This week, we read two articles: Art in Russia: Under Attack and The Art of Controversy. Both readings were focused on censorship and the situations in which authorities censored art due to moral or political reasons. The Art of Controversy was a transcript of a conversation between Kwame Holman, an interviewer, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Arnold Lehman - the director of the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and others involved in the situation. The Brooklyn Museum displayed works of art that involved controversial and a few sexually-explicit photos. Mayor Giuliani was offended by the”disgusting, horrible, and awful” art and insisted that the show be taken down. The museum, however, argued that showing such art was its responsibility to the artists and citizens who wanted access to the works of respected artists.
The mayor brought in lawyers who argued against the show because the museum was being funded by taxpayers’ money, and must therefore show art that is available to everyone. Since the museum had posted warnings against children coming to view the art without their parents, the lawyers argued that the institution had violated its contract with the city. During our class discussion over this article, we brought up several salient questions. One that made an impact on how those siding with the mayor viewed the issue was the question of why we are distinguishing between art in museums and movies in the theatre. The movie theatre shows movies with restrictions based on their rating, but we do not argue about whether they should advertise them. So, why are people arguing against restricted art? If someone is offended by a movie, then they would not pay to see it; in the same way, museum goers who are furious about it should not see the art.
In the article regarding Russia, this one line really sums up the reading: “Soviet government understood art very well: they understood that it had to be tightly controlled”. Since 1998, art-world figures in Russia have been “more or less constantly under attack by authorities”. Artists such as Artem Loskutov are arrested on trumped up charges and apprehended by a “special elite unit created to fight terrorism and political crimes”. More recently, authorities such as the minister of culture and the Orthodox Church are silent while Prime Minister Putin continues to give suggestions to artists. While the government and religion in Russia is not directly censoring artists as much, the art world there feels the pressure to remain unopposed to the traditional norms. This is an example of indirect censorship.
After reading the articles, I still have a few questions about censorship in these two places and in general. Is censoring art better or worse than simply displaying everything? Should we have restrictions regarding the types of art that can be displayed in museums in the museum's contract?
The mayor brought in lawyers who argued against the show because the museum was being funded by taxpayers’ money, and must therefore show art that is available to everyone. Since the museum had posted warnings against children coming to view the art without their parents, the lawyers argued that the institution had violated its contract with the city. During our class discussion over this article, we brought up several salient questions. One that made an impact on how those siding with the mayor viewed the issue was the question of why we are distinguishing between art in museums and movies in the theatre. The movie theatre shows movies with restrictions based on their rating, but we do not argue about whether they should advertise them. So, why are people arguing against restricted art? If someone is offended by a movie, then they would not pay to see it; in the same way, museum goers who are furious about it should not see the art.
In the article regarding Russia, this one line really sums up the reading: “Soviet government understood art very well: they understood that it had to be tightly controlled”. Since 1998, art-world figures in Russia have been “more or less constantly under attack by authorities”. Artists such as Artem Loskutov are arrested on trumped up charges and apprehended by a “special elite unit created to fight terrorism and political crimes”. More recently, authorities such as the minister of culture and the Orthodox Church are silent while Prime Minister Putin continues to give suggestions to artists. While the government and religion in Russia is not directly censoring artists as much, the art world there feels the pressure to remain unopposed to the traditional norms. This is an example of indirect censorship.
After reading the articles, I still have a few questions about censorship in these two places and in general. Is censoring art better or worse than simply displaying everything? Should we have restrictions regarding the types of art that can be displayed in museums in the museum's contract?