Porn, art and censorship

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

By Matthew Irwin

Last Thursday, the Art Association hosted a panel on censorship of art that, though well-intended, left important questions unasked and veered too quickly towards pornography.

On Monday, pop art aficianado Andrew Munz (who is covering the Oscars on page 23) and I sat down to talk about some of the things we would have liked them to address. Here’s what I got out of the conversation (Munz will discuss his takeaway at www.andrewmunz.wordpress.com):

First, the panel discussed censorship of child porn and bestiality as an extreme to confront the question, “Should anything be censored?”

In addition to failing to acknowledge that, unlike porn involving consenting adults, those are illegal activities whether or not the materials are filmed and distributed, the panel jumped right over the obvious question: To what degree are representations of child porn or bestiality censored in art and to what degree should they be? Then, does explicitness bother us, or intensity of suggestion?

Is the image of a teenaged boy posing suggestively in his Tommy Hilfiger underwear on a block-length Times Square billboard (as I have seen) less sexually charged than a statue of a nude adult man, say Michelangelo’s David? Is it the art that’s vulgar, or our image of sexuality?

Perhaps we can’t say what should be censored in art, until we’ve determined what constitutes art. I read a blogger recently who said he was against censorship of art until he learned how much “crap” is out there.
So bad art should be censored? What defines bad art?

Meaning defines any art, even over craft. Without meaning, the work is a decoration or an advertisement. Unfortunately, I don’t get to make final decisions on these things, and I have no guidelines to offer on censoring decorations or advertisements.

But it’s important to think about, because while the debate itself gives art value and advocates for national tolerance (Allen Ginsberg’s poem, “Howl,” for instance), the process can censor certain works because of the taste of a few individuals, especially if blanket definitions are accepted.

On works that do pass the initial trial as “art,” who gets the final decision on what’s available for public consumption - artists, critics, parents? Is it the same thing to censor an artwork as it is to shield someone considered to be too young?

The Motion Picture Association of America says that the bloody Quentin Tarantino film, Inglourios Basterds, and the romantic comedy starring Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin, It’s Complicated, should both be Rated “R” – one for violence, the other for Alec Baldwin’s ass.

Is art censored in Jackson Hole? I have had conversations, the details of which remain off-the-record, confirming that certain individuals of influence occasionally deem materials unsuitable for locals audiences. Thankfully, they don’t always get their way.

Then last week, JH Weekly art columnist Aaron Wallis accused me of censoring him, after I told him that his latest would run sans a slang term for sexual foreplay that I find difficult to say even among my closest friends. “You probably call it editing,” he said.

I considered our audience, and faulted his usage as shocking only, but I’d be willing to discuss whether his verbal expression of a sex act should be considered porn or art, and then if it should be allowed to appear in print. JHW

