you need to login the UO blackboard （ google it） username is :sfang, password is : Dawo0711 then you need to click the
course AAD250, once you enter, Week 8 lecture is in “Course Documents”.Week 8 reading is in “Assigned Weekly Readings” in
“Assignments”: read both of it. and here is the instruction:Censorship can occur in any type or genre of art. This week,
we discussed censorship in visual art, literature, music and film. Select your own case study of censorship (you do not
have to limit it to the types of art we discussed in the lecture and could also include fashion, food, or any other type
of art). Describe your case study (citing any research when necessary). Provide pros and cons of the censorship. Conclude
with your own stance on the censorship case study. Did it serve its purpose or not?
For week eight, rather than focusing our discussion on one specific FORM of art, we will be discussing a topic that
relates to most artistic endeavors and has been a major factor in the history of art, literature, music and film (among
many other things): censorship. We will begin, as usual, with the basics:
What is censorship?
Censorship is the suppression of speech, imagery, text or ideas that may be considered inappropriate or offensive to the
common good.
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “most governments believed it their duty to regulate the morals of their people;
only with the rise in the status of the individual and individual rights did censorship come to seem objectionable.
Censorship may be preemptive (preventing the publication or broadcast of undesirable information) or punitive (punishing
those who publish or broadcast offending material).”
What is the big deal? Shouldn’t offensive material be done away with?
In the United States, censorship can be a violation to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US National Archives). These are basic rights of any US
citizen.
Congress ratified the First Amendment in 1791 to form the Bill of Rights for US citizens, yet there is a long history in
this country of censorship of art and other creative endeavors. When a work of art is censored, someone in a position of
power deems that the content is unsuitable for a larger audience. There are definite power systems in place when
censorship takes place.
Throughout the course, we’ve discussed definitions of art and the purposes of art. What exactly makes a work of art
inappropriate or offensive? Doesn’t censorship assume that we all have the same values and personal definitions of what
is considered to be “offensive”?
Is a work of art offensive if it contains nudity? There are many great works of art that are housed in museums, private
residences and even government buildings that contain nudity. We’ve looked at some of them throughout the term.
Is a work of art offensive if it goes against Christianity or some other religion? Referring back to the First Amendment,
the government shouldn’t be in the business of making laws that respect “an establishment of religion”.
Who gets to decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate? Censorship removes access for the general public and
gives the power to determine what is acceptable to those doing the censoring.
What are some reasons for censorship?
Censorship occurs every day in this country and, whether it is a good or a bad thing is not for me to tell you, but for
you to decide on your own based on your personal values. Some of the arguments I’ve come across in favor of utilizing
censorship include:
1) It is a way of protecting children from having access to pornographic material. On the flip side, there are also laws
against child pornography to prevent children from being forced to be a part of pornographic material.
2) Censorship is a way of protecting our national security. If information about our military were released (technology
of weapons, locations, enemy knowledge, etc.), it could put us at risk for a breach in our own safety. In instances of
police investigation, an early release of information could make the capture of those under investigation more difficult.
3) Censorship can help prevent violent messages from being shared. Where is the line drawn between freedom of expression
and hate speech?
4) It can prevent the distribution of material / knowledge that could potentially do harm to citizens. Examples of this
could include instructions of different ways to commit suicide, or instructions for how to make certain types of bombs,
or ways to harm another individual (poisons, etc.).
5) It will promote a healthier, happier citizenry by instilling “good” morals within us.
Some of the arguments I’ve come across against utilizing censorship include:
1) As stated earlier, censorship is a violation of the First Amendment.
2) Because censorship limits the spread of ideas and knowledge, it breeds ignorance and bias. Because someone in power is
deciding what is censored and what is not, the rest of the population is forced to align with their values, beliefs and
biases.
3) Censorship often has the opposite effect of what is intended. It can cause curiosity in individuals and make them more
willing to seek out the blocked information. Think back to our discussion on fashion and body modification. Many times
when we are told in school that we cannot wear something in particular, we try to find ways around it. Telling someone
they cannot do something or see something will often make them more willing to try.
4) Censorship does not allow for healthy opposition to conventional thoughts and ideas. It discourages innovation and
creative thought, even if it is based on a sound premise.
5) Censorship is often associated more with dictatorships rather than democracies.
Often times, censorship is not a cut and dry issue. It is complex and there are usually many different circumstances that
come into play. Because we are all driven by our own unique sets of values, our own determinations of when censorship is
good and when it is misused may be different. Throughout this lecture, I will be presenting you with information on how
censorship has come into play in visual art, literature, music and film. From there, consider your own values, but also
try to sympathize with the values of others to determine your own stance on each issue. Was the censorship warranted or
unwarranted? What power systems were in play? What would you have done if you were the artist? What if you were in the
place of someone who considered something offensive? (Because you found it offensive, do you think that is a reason for
others to be denied access?)
