Musings on ART and CENSORSHIP

 Musings on ART and CENSORSHIP 

                                             by Janice Mautner Markham, October 21, 2022

What is Art? I suppose this is as difficult to define as what is Love? What is Hate? What is Beauty? Because although Art can be thought of as tangible, it is also conceptual. There can be ideas attached, and that’s where meaning, expression and vast subjectivity come into play. We understand art to be “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” I find it incredibly interesting that the primary definers in this Oxford Dictionary def are beauty and emotional power. Nothing political, nothing about protest or pushing the envelope, nothing about challenging the world as it is, or even reflecting it for a particular purpose. It’s as if a stereotype of a middle school girl wrote the definition. So, I reject this for myself as a primary definition, as my first priority is not creating a thing of beauty. For me that is way down the list of priorities, if it is there at all. So, if the primary goal is not to create a thing of beauty, what is the purpose? During the Zoom discussion I brought up the torment I felt when my 6 year old relished replication as her artistic focus. How did I fail in my parenting to have this happen? But, ultimately I ended up using this experience to recognize that art carries different functions for different individuals, and my judgment is not the be all and end all in the value of one way or another. 

In chapter one of “On Freedom” I was struck with this quote: 

There’s a difference between going to art with the hope that it will reify a belief or value we already hold, and feeling angry or punitive when it doesn’t, and going to art to see what it’s doing, what’s going on, creating it as a place to get “the real and irregular news of how others around [us] think and feel” as Eileen Myles once put it.

To me, this is such a crucial statement, not only in terms of art and expectations, but about life in general, particularly political perspectives. This concept of “confirmation bias” is pervasive, and can be a poison in the roots of society. To travel through life, with the goal of being challenged, of not having all the answers, to allow for the possibility of a different way to view a topic, emotion, idea, is joy - power - redemption. And to zoom in, this is also freeing as an artistic point of view, in creating art, or roaming a gallery, as you’re not just hammered into your own myopicity. 

I remember long ago a docent at the British Museum telling us students, “There is art that makes you think, and art that makes you feel.” She described the “safe” art, the still life with flowers, a lovely woman seated with a cocker spaniel, and even non representative, color field art. This, as opposed to “political” art, art meant to evoke and trigger, as did “Piss Christ” (Andres Serrano, 1987). 

To those ends, the Post-Impressionist chimes in with:

“Art is either a plagiarist or a revolutionary.” - P. Gauguin

So, Paul gives us two choices - a bit limiting, but ok! If we really dissect it, though, we could come up with this conclusion (and, to be clear, I am taking the quote and running down the hill with it): If you are coming up with an original concept, with original art, and you put it out there - this is, in and of itself, revolutionary. I have tried to instill this concept with my students - especially those who are insecure about their abilities and/or ideas - I have tried to express that the mere creation and sharing of that art is monumental and takes great courage. And, whatever is in the meaning, the message, the look, the color, ANY aspect of it can be viewed as revolutionary, it can be viewed as empowering. 

A story: Two dirt rooms are created in the Whitney. (The dirt filled rooms concept were from the play “Gallery” I wrote in 2003) They get exalted by some, panned by most as being completely ridiculous, and not worthy of an exhibit in a major museum. Then a farmer from the midwest enters the museum. He is completely taken with the dirt rooms and feels instantly seen. But are the dirt rooms art? If the artist calls them art and the museum purchases them, puts them on display and calls them art, then it is art? 

What art is and its function can be elusive to me, though, again, the discussion we have already had in the short time this class has been in session has been illuminating and intriguing. To move on to “What is censorship?” We can look to the Oxford dictionary to confirm:  cen·sorship /ˈsensərSHip/ noun

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Fair enough, but just as Maggie Nelson brings up the complications in using the word “freedom”, the word censorship is equally complicated. With the word freedom, we have moved from “Freedom of the Press” and “Freedom Riders” to “Freedom Fries”. Oy. And, with censorship, we have everything from Confederate statues being removed to Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison and Mark Twain being canceled, Trump being Dumped from Twitter to certain individuals and publications asking that Ye (Artist formerly known as Kanye) have any/every platform removed. It is fascinating to me, as a lay social scientist and non-degreed etymologist, to see how these words and concepts have evolved recently. 

This leads right into our discussion with  Svetlana Mintcheva. 

I appreciated our multi-facetted discussion on art and censorship, and it’s always enlightening to get to see and hear a writer, to truly get their distinct voice. Speaking of voices, this quote from Mintcheva’s article was one that stood out to me, and we did deal a bit with this topic in discussion:

“Critical voices… started to question the binary opposition according to which unfettered speech is always heroic and suppression of speech always bad. Writers and artists have the right to work without fearing for their life, but should we be celebrating a publication, these critics asked, which stereotypes already marginalized minorities?”  

- SM

And…

“Indeed, it is worth remembering that the suppression of speech has never contributed to the cause of social justice; throughout history, censorship has invariably been on the side of totalitarianism and repression.”   -SM

On its face this quote absolutely makes sense to me. Censorship = Bad. But, what about rampant racism and anti-semitism? What about inciting violence? What about potentially endangering public health by spreading lies? What is art’s place in all of that? 

Ok, so, more questions than answers, perhaps, so I follow with this one: Why might art be considered a special category when it comes to free-expression?

Well, I suppose because of the nature of the beast. Just as there are protections for parody - there is not a claim of documentary-style truth reporting, it is creative expression. But there is also the question of who has the power in this free-expression. I am recalling my interview with Robert Scheer soon after he started Truthdig.com, and he quoted A.J Liebling, “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.” So, first, it’s about gaining power, which for us now, is primarily social media. And, of course in this largely unfettered world of everyone is blogger, there is much info to sift through. But, in the end, I believe it is for the better that creatives get more of a pass, perhaps, as reflectors of the world…

 Primary Source:

Nelson, M. (2021) On Freedom, Graywolf Press