed the most to needless violence and intolerance it would have to be the Bible. I would thank the the people responsible for this thought provoking sight I only wish we lived in a country with a government that supported the arts more.
I don't think that art should be used to commit crimes, such as hate crimes against Catholics, or any religion, or race of people.
I am a sculptor and, yes there are things that I censor in my own artwork. There are things that I take out or do not show in certain situations. People have just as much right to NOT SEE something as artists have to show it, but the trend to be "sensational" is niether a trend or a sensation. It has all been done before and it does not help to give art a bad name by showing a piece where it is not wanted. All artists have the right to show the work if they want too, i just wish that all artists would choose only to show pieces in a situation where the viewers will enjoy it not wish to cover it up. what I want is for all artists to be concious of the reprcussions of their actions. I am. Bethron3@in
Isn't it ironic that the people who argue that the first amendment promotes the use of public funds to display a painting with dung on it would argue that the first amendment prohibits the same painting being displayed without the dung.
As a sophmore in high school, I am exposed to all kinds of predjudice every day. For the new year our art teacher wanted each of us to represent an event that effected the world in a decade of the century. I chose to depict a KKK rally, that being a major event that changed society. My intricate drawing which took about 14 class periods was subject to written comments on the actual picture and many remarks. I feel that I should have freedom to document an event in hitory. i did not glorify the action or condone it. It was unfair treatment. just because a subject is contreversial does not affect the nation. Our past is not all sunshine and rainbows.
I am often surprised when the issue of public funding of the arts is challeged. As a very new country , we should be indeed proud of our art history. Instead , we whine about our miniscule art funding because of something we see that is new and different.The mistakes made in huge pentagon wepons programs may not be my idea of well spent tax dollars, but let's not discourage our young to experiment freely with MUSIC,ART ,DANCE LITERATURE, and PHOTOGRAPHY. My fear is a " Silent Spring" in the culture and expression of our youth. Remember, Hitler had a lot to say about "degenerate" ART . ( Picasso, Gaugain, Miro ,Chagall .......)Americans are smart enough to see through this game of "dirty pictures" aren't we?
Public funding keeps a few artists eating and paying their bills. If you take on a commission from the private sector, you please the patron or lose the commission. When it's tax money paying the bill, the "patrons" really can't fire you, so what the hell, especially if the person or entity doling out the cash doesn't have a clue, or doesn't care about the opinion of the people whose money is being spent. I a working artist, and yes, I do get disgusted seeing buckets of money (some of it mine) being spent on junk that has been passed off as art, whether it's offensive or just downright bad. People can buy my work, ignore it, enjoy it, whatever, but they can reach for their own wallet.
While I am a full supporter of free speech, I do not feel that controversial work as the "elephant dung" portrait should be supported by our tax dollars. It makes me wonder what the public reaction to such work would be if it was related to any other religion, race, or creed beside Christianity. I can imagine the response to any offensive Jewish or African American material. This type of work belongs in a private museum paid for by private patrons. The government should not oblige us to pay for any culturally offensive work. We are living in a "politically correct" world now and the same sentiment should extend to Christianity.
I come from a culture quite different from the American one, namely the Scandinavian. After having completed your "You decide" on Videogame violence, I would very much like to critisize it. Being a trained psychologist, I have studied the development of children, and I know in fact of (REAL) psychological research pointing toward the conclusion, that videogame violence does in fact NOT cause bahvioural changes in children toward more violent behaviour! So you will probably understand why I was actually quite annoyed with your (so obviously biased) attempt to push people toward the misconception, that they do! As a professional, certainly hope you are aware of the fact, that this obvious bias on your pole,is likely to provoke the interactive user, and thereby the answers he or she gives, on the rating. This is likely to cause people to answer more to the extreme, than they ordinarily would have, which obviously makes the rating-results completely useless! In constructing this site, I think you should take such measures into account, especially if you want to use the ratings for any argumantary purposes what so ever! I am sorry, but the current ratings definitely do not meet any methdological science-standars, being as biased as they are, and should NOT be presented to students and Internet users as the truth! In my opinion, such biased "lies" are in fact much more likely to damage already ignorant (as to other cultures) Americans, than are any kind of videogames (even violent ones)! (To rate your own ignorance toward other cultures, answer the question: Where is Denmark?))
I was 17 years old and a senior in high school in 1959 when I acquired a copy of Lady Chatterly's Lover. The book had been banned in the United states until 1957. Anyway, without my parents knowledge (they would have been outraged) I read the book, wrote a book report, and submitted it in my english class. Our teacher was an umarried lady in her early seventies. To my suprise she graded my report with an A! Presumeably books like this are supposed to be harmful to teenagers out of fear that it poisons their minds and causes them to become criminals. Well I'm nearly 58, have never been arrested in my life, and have been enjoying a very successful 16 year career as a technician at one of the astronomical observatories on Mauna Kea. But I still haven't figured out why the book was banned from the United States before 1957. Did the "authorities" know something that made them wiser than I was when I was just seventeen?
Janye - 06:00pm Jan 20, 2000
Censorship - Art and Children
B. Martin - 06:04pm Jan 20, 2000
Artistic Freedom and Censorship
Mark Borchers - 06:05pm Jan 20, 2000
My tax money
Rachael Barrett - 10:21am Jan 24, 2000
museumart
christ in piss - 10:21am Jan 24, 2000
art: definitions
dr_frankenfhurterhotmail.com - 10:23am Jan 24, 2000
The Bible
Bruce Green - 10:26am Jan 24, 2000
Hate Crimes
Rosemary Ren - 03:30pm Jan 26, 2000
censor art, maybe.
ron hollingshead - 11:03am Jan 27, 2000
First Amendment
J. Haberle - 11:03am Jan 27, 2000
High School Art Censorship
Mariel Slanovich - 01:40pm Jan 27, 2000
ART & PUBLIC FUNDING/ CENSORSHIP
steven patrie - 11:35am Feb 2, 2000
The Taxpayer as Unwilling Patron of the Arts
Karen - 05:16pm Feb 2, 2000
Portrait of Virgin Mary in Public New York Museum
Ohio Kristin Hering Columbus - 09:55pm Feb 2, 2000
Comment on your rating-system
Marika - 09:57pm Feb 2, 2000
Lady Chatterly's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Kamuela Hawaii (knightcfht.hawaii.edu Wiley Knight - 09:54am Feb 3, 2000