PERMALINK:
Porn, art and censorship | Planet JH News Article: Editorial

Reader Comments
The JHWeekly puts porn on its cover, so we know where they stand. Censorship has its place and time in a civil society. As does the free exchange of ideas, art, and speech served up to those who would prefer to avoid such things. eyeson jackson
You are probably referring to the image from the women's hockey calendar. Porn is the visual representation of sex and all its forms. I'm sorry if you thought a bare stomach meant porn. Perhaps Victoria Secret should rethink their ad campaign in order to offend you less. Greatscott!
one side hides behind the 1st ammendment claiming anything goes and is protected. the other side says anything suggestive to their grandparents is not allowed. i think you draw the line at common decency. child porn, beastiality should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not shown in our art center. internet porn and its ilk should be controlled or banned also, but will not happen due to the 1st. dave
Again, actual child porn and actual bestiality are no brainers, but what about films that imitate them to define a character (in a crime drama for instance or references to Greek mythology) or works of art that imitate them as metaphor for cruel leaders (again mythological references, but represented bestiality as reaction to fascism also seems logical, and was probably employed by dada)? MJI
In these days when everyone seems to be an expert in the Constitution, "censorship" has come to be an especially dirty word, implying an infringement on an individual's First Amendment rights. But, as with most things, censorship comes in many shades of gray. It takes its most pernicious form when an authority of some sort dares to stifle an opinion with which it disagrees and to which it does not want others to be exposed. But I'll gladly accept a parent's censoring a child's access to a TV program the adult considers inappropriate. The censoring role of the editor of a publication is considerably trickier, but every editor has the right and responsibility to set the standards of his publication and to make sure his contributors meet those standards. An interesting and veryy worthy conversation. Richard Anderson
That's funny Rich. "...everyone seems to be an expert in the Constitution"? What do you mean? Ask 20 random people and chances are most either don't know what it is, or certainly can't tell you what it says. But what I do glean from your comment is a disgust for those who do know what it says, and are fed up with government violations of it. John H.
You read too much into my comment, John H. My disgust is for those who claim to be an expert but who have twisted it to suit their own personal agenda. Just like you seem to have twisted my comment. Not that that has anything at all to do with the subject at hand. Richard Anderson
Well, it does to a degree. We're talking about 1st amendment rights and the Constitution. Now, can you please tell me who you mean by "...those who have twisted it to suit their own personal agenda"? John H.
Just that. People interpret the Constitution – or science or the news or something they overheard at the coffee shop – generally to fit their world view or to support their agenda. You wrote, "Ask 20 random people and chances are most either don't know what it is, or certainly can't tell you what it says." In my experience, that rarely prevents someone from speaking passionately about the subject, even if they don't know what they're talking about. Censorship is a good example. As a former newspaper editor, I was accused of "censorship" for refusing to run letters or columns that in my professional opinion were libelous, among other things. Censorship? A violation of someone's First Amendment rights? I didn't think so then and I don't think so now. But then, I'm not a Constitutional expert. Richard Anderson
Your exercise of "censorship" as a newspaper editor is in no way unconstitutional. First and foremost, the Constitution was written to restrain GOVERNMENTS from infringing on the rights of the individual. Parents and newspaper editors are not so constrained. I think the problem is that the Constitution IS interpreted. It really is quite straightforward, and if we did less inerpreting, and more following of the LAW as it's written, we'd be a much freer, peaceful, and prosperous nation. John H.
What John H. just said. Anonyholic II
I would rather not have my kids see a woman's vagina on the COVER of the JHWeekly which is widely distributed throughout the valley. It encourages women to objectify themselves. The Weekly could have put the picture inside the magazine and promoted the woman's hockey team with a real hockey picture on the cover. They choose not to. Smut sells. eyeson jackson
I've so often wondered how much of these purported editorial "standards" that editors, such as Mr. Anderson, claim they are upholding -- for the prestige of their publication or news outlet -- are inspired by the social norms of decency, good taste and avoiding the heart-pounding headache of a libel suit and how much, and how often, in the final analysis, these "standards" are a de facto scheme guided by the perceived self-censoring need to keep the public ignorant of the crimes, malfeasances and incompetencies of the political and economic elite whose influence and control reaches into more and more of our lives each and every day? Take the very recent sensation of the "Christmas Day underwear bomber." How many mainstream news outlets informed their readers and viewers of this little unsettling fact, courtesy of a recent Homeland Security hearing on the subject. "CIA shielded Flight 253 'underwear' bomber" "Terror suspect kept visa to avoid tipping off larger investigation" http://detnews.com/article/20100127/NATION/1270405/Terror-suspect-kept-visa-to-avoid-tipping-off-larger-investigation#ixzz0hcGpwsGW http://detnews.com/article/20100127/NATION/1270405/Terror-suspect-kept-visa-to-avoid-tipping-off-larger-investigation http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2010/02/03/cia_shielded_flight_253_underwear_bomber MUST READ----> http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20100127100911-16626.pdf Which all raises at least one critical question: If the State Department's claims are true was our national security apparatus so desperate to break up a larger plot that they were willing to risk the lives of a planeload of Americans? Oh, never mind. Nothing to see here, right? Orwell's Grave

Opinion

Porn, art and censorship

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Reader Comments