This marking period, my Art V class was assigned two readings, one on the 1996 (?) Brooklyn Museum Sensation censorship controversy, the other on criticism and censorship of artwork in the Soviet Union as well as contemporary Russia. In the former, the controversy surrounded British artist Chris Ofili’s work, titled The Holy Virgin Mary, which depicted an African Madonna with elephant dung and surrounded by genitalia. While the work is, in my opinion, by no means visually or appealing, it is not nearly as horrific as it sounds when described. Personally, I am not a fan from a compositional standpoint, but overall I side with then senatorial candidate Hillary Clinton: while the work is not, well, good, “it is not appropriate to penalize and punish an institution such as the Brooklyn museum that has served this community.” The latter reading detailed the oppression of artists and protest art as well as corruption in the Russian art world / government.
In my mind, it is indubitable that Mayor Giuliani censored, or attempted to censor, the British Museum / the Sensation exhibit. The mindset of Mayor Giuliani and his counsel, apparently, was that since the artwork offended his individual religious views, no one should be allowed to view it. His justification that the artwork needed to be accessible and appropriate for young children, while not inaccurate, was flimsy and barely disguised his personal vendetta against the work, which he harbored before even seeing it. My perspective is that if you find artwork unattractive or offensive, do not look at it. The Brooklyn Museum’s policy of suggesting age guidelines for the artwork seemed like a reasonable compromise for both the “moralistic” and free speech perspectives of artwork. Additionally, it was shown that Mayor Giuliani’s diatribe against the work/museum backfired, as all the press only served to bring in more viewers to the museum.
What surprised me about the second reading, about censorship in the modern Russian art world, was actually that for a period in the 80s and 90s art was treated with a much greater degree of lenience. It is stereotypical of me, but I had always assumed that the Russian authoritarian government would carefully dictate the image presented of their nation and by their nation’s artist. Again, while the censorship is unsurprising, as an advocate for both artwork and free speech, it pains me to hear of the imprisonment of artists for their critical artwork. Even the performance art piece that consisted of group sex, which I do not understand nor would I be interested in seeing, should be permitted in the appropriate setting. What is somewhat shocking is that, although in the United States artists can battle against censorship, the same principles occur in the US and Russia.
In my mind, it is indubitable that Mayor Giuliani censored, or attempted to censor, the British Museum / the Sensation exhibit. The mindset of Mayor Giuliani and his counsel, apparently, was that since the artwork offended his individual religious views, no one should be allowed to view it. His justification that the artwork needed to be accessible and appropriate for young children, while not inaccurate, was flimsy and barely disguised his personal vendetta against the work, which he harbored before even seeing it. My perspective is that if you find artwork unattractive or offensive, do not look at it. The Brooklyn Museum’s policy of suggesting age guidelines for the artwork seemed like a reasonable compromise for both the “moralistic” and free speech perspectives of artwork. Additionally, it was shown that Mayor Giuliani’s diatribe against the work/museum backfired, as all the press only served to bring in more viewers to the museum.
What surprised me about the second reading, about censorship in the modern Russian art world, was actually that for a period in the 80s and 90s art was treated with a much greater degree of lenience. It is stereotypical of me, but I had always assumed that the Russian authoritarian government would carefully dictate the image presented of their nation and by their nation’s artist. Again, while the censorship is unsurprising, as an advocate for both artwork and free speech, it pains me to hear of the imprisonment of artists for their critical artwork. Even the performance art piece that consisted of group sex, which I do not understand nor would I be interested in seeing, should be permitted in the appropriate setting. What is somewhat shocking is that, although in the United States artists can battle against censorship, the same principles occur in the US and Russia.