This spring marks the twentieth anniversary of Robert Mapplethorpe's infamous exhibition that conflagrated the "culture wars" between the National Endowment for the Arts and the likes of Sen. Jesse Helms and Rev. Don Wildmon.
In observance of the anniversary, the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) and the Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiativeat The Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, which co-sponsored the original exhibition, held a symposium re-examining censorship in the arts:
How much has censorship - and funding - of the arts changed since then, and in what ways?
How will the loss of newspapers - and their art critics - impact such censorship?
The symposium examined the significance and ramifications of "Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment" (December 9, 1988 - January 29, 1989).
That retrospective of more than 150 works featured photographs depicting gay subcultures, explicit homoerotic and violent images, as well as a chronology of the artist’s battle with AIDS (he died one week after the exhibition closed).*
Because the exhibition was funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
Thus began a period that came to be known as the "culture wars" that changed forever how NEA funds are granted, and led to the implementation of the PMRC.*
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) and the late Sen. Jesse Helms(R-NC), spurred on by pressure from conservative groups including the American Family Association and the 700 Club, led the charge and introduced floor amendment:
According to Wikipedia, the NEA made in excess of 119,000 grants between 1965 and 2003 (despite Ronald Reagan's attempt to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts in 1980, which was foiled by insufficient support in Congress). Congress granted the NEA an annual funding of between $160 and $180 million from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s.
In 1996, Congress cut the NEA funding to $99.5 million. Since 1996, the NEA has partially rebounded with a 2004 budget of $121 million. For FY 2008, the budget is $144.7 million. For FY 2009, the budget is $155 million – less than it was twenty years ago. [Whether the arts should accept support from government, and the regulations that necessarily come with it, is another diary.]
The article about the symposium appeared in the blog art:21, based on twitters from the conference by Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes, who asks, "Now, what happens next time because arts journalism is almost gone[?]"
Out of respect for the artist, potential copyright issues, and (except for the first and second) a desire to provide the best quality images, I'm providing links to Mapplethorpe's works rather than repost them here.
[Warning, graphic sexual images]
link to XXX, 1978, the one that caused the most trouble. The series this one XXX is from also created quite a stir. Well, I've just discovered I can't link you to those photos. Do teh Google images for +mapplethorpe +bullwhip (first image up) for the first; for the second, use +mapplethorpe +black +penis (again, first image up).
[Warning over]
Link to slide show for the chronology of self portraits (a particularly poignant visual diary), and other series including male nudes, female nudes, flowers, and portraits. Take a moment to go through Mapplethorpe's oeuvre and delight in his art.
-----
In observance of the anniversary, the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) and the Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiativeat The Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, which co-sponsored the original exhibition, held a symposium re-examining censorship in the arts:
How much has censorship - and funding - of the arts changed since then, and in what ways?
How will the loss of newspapers - and their art critics - impact such censorship?
The symposium examined the significance and ramifications of "Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment" (December 9, 1988 - January 29, 1989).
That retrospective of more than 150 works featured photographs depicting gay subcultures, explicit homoerotic and violent images, as well as a chronology of the artist’s battle with AIDS (he died one week after the exhibition closed).*
Because the exhibition was funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
an independent federal agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts educationconservative politicians seized upon use of taxpayers’ money to fund "obscene art" as a prime example of wasteful and misused governmental funding. The ensuing controversy drove some venues for the traveling exhibition (including The CorcoranGallery of Art in Washington DC) to withdraw from the schedule. One venue that chose to remain in the tour was Cincinnati’s Contemporary Arts Center; its director was tried for obscenity, but was acquitted.
Thus began a period that came to be known as the "culture wars" that changed forever how NEA funds are granted, and led to the implementation of the PMRC.*
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) and the late Sen. Jesse Helms(R-NC), spurred on by pressure from conservative groups including the American Family Association and the 700 Club, led the charge and introduced floor amendment:
...prohibits funding for projects that promote, disseminate or produce materials which in the judgment of the National Endowment for the Arts or the National endowment for the Humanities may be considered obscene, including but not limited to, depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.In other words, government is better able to discern what has "artistic value" than peer review by those who have spent their lives devoted to creating, disseminating and analyzing art. And despite what Justice Potter Stewart said, Sen. Helms and his crew knew exactly what art they considered obscene.
On the basis of this amendment, in June 1990 NEA chairman John E. Frohnmayer denied four of eighteen proposed grants despite the unanimous favorable recommendation of a panel of artists. Three of the artists--[Tim] Miller, John Fleck, and Holly Hughes--are openly gay or lesbian, and the fourth, Karen Finley, deals in her work with various aspects of sexuality including homosexuality. All were previous recipients of NEA grants.These artists came to be known as the "NEA Four".
gbltq
According to Wikipedia, the NEA made in excess of 119,000 grants between 1965 and 2003 (despite Ronald Reagan's attempt to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts in 1980, which was foiled by insufficient support in Congress). Congress granted the NEA an annual funding of between $160 and $180 million from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s.
In 1996, Congress cut the NEA funding to $99.5 million. Since 1996, the NEA has partially rebounded with a 2004 budget of $121 million. For FY 2008, the budget is $144.7 million. For FY 2009, the budget is $155 million – less than it was twenty years ago. [Whether the arts should accept support from government, and the regulations that necessarily come with it, is another diary.]
The article about the symposium appeared in the blog art:21, based on twitters from the conference by Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes, who asks, "Now, what happens next time because arts journalism is almost gone[?]"
...I’m not sure if we, as a culture, are less shocked by some of the images in "The Perfect Moment," but Green’s...point is particularly poignant today as we see dozens of newspapers and mainstream media outlets slashing arts critics and journalists from its staff. Who will be the people that speak out against censorship when another issue like this emerges? Who are the professionals who can parse the political posturing from valid issues surrounding the arts? My suspicion is that blogs...will have to fill that vacuum. The cultural life of America is far too important to be left to the political tide.Aside from John Ashcroft's fear of breasts, you may wonder about how much art is still being censored. Art on Trialprovides a virtual exhibition tour of "artworks that were once at the center of actual courtroom battles."
Many Americans assume that the right of artists to express themselves and the right of the public to view artistic works are absolute under the United States Constitution. ...that works of visual art are a form of 'speech' fully protected by the First Amendment... In fact, American courts have interpreted the First Amendment as allowing many restrictions both on what artists can say and what the public can see.-----
Out of respect for the artist, potential copyright issues, and (except for the first and second) a desire to provide the best quality images, I'm providing links to Mapplethorpe's works rather than repost them here.
[Warning, graphic sexual images]
link to XXX, 1978, the one that caused the most trouble. The series this one XXX is from also created quite a stir. Well, I've just discovered I can't link you to those photos. Do teh Google images for +mapplethorpe +bullwhip (first image up) for the first; for the second, use +mapplethorpe +black +penis (again, first image up).
[Warning over]
Link to slide show for the chronology of self portraits (a particularly poignant visual diary), and other series including male nudes, female nudes, flowers, and portraits. Take a moment to go through Mapplethorpe's oeuvre and delight in his art.
-----
*...during the mid-seventies [Mapplethorpe] acquired a large format press camera and began taking photographs of a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. These included artists, composers, socialites, pornographic film stars and members of the S & M underground. Some of these photographs were shocking for their content but exquisite in their technical mastery.** One of my favorite images is of Frank Zappa, John Denver and Dee Snidertestifying before congress in opposition to the PMRC proposal. Note that this was when "hidden lyrics" and "subliminal messages" came to awareness as wingnuts played records backwards. Hey, wait a second, didn't I just see that here recently?
Mapplethorpe told ARTnews in late 1988,
I don’t like that particular word "shocking." I’m looking for the unexpected. I’m looking for things I’ve never seen before...I was in a position to take those pictures. I felt an obligation to do them.
Art
| 72% | 60 votes |
| 18% | 15 votes |
| 1% | 1 votes |
| 8% | 7 votes |
