[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Censorship issues
In reference to the 'Sturges' issue in SF, in my mind it was not censorship
but racism.
Jock was one of our students. Darned excellent in his skills. First guy to
have CD's and listen to classical music etc. But, he had a young black
assistant bring his work to a lab (slides as I remember) and it was there
the problem started. I may well be over reacting here in such implication,
but perhaps if Jock had brought work in the lab might've said, nice work,
let me see more. You know how prurience is.
Too, in my mind, the trouble w/Mapplethorpe's work through Jesse Helms' eye
was also one of racism and not about censorship. Robert had bold images of
black man and white men and that troubles a lotta folk.
You might all remember a magazine in the 60's called Eros run by Ralph
Ginzberg (Ginzburg?sp) which was shut down due to Ralph Hattersley's images
of a black man and white woman naked an in embrace.
Censorship is often a name used to cover supposed morality's knife edge to
cut off the hand which feeds the mind.
Jack
>
> The liability that the school might be afraid of incurring is if someone
> accuses them of displaying and/or promoting pornography. I know that in the
> Sturges case in 1997 two of the bookstores that carried his controversial
> book were charged by the state for selling child pornography. Although a
> gallery situation is different because there is a consignment contract
> between the artist and the gallery. Still I am not sure if the gallery can
> be held criminally responsible for works displayed in it. After all it is a
> private space, although this may be argued against, saying that the gallery
> is really a public space because anyone can enter the gallery and view the
> work and be offended, etc. This all may be a mute point as the school may
> straight out refuse to allow the controversial image in the show no matter
> what type of documentation that I provide. They have the right to do this
> as it is their gallery, although I would hope that an art school would be
> the last place for censorship to rear its ugly head. Still, the school is a
> business first, and an art school second. I guarantee that they will do
> everything possible to maintain a positive community image in order to
> attract more students and therefore more money. They are in the business of
> business, art is just the vehicle for them to get there. Now I know that
> this is very realistic, but even in the former hippie bastion that is San
> Francisco, where you would think that nothing would be shocking or
> controversial, there exists censorship issues. Even if I do display the
> image, although many people are recommending to me that I do not, I could
> still face possible arrest and charges. There are incidents all over the
> country where parents have been arrested after taking nude photos of their
> children in a bath tub or at play. In each case the charges were eventually
> dropped but not without legal expenses and lives turned upside down. I have
> spoken with Jock Sturges in the past, and whatever you may personally think
> of his work, the man went through a lot of legal hell and $100,000 in legal
> fees to walk away from it in the end. He says that it still causes him not
> to take certain photos that he would have in the past. So this is a real
> lesson in reality. Freedom of speech goes only so far as the person next to
> you who complains about your speech. Let's hope for a more realistic world.
>
>
> Gary Miller
>
>