American society has long been deeply ambivalent about what constitutes as art, and government intervention in regulating this type of speech. Most recently, this can be seen in the arguments in Masterpiece, a recent SCOTUS case where one of the central tenets of debate was whether or not a wedding cake decorator created "art", and if that art can be denied to gay couples. While this specific case was decided extremely narrowly, to avoid answering this question, a lot of other SCOTUS decisions reveal contradictory decisions. For example, Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans make it seem like the government DOES have a right to free speech, and can coerce speech it doesn't like from being spread (specifically, Texas doesn't need to fund confederate license plates), while US v. American Library Association points in the opposite direction; the government has no right to free speech, and books can't be banned just because it's obscene. This is all to say, provocative and controversial art is one of the hardest tests to our commitment to free speech. I believe in a free society, every individual has the right to decide what art they want to consume (or create), and by allowing the government to censor art it doesn't like is a slippery slope to an authoritarian government. Using this logic, defunding art the government doesn't like is a form of censorship, even if it's not a direct black bar over a piece of work. I believe it would be most effective to use the ruling in Miller v. California as a basis as to what the government is allowed to regulate, which is when works are patently offensive and lack any artistic value. But who's to say what has artistic value? This test is broad and extremely to raise a challenge for because it is extremely difficult to prove something doesn't have artistic value for a reason, it's to ensure the health of our democracy. That's a lot of words (and governerd) to say, unequivocally, Giuliani's and Republican legislator's uncomfort does not outweigh the health of our democracy. To charge a museum director a crime for including Mapplethorpe's art is a remnant of our nation's Puritan heritage, as well as being extremely dangerous. Government funding to all art, regardless of its content, is essential. This means in Walker Texas should allow Confederate nameplates; this means in Masterpiece the cake shop owner should be allowed to deny his wedding cakes to gay couples. To commit to freedom of expression means to commit to expression we don't like. By allowing the last two examples have their way, we are protecting the art that we now, with hindsight, look to with admiration, whether this be Mapplethorpe's photographs or Sensation.
1 Comment
Eileen
11/11/2018 03:54:34 pm
Government censorship is a very slippery slope. But when it comes to a legal agreement that the local or national government has with an institution, like the Brooklyn Museum had with New York City, the mayor was within his limits to disagree with the exhibit. The Brooklyn Museum had an "obligation to put on an exhibit that really is to have open access to the public, to train young people in artistic things, and to really put on an appropriate show for the citizens of the city" (Hess 3). In the article, The Art of Controversy, the sign the museum put up is seen as a "mock health warning" (Holman 1). I too have the fear that government will interfere with the freedom of public expression in art and think that Mayor Giuliani did not address the matter rationally, but he may have the law on his side. With your legal knowledge of other cases, who do you think would win in court?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2019
Categories |