Maya Angelou, J.D. Salinger, Elvis Presley and the Beatles - what do these people have in common? Besides being legendary artists in their respective fields, they are bound by a more dubious connection. All of these artists have been the object of censorship at some point in their careers. Censorship is a persistent threat to the artistic community, and it recently hit home when the Detroit Institute of Arts decided to postpone the showing of "Art Until Now," by Jef Bourgeau due to its questionable content. Because the DIA censored the installation on account of its provocative content, the DIA's actions open the door to silencing important artistic voices.
Granted, Bourgeau may not be an artist on par with the Beatles or Angelou. His installation, which includes a vial of urine from Andres Serrano's photograph of a submerged crucifix, a piece called "Bathtub Jesus" with a doll wearing a condom and a video dealing with menstruation, would likely disgust many viewers. But that does not mean the DIA should censor it. More than Bourgeau's show, a greater principle is at stake. By successfully censoring one artist's work, the door is open to further censorship. And the next act of censorship may be against an artist on par with great artists who have been censored in the past. In postponing Bourgeau's show, the DIA does not mean to promote censorship, but that is the result.
Furthermore, by refusing to show Bourgeau's installation, the DIA ignores that art is meant to be provocative. Art provokes reaction and evokes feeling - sometimes in disgust. As Bourgeau himself admits in Nov. 20 issue of The Detroit News, "I'm playing with ideas about provocative art drawn from our culture." That these provocative ideas promote disgust is not surprising. What is surprising is the DIA feels the public cannot handle such disgust.
Ultimately, it should be the public who decides if Bourgeau's work deserves display. By postponing Bourgeau's show, the DIA only increases the controversy surrounding the installation. If Bourgeau's exhibit is truly more disgusting than thought provoking, the public will quickly let the art gallery know with low attendance. Rather than letting one man or a board of directors decide which artwork to display, the public should serve as judge.
Ultimately, censorship curbs quality artwork. Because art is meant to provoke, censorship discourages artists attempting to evoke strong feelings in their audience. There will always be a ready supply of "shock" art, but each individual determines which pieces have value and which lack substance. By encouraging censorship, the DIA cannot eliminate tasteless art, but it can discourage quality art.
The DIA's decision is understandable, if ultimately incorrect. Bourgeau's exhibit may be as tasteless as the DIA insists. Even so, censoring the exhibit is the wrong solution to the problem. By censoring artwork, the DIA promotes censorship in the future, which could result in truly great works being overlooked.
11-30-99
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |