1

Scott Wilkins

Art, Pornography, and Censorship

The debate between art and pornography is a continual battle, fought hard on both
sides. Yet neither side has given in, either by choice or by KO. As the arguments are deeply
entrenched in the muddled murk of philosophy, it would seems that a victor will never be
known. And having no clear-cut answers leads to sticky situations when it comes to
censorship. Censorship is a great and dreadful word. Some seek it and, advocate it, even
praise it. Others distrust it and, fear it and want it, or want its very notions to be abolished.
Much Llike art itself, defining what censorship entails can be a headache;. There are
varying degrees of censorship exist. For clarity, I will establishcreate a definition of
censorship to be used in this essay. Dictionary.com defines a censor as an official who
examines [media] for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral,
political, military, or other grounds. And Merriam-Webster has a similar definition: a
person who examines [media] and removes things that are considered offensive, immoral,
harmful to society, etc.
Therefore, censorship will be defined as the removal of immoral, harmful, or
otherwise offensive media. With this in mindFrom this definition, youthe perceptive reader
will see that censorship can easily shift from a protective to an oppressive gesture. So
where can we find the balance between the rights of an artists to theishow his or her work,
and the rights of the viewersaudience to not have offensive material pushed into their
faces? Many are still caught up in arguments about what definesconstitutes art and what
constitutes pornography;. such rhetoricBut those arguments really only serves to obstruct
as an obstacle, not a driving force. In reality, it boils down to sensitivity and what art does,
notas opposed to what art is.
One of the most unfortunate things regarding censorship in art is the inexhaustible
pain it takes to even define art.Art is impossible to define. CountlessInnumerable
pagesbooks have been filled attempting to reach conclusions. So Tto save time, I will use
the words of Amy Adler: in regards to art and pornography, I believe that such words defy
definition; I will therefore not attempt to define them. Instead, I will use these words,
 2

whose definitions I contest, as placeholders for contested meaning. I use them, because I
must . . . (Adler 1,506)
As Adler points out, it is almost silly to even define art and pornography. Art, in
particular, has reached such transcendent boundaries in the last fifty years that nearly
everything and anything can be defined as art. In some cultures, there is no art as we
might define it. African masks are not considered art by the tribal people who create
them. Though the masks are beautiful and provokingartistic, such ideas were not vital
purposes in their construction. Just as well, the ancient Greeks did not have a word for art
in their vocabulary. But they certainly had a concept of art (Danto xiii).
Defining terms is relevant to censorship because censoring art is often
censoreddone on the basis of whether its art or pornography. Let us examine a recent
cultural scuffledivision surrounding certain arta photograph displayed at the Museum of
OContemporary Art in Jacksonville. Among a series of images by Angela Strassheim was an
expecting mother , nude, reclining on a couch in a ray ofsome sunlightnaked. The
controversy wasrevolved around her exposed breasts, and the photographimages location,
which would potentially expose potentially the image to unwilling occupantsand their Formatted: Font: Italic

childrengoing to the museums caf to see the image. The city council president deemed
the image pornography and requested the mayor to defund a grant for the museum. The
case eventually settled in favor of the artist (Frank, City Councilman).
While some may agree with the city council president, others may find iIt is difficult
indeed to see the image as pornography. It is not meant to sexually arouse, and therefore at
best it is merely pornographic, but even that is stretching it. ButYet what of the
appropriateness of the image as a whole? It may not be Ppornographic or not, but what of
the moral implications ofinvolved with displaying a womans bare breasts? "I see an
intimate moment of a nude, very pregnant woman basking in the last bit of afternoon
sunlight as she waits for the birth of her child, said Strassheim. It would seem, then, that
her justification is based on the woman being pregnantApparently pregnancy justifies
nudity.
But the womans pregnant bellythat should not make noa difference.; it is still The
fact remains that is in an image of a naked woman. The argument should have been
aboutcentered on the effects such an image could have on those passersing by. Instead, the
 3

city council president made himself look like a fool by claiming it to be pornographyapplied
a meaningless label, andto which he unsurprisingly he received backlash. Whether or not
the image is pornography is not relevant. It certainly could be. And Being art, howeveror
being deemed as art does not automatically justify a pieces make an image or object
acceptable to display in public display. But again, Aaccording to the mayor, however, that
seems to be the idea. Said he, Everybody will have their own opinion, he said, but I dont
think its pornography. Its contemporary art (Frank, City Councilman). It would be
amusing to see the mayor define art and pornography in clear-cut terms, and then explain
thoroughly why the photograph qualifies exclusively as non-pornographic art.
Just like thise issue, though, the solution is not black and white. The image could
have been fully censored bywith Strassheim being forced to removinge it entirely from the
show. But what of Strassheimsher first-amendmentree speech rights? Perhaps the photo
image could have been moved somewhere to a less conspicuous area and easily
avoidableso as not to blatantly present it to those who do not wish to view it. Other
possibilities exist, and there isnt necessarily a right or wrong idea. But as previously
stated, when censoring in any degree,but whatever solution is applied, what needs to be
considered are the effects of the artwork must be considered. At the MOCA JacksonvilleIn
this example, what thethe effects of the photo was doinggraph wasare overshadowed by
what everyone wantedfelt the image needed to be label ited. Calling it art did not
magically cover up the breasts or reduce their sexuality, and calling it pornography did
not make them (more) sexually arousing, or more.
Continuing with another example, Robert Mapplethorpe caused quite a stir in 1989
with his photographic series The Perfect Moment. While most of the photosimages were
non-controversial, onea couple featured a man urinating into another man's mouth and
another of a fist being inserted into a man's anus (Frank, A Brief History of Art
Censorship). The event itself, which would have been featured at the Corcoran Museum of
Art but, was cancelled in an ill-advised pre-emptive move against the danger that funding
for the National Endowment of Arts might be voted down if our legislators saw what the
fund was supporting (Danto 26-27). Obviously, the controversy surrounded the explicit
sexual nature of some of the images. We can see in this circumstance that labeling the
images was of no irrelevantce. Were they pornographic? Arguably, yesn image of a man
 4