Please note that there will be some graphic imagery and language that will appear in the lecture.
There is a long history of censorship of visual art, not only in the United States, but throughout the world.
Michelangelo’s David had once appeared in a town square in Italy, but had to be moved indoors because many felt that the
depiction of the male nude was inappropriate. Individuals would actually throw rocks at the statue. Now, of course, David
is housed in the Galleria dell’ Accademia in Florence, Italy. Visitors come from around the world pack into the space for
the opportunity to see the statue in real life. Our values of what is considered suitable vs. unsuitable might change
over time.
Case Study One: Serrano, Mapplethorpe and the NEA
In the United States, Congress established the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 1965. According to NEA.gov, it is
“an independent agency of the federal government. To date, the NEA has awarded more than $4 billion to support artistic
excellence, creativity and innovation for the benefit of individuals and communities.”
Between 1965 and the 1980’s the National Endowment for the Arts awarded (very competitive) grants to artist organizations
and individual artists that wished to complete a project or program that aligned with the agency’s funding priorities of
artistic excellence, creativity and innovation. There were attempts to abolish the NEA as a federal agency as early as
1981 after Ronald Reagan took office. Conservative allies of the president including Charlton Heston and Joseph Coors
joined a presidential task force and determine that the continued funding of arts and the humanities was important.
In 1989, the NEA once again found itself as the subject of scrutiny. The agency awarded a grant to artist Andres Serrano
to help fund an exhibition that included a piece of his artwork called Piss Christ. Serrano is a photographer that uses
religious imagery in combination with bodily fluids such as urine, blood and sperm. Piss Christ depicts a plastic
crucifix that has been submerged in a yellowish liquid that is described by the artist as his own urine. The piece was
described by the American Family Association as “anti-Christian bigotry” and Jesse Helms and Al D’Amato, two Republican
Senators began to rally against Serrano’s work and the use of federal money to support art that they felt offended the
Christian church. Serrano’s intent of the piece was not to deprecate Christianity, but instead was a statement on the
commercialization (the “cheapening”) of Christian icons in contemporary culture. The artist received death threats and
had grants revoked based on the controversy. Some felt that the funding of Piss Christ by the NEA violated the separation
of church and state, while others felt it was a violation of freedom of speech.
The controversy over Piss Christ fueled the debate over federal funding of the arts and Helms and D’Amato soon targeted
other artists and exhibitions. They were joined by other conservative figures, including Republican representative Dick
Armey, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson (700 Club). Among the exhibitions targeted was a series of photographs called The
Perfect Moment by Robert Mapplethorpe that were to be shown at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington DC as a part of
a national tour of the works. According to a 2011 TIME Magazine article, the exhibit featured, “classic portraits, floral
studies and a section of extremely graphic homosexual S&M photos” and had, “already been featured at museums in
Philadelphia and Chicago without any protest. (The explicit photos were kept hidden in a separate, age-restricted area
during each exhibit.)” Robert Mapplethorpe was an openly homosexual photographer who is well known for his sexually
oriented photographs of gay men, female body builders and other famous individuals.
NEA funds had been awarded for the exhibition of Mapplethorpe’s work in Philadelphia. After the exhibit had concluded,
the group of congressman wrote to the NEA expressing their anger. Afraid of becoming a center of controversy, the
Corcoran Gallery cancelled their exhibit of The Perfect Moment, which caused outrage in the arts community. Mapplethorpe
passed away that same year from AIDS before the controversy even started.
When the series traveled to the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center (CAC), the Director of the CAC was actually charged
with obscenity, with Mapplethorpe’s photographs (specifically one, Rosie, of a young girl seated on a bench wearing no
underpants) cited as evidence. He was acquitted for the crime.
This period of time is often called “the Culture Wars”. Some suggest it was a war against morality, while others say that
it was a war against creative freedom, the diverse nature of art and was an attempt to create a homogenous society. While
attempts were made, the NEA was not abolished as an agency. Instead, the NEA budget was cut from $162.5 million to $99.5
million by 1996. The NEA had to completely restructure itself, going from 120 granting areas to four. In addition,
individual artists could no longer be awarded grants and instead, nonprofit organizations and other public organizations
(state arts organizations, etc.) were the only bodies eligible to receive funding.
Case Study Two: Richard Serra and the Art in Architecture Program
This week, you were asked to read Art and Censorship by Richard Serra. In 1981, Serra followed all of the rules and was
awarded a public sculpture commission by the Arts in Architecture program of the US General Services Administration (0.5
percent of a federal building’s cost is allocated for artwork). Tilted Arc was installed in the Federal Plaza in New York
City. It was a 120-foot long wall of steel. Serra suggested that, “The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his
movement through the plaza. As he moves, the sculpture changes” (As quoted on PBS.org’s “Culture Shock”).
