Forget death, forget public speaking, or falling, or disease or even terrorism. The number one fear of the times seems to be: nudity.
Blue Skies Over Bethlehem
I won’t beat around the burning bush. Much of the censorship of art we’ve seen over the centuries and today is the work of right-wing religious nuts (no pun intended) thumping a two millennia year-old book and demanding that the masses remain as prudish as the Puritans are. They make sure that nobody really knows that, God forbid, we are actually naked under our clothes. God created us in his image. However, his image is shameful and should be covered by a fig leaf.
In religious art of all things, the body as it was intended by the artist as well as the “Creator” is painted over: The Last Judgment, by Michelangelo- the work of a genius, was defiled by the work of tiny-brained ignoramuses who painted clothes over the naked flesh.
The flesh is not always naked. The Massacre of the Innocents by Pieter Bruegel was found to have been copied by an unknown counterfeiter who thought it necessary to change the biblical story on which it is based (Matthew 2:16, all young males in Bethlehem are executed) to a run of the mill slaughtering of livestock on a sunny day. The copy itself seems made after the original, but later painted over to show a blue sky, instead of the dark cloudy atmosphere Bruegel intended, and pigs and wads of clothes instead of the innocent victims.
So instead of an accurate portrayal of a story straight from the bible portrayed in modern fashion to express the Netherlandish experience of constant war, we have something completely and utterly useless. There is no use for this censored painting. None.
Societal Problems or Emotional Baggage?
An incident occurred at a place named, by total coincidence after the Queen of Prudery (see fig leaf above), The Victoria Art Gallery in Somerset England, in which a painting of a nude man was damaged by a right-wing religious nut. He thought that the sight of male genitalia made of paint might offend other right-wing religious nuts (no pun intended) so he covered it up with a glued piece of black paper. It was not known, however, if this man suffered from penis envy or was stricken with jealousy at the size of the painted member.
Dare I say that this type of censoring in modern times seems focused on the male body? In that museum and others images of spread-eagle woman in provocative poses are allowed without question. Not that I’m complaining, of course. Throughout history, depending on who and where we look, the female form, clothed or unclothed, has also been the subject of controversy. Remember Madame X by John Singer Sargent? Her shoulder strap seems to have slipped. Oops. Better cover it up! How bad is that?
These examples are from merry old England, but I hardly have to point out that this type of up-tightness about possibly erotic art is exculsive to Europe. In the States, founded by prudish pilgrim Puritans, we have our share of fear over the human body, and fear of artistic expression in general.
One of the most censored artists it seems in the U. S. right now is Robert Sherer, whose works mainly comprise of parodies of traditional art, including religious art such as Caravaggios. Some of these artworks are labelled homoerotic by his critics, and have had frigid old school-marms and insecure closeted nancy boys all in a fuss. “Will someone think of the children?!”
I’d have to say most of these people should lighten up. And there are far worse things to protect children from than an image not much different from something out of a school anatomy book, like, say, the example a president sets with the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
The Law
Sherer has had several cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which leads me to: “Your Art and the First Amendment.” Artistic expression is protected by the First Amendment as freedom of speech to a point. It is important to know that this was designed to protect the masses from government intrusion. That said, if a governmental entity is suprressing your right to create and display the art how you intend it- nudity and all- then they are in the wrong.
However, don’t expect any court to side with you if you enjoy the patronage of a private collector and they don’t like the looks of those legs spread on your canvas. They are well within their rights to deny your artwork, so long as they are not government funded or associated. The courts may decide the degree of association an organization has with the government, if need be. In the end I don’t think anyone has a reasonable argument if they say they can rightfully show artwork of any kind on private property without the approval of the owners or other people in charge. All other parties have no say in the matter.
Fear of Art, Fear of Everything
In the end when I see a work of art, especially a historic one created by a famous artist, defiled by having a few ridiculous looking plants covering nudity, or crudely drawn clothes to hide shame, I think “repression.” These people subscribe to dogma and are repressed in many ways, and are confused that other people could possibly have opposing ideas- such as their own way of expressing themselves artistically.
I think it is a sad world when someone goes out of their way to face criminal charges by covering up nudity, yet I failed to read of anyone batting an eye about the poor dog which was purposely starved on a gallery floor in the name of “modern art.” No one broke those chains and saved that animal, yet a 12″ by 12″ image of a reclining nude was enough to infuriate someone to take drastic action. The wrong exhibit was vandalized.
It’s a backwards world when the same people who extol “family” values don’t hesitate to send their sons and daughters to die in a useless war. They talk about the sacred act of marriage yet 6 out of 10 of them abuse it and divorce. We are worried about violence in a video game affecting our children but lift nary a single finger to prevent or speak out against wars for oil and the massacre of innocents.
What does censorship of this kind come down to? Mostly fear: of a different set of views, or fear of a non-existant conspiracy to corrupt children, you name it. Meanwhile the rest of the world realizes that these types of religious whack-jobs are no more than what they themselves obsess about censoring:
Nuts.
Comments are closed