being fisted could certainly qualify. Were they art? There was no dispute over that, though
ironically Mapplethorpe becamewas distanced from the photographic avant-garde at that
time because he sought beauty in his photos (Danto 27). The show at the Corcoran was not
cancelled because his photos were consideredlabeled as pornography; nor was it simply
bad art in the technical sense. They were just obscene images. The nature of the work was
put into consideration and a decision was made to censor it.
Obviously, Ssome applauded the move while others lamented it. And though iIt
would seemed that while the rights of the viewersaudience were upheld, were
Mapplethorpes rights violatedwere disparaged?. Using sensitivity, Pperhaps a better
solution was possiblecould have been presented. Similar to to Strassheims case, the
offensive photographs could have been removed toplaced in a separate room with a
warning sign on the outside. oOr at the very least a less conspicuous location., they could
have been separated somehow and viewed in a location less apparent. In actuality, this
would still be a form of censoring. Had the images been placed in another roomthis been
done, they would have been removed from the more public location. iIt is still would have
been censoring, albeit sympathetically.
And Ffinally, for a taste of censorships ultimate trial, we go to Gustave Courbets
The Origin of the World. The painting has received a lot of attention on Facebook in recent Formatted: Font: Italic

years. In 2011, it was posted on a Frenchmans Facebook page and was subsequently
censored by Facebook. In response, Tthe man sued. But tThe paintings potentially
pornographic nature was actually overshadowed by a more pressing question--should
the trial be held under a French or an American court? The man, of course, lives in France,
but Facebook is an American-based company (Milliard). Now, Iin 2015, progress is being
made on the case was progressing towardsand it looks like there will be a hearing inwith a
Paris court.
To some, this ismay seem like a victory, but to others it looks like the beginning of a
series of abuses. Although the Iinternet is a world-wide domain, websites like Facebook can
be owned and operated privately, such as Facebook. It is frightening to imagine a world
where your American-based website can be subject to another countrys free- speech
policies (Stern). Not to mention the fact that Facebooks services are free, and using it is
completely voluntary to use. It would be ridiculous to be invited into someones house, put
 5

a potentially offensive artwork on his or her wall, and then be outraged when he or she
demands it be taken down. Imagine inviting someone into your home. This person hangs a
painting in your living room that offends you. When you demand it taken down, this person
is outraged and sues you. How ridiculous! For whatever reason, there exists a sense of
entitlement on the Iinternet, even when using someone elses website.
But perhaps Tthe greatest irony here most ironic thing about cases like this is all the
images that are not censored. While artistic nudes are being targeted, a host of non-nude --
yet deliberately arousing --images are ignored. Bikini-clad and lingerie-wearing porn stars,
and women in general, can be seen all throughout Facebooks thousands of pages. Many of
these imagesem arecan be borderline softcore pornography, and it doesnt take much
effort to stumble across them. The point comes back to a refusalThis is because people
refuse to acknowledge what thesean images truly areis; the images are . Instead, we
labeled, things and allow those labelsat to define our perceptions of them. So let' us drop
the what is art? debate, if only for a moment, and. Let us think about the effects of images
and objects., and let us think about each other.
As mentioned previously, sensitivity must be utilized to develop promising
solutions. The days of labeling need to be Ppushed the labels into the past; and left there
until they rot away from our memories. aArt is supposed to be about communication., and
communication is a two-way street. Yet we sometimes see artists disconcerned with their
audiences, and vice versa. Sensitivity isnt just tolerating whatever someone or anyone
throws out; it is an acknowledgement and a respect of anothers viewpoints. It is my hope
that someday we will not be afraid of censorship, and thatnor we will notwill we look at
condemn something because itsan artwork and say this is pornography or condone
something because its, so its not okay or this is art, so its completely acceptable.
Instead, I hope that we will examine artistic pieces for their content. Its not about what it
is; its about what it does., and artists and viewers can be sensitive to and show respect for
each others perspectives.

Bibliography
 6

Adler, Amy,. "What's left?: Hate Sspeech, Ppornography, and the Pproblem of Aartistic
Eexpression,." California Law Review 84/, no. 6 (December 1996): 1499.

Danto, Arthur,. The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art. (Carus), 2003.

Frank, Priscilla,. "City Councilman Deemed tThis Nude Pregnant Portrait 'Pornography,
." Huffington Post,. December 3, 2014. Formatted: Font: Italic

Frank, Priscilla,. "A Brief History Of Art Censorship From 1508 tTo 2014,." Huffington Formatted: Font: Italic

Post,. January 16, 2015.

Milliard, Coline,. "Facebook iIn Legal Trouble aAfter Censoring tThat 19th Century
Painting,." Huffington Post,. January 3, 2015. Formatted: Font: Italic

Stern, Mark Joseph,. "France Wants tTo Punish Facebook fFor Censoring aA Painting of aA
Vagina. Terrible Idea,." Huffington Post., March 6, 2015. Formatted: Font: Italic