The piece was immediately controversial. Members of the public complained that the piece blocked their view of the open
plaza and that the piece could serve as a hideout for dangerous people. Judge Edward Re started writing letters to the
GSA to have the piece removed. The commission amount for the piece was $175,000. To relocate the piece would have cost
the GSA an additional $85,000. A public hearing was held in 1985, during which 122 individuals testified that the piece
should remain in its location and 58 testified that the piece should be removed. Serra argued that he had designed the
piece so that it was site-specific and that it would change the piece completely to have it located elsewhere. The jury
voted 4-1 to remove the sculpture. Serra submitted an appeal, but it failed. During the middle of the night in 1989,
federal workers brought in heavy equipment, destroyed Tilted Arc by cutting it into pieces and carted it off to a scrap
metal yard.
This case study again brings to light the question of public funding of art (a topic on which we will focus next week!).
Should federal dollars be allocated towards art? It also focuses on issues of censorship. Do public complaints warrant
the removal of an artwork? What if the majority of those that testified were in favor of leaving the sculpture in the
plaza? Should the values of the four judges outweigh the values of the public as a whole? To be awarded a commission,
drawings and models of an artwork must be submitted and approved prior to fabrication and installation. Tilted Arc was
approved by the same organization that, in the end, took the destroyed piece to a scrap metal yard.
Every year, there are attempts by individuals and groups to ban certain books in libraries, schools and the media in
communities throughout the country. There is a difference between challenged books and banned books. A challenge is made
when an individual or group tries to remove or restrict literary materials. A book is banned when it has been removed.
Often, challenges to books are made in schools as an attempt to prevent children from seeing material that may be
considered offensive or unsuitable, including: material that is deemed by some to be sexually explicit, material that
contains language thought to be offensive or material that is considered unsuited to any age group.
The last book to be completely banned by the US government was Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by John
Cleland in 1963 (citing obscenity). Other books, including the Bible, have been banned and remained banned in other
countries.
Some of the most frequently challenged books (as cited by the American Library Association) include The Witches by Roald
Dahl, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by
Eugene’s own Ken Kesey, Lord of the Flies by William Golding, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, The Great
Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, The Call
of the Wild by Jack London, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain and many, many
more. Recent books such as The Hunger Games series and the Harry Potter series have also been challenged.
For our literary case study, I will be focusing on Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. When I was in school,
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was a part of our English curriculum. In the case that you haven’t read it, I encourage
you to seek out a synopsis or to read it for yourself. Basically, the book tells the story of Huckleberry Finn, a runaway
who sets off down the Mississippi on a raft with his friend Jim, an escaped slave. The overarching themes of the book are
friendship, race and society. The book was published in 1885 and takes a very challenging look at deeply entrenched
attitudes regarding racism in the United States at the time.
In 2011, a Mark Twain scholar, Alan Gribben, and publisher NewSouth Books decided to replace a new version of Adventures
of Huckleberry Finn that removes words such as “nigger” and “injun” from the classic novel to make it more politically
correct (since these words are considered demeaning in today’s society). In a 2011 article by Publishers Weekly, Gribben
is quoted, “This is not an effort to render Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn colorblind. Race matters in these books. It’s
a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.”
In a 2011 commentary for the Washington Post, Alexandra Petri states, “This is wrong. The word is terrible. But it’s a
linchpin of this book. What makes The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn so radical is the fact that in a time when the
horror of slavery was still fresh and the specter of inequality hung over the whole country, Mark Twain was still able to
use satire to show how wrong it was…This is like changing the opening line of A Tale of Two Cities to ‘It was the best of
times, it was the best of times/somewhat less good but still pretty okay, considering, of times.’”
One side of the debate claims that the “n-word” makes individuals uncomfortable and students are less likely to read the
books because of it. Others feel that the book is a teaching tool that can be used to discuss demeaning terms. Adding
fuel to the fire is the fact that Mark Twain himself was a stickler on word choice and I’ve seen him quoted in many
sources as saying that there is a difference between the right word and the “almost right” word. It is, as Twain put it,
“…the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
However, because Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was written and published prior to 1923, it is not protected under
copyright law and could potentially be changed, however, it would not be read as Mark Twain had originally intended.
What are your thoughts on this debate? Should the “n-word” and other “offensive” words be removed from the novel? Why or
why not?
Last week, we spent the majority of the lecture discussing music and human values. During the 1950’s, petitions were
circulated among the white population to discourage parents from allowing their children to listen to “Negro records”.
Also, some television stations refused to televise Elvis’ famous “moves” that featured his gyrating pelvis because it was
considered to be inappropriate. As with other forms of art, there are a number of reasons why music might be censored:
the lyrics contain profanity or sexually explicit suggestions (even words that are commonly misheard might be censored in
some way), the lyrics might contain content that is protected under US copyright law, lyrics might be politically
charged, or might be considered to be anti-religious.
Censorship may occur through “bleeping out” specific words during air play, restrictions on the playing of songs on
certain radio stations, by forcing musicians to label their records with labels that include a “parental advisory” or
other rating system and by removing the imagery that accompanies many songs (music videos, album covers, etc.).
(Lady Gaga live in Sydney)
According to an article called Banned Music: 21 Artists Censors Tried to Silence on Billboard.com, “Lady Gaga was forced
to cancel a sold-out show in Indonesia after Islamic conservatives protested, saying that her sexy clothes and dance
moves would corrupt the country’s youth.”
And the Thunder Rolls
(I cannot get the video to embed properly, so please follow the link above)
Music censorship is not limited to any specific musical genre. Garth Brook’s music video for “And the Thunder Rolls” was
initially banned from television stations such as CMT and TNN because of its depiction of infidelity and domestic
violence. It went on to win Best Music Video in 1991.
(From the film Yellow Submarine)
The Beatles may be considered by many to be one of the most influential bands of all time, but their popularity didn’t
protect them from censorship. In 1967, the BBC (the major media outlet in their own home country), banned “Lucy in the
Sky with Diamonds” and “A Day in the Life” from getting any air play because it was thought that the songs promoted and
encouraged drug use.
<strong></strong><br>
A new book called How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin discusses Beatles music that was banned in the Soviet Union.
There are many other examples of music that has been banned, “bleeped” and otherwise altered to make the songs more
“acceptable”. Whether it is the lyrics or the musician himself/herself, songs, music videos and performances have been
banned throughout the world.
Have you experienced censored music? Do you think the music should have been censored? Why or why not?
Overall government censorship of film has not been overly common throughout American history for many reasons, one of
which was that the film industry has typically responded to criticism by self-censorship. The Motion Picture Production
Code, commonly known as the Hays Code, was a set of moral guidelines imposed by motion picture industry from the 1930’s
to the 1960’s. Here is a clip about film censorship from a larger documentary called The Celluloid Closet. It focuses on
the removal of homosexuality from film as a part of the Hays code. If you have not seen The Celluloid Closet, I encourage
you to seek it out. It is available for check out from the library.
Today, films are rated, again through a self imposed system of the Motion Picture Association of America. Every film has
a rating of G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 to indicate the age group for which the film is appropriate. Rating descriptions
typically accompany the rating and are different for every film. The rating description states exactly why a film is
rated at the level it is. An example of this may be, “Intense sequences of violence and frightening images”. Finally,
there is a rating definition that provides more information about the rating that was given (ie. “Material may be
inappropriate for children under 13” for PG-13 films).
According to MPAA.org, not all films are required to be rated. “Submitting a movie for a rating is a voluntary decision
made by filmmakers. However, the overwhelming majority of filmmakers have their movies rated, and each member of the
Motion Picture Association of America has agreed to have all its theatrically released movies rated.”
Films may be banned or censored by a city or state, by individual theaters or movie rental chains or by parents or
guardians. Recently, I noticed that the local theater where I live chose not to show a film about mining for natural gas
by using frac sand, but instead chose a politically charged documentary about the president.
Here is an example of a film that was banned in the entire city of Savannah, Georgia:
The Last Temptation of Christ was directed by Martin Scorsese and released in 1988. After its release, it met with a lot
of controversy from religious groups stating that the film, which was based on an earlier book, was blasphemous. Banned
in Savannah, Georgia, it was also not permitted in Blockbuster stores until much later. The video I had wanted to show
you appears to have been deleted by YouTube, so here is an interview with Martin Scorsese.
Have you seen this film? Based on the clip provided, what is your stance on the film?
Can you think of other films that have experienced censorship? I can remember when I was young some of my friend’s
parents wouldn’t allow them to see Pee Wee Herman movies because of a scandal surrounding the actor who played Pee Wee,
Paul Reubens. Reubens was caught exposing himself in an adult film theater and was arrested. Many individuals boycotted
Pee Wee Herman television shows and films following the scandal.
Have you experienced censorship in relationship to film?
Censorship, in one form or another, is common throughout the arts. Often enough, the intentions of censorship might be
good, but still may violate First Amendment rights. I hope that you will consider censorship in your own lives:
Has it been warranted?
What were the reasons for censorship?
What did the censorship mean in terms of your own values?
Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.