Social Realism is an artistic movement, expressed in the visual and other realist arts, which depicts social and racial injustice, economic hardship, through unvarnished pictures of life's struggles.
CULTUREWARSDocuments from the Recent Controversies OllieShoresna
CULTURE
WARS
Documents from
the Recent Controversies
in the Arts
Edited by
RICHARD BOLTON
NEW PRESS
New York
Preface
Philip Brookman
O
n June 14, 1989, The Washington Post reported that the Corcoran Gallery
of Art in Washington, D.C., had canceled their planned exhibition of
Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment. According to the Post, the museum’s
trustees had abruptly changed their agenda to avoid becoming involved in a
growing political debate over the sexual content of the artist’s work. Apparently,
they feared that the exhibition would jeopardize the upcoming congressional
reauthorization of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federal agency
that had partially funded the show. Their decision changed the course of arts
funding in 1990s.
At the time, I was working as a curator at Washington Project for the Arts, a
nonprofit, experimental gallery in the nation’s capital. I had been following
closely the political debates over arts funding and content, and the specific
controversies that were beginning to engulf the art world. The country was
moving into an election year, and certain politicians seemed ready to exploit a
handful of artists and their work in order to capture the attention of the
electorate. These artists, who had received NEA funding, directly or indirectly,
had struck a raw nerve in Congress and in some segments of the public: federal
money, it was thought, should not support the creation and exhibition of ideas
that questioned the status quo.
Between 1985 and 1990, artists were increasingly confronted by government
agencies and special interest groups for creating work that some considered to
be obscene, pornographic, blasphemous, politically motivated, or degrading of
national symbols. Those artists — whose work addressed specific social issues
such as war, economics, racism, environmental concerns, immigration, multi
culturalism, gender representations, sexuality, and AIDS — and by extension
their sponsors (the NEA, state arts councils, foundations, museums, and so on),
were criticized in Congress and the national media for the content of their
outspoken work. For example, Representative Richard Armey (R-Tex.), a
vociferous critic who tried to eliminate the NEA, admonished the agency in
1985 for funding gay-oriented literary journals. In response, the arts community
began to question congressional criticism, arguing that any attempt to legislate
the content of work that qualified for federal funding was tantamount to
censorship. Armey’s response: “This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter
of judgement, of values.”1 Arguments about symbolic speech and public moral
ity politicized the issue of arts patronage.
Less than four years later, the NEA again came under attack from members
of Congress, and from a handful of confrontational religious groups, led by
Reverend Donald Wildmon, executive director of the American Family Associ
ation (AFA) in Tupelo, Miss ...
Social Realism is an artistic movement, expressed in the visual and other realist arts, which depicts social and racial injustice, economic hardship, through unvarnished pictures of life's struggles.
CULTUREWARSDocuments from the Recent Controversies OllieShoresna
CULTURE
WARS
Documents from
the Recent Controversies
in the Arts
Edited by
RICHARD BOLTON
NEW PRESS
New York
Preface
Philip Brookman
O
n June 14, 1989, The Washington Post reported that the Corcoran Gallery
of Art in Washington, D.C., had canceled their planned exhibition of
Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment. According to the Post, the museum’s
trustees had abruptly changed their agenda to avoid becoming involved in a
growing political debate over the sexual content of the artist’s work. Apparently,
they feared that the exhibition would jeopardize the upcoming congressional
reauthorization of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federal agency
that had partially funded the show. Their decision changed the course of arts
funding in 1990s.
At the time, I was working as a curator at Washington Project for the Arts, a
nonprofit, experimental gallery in the nation’s capital. I had been following
closely the political debates over arts funding and content, and the specific
controversies that were beginning to engulf the art world. The country was
moving into an election year, and certain politicians seemed ready to exploit a
handful of artists and their work in order to capture the attention of the
electorate. These artists, who had received NEA funding, directly or indirectly,
had struck a raw nerve in Congress and in some segments of the public: federal
money, it was thought, should not support the creation and exhibition of ideas
that questioned the status quo.
Between 1985 and 1990, artists were increasingly confronted by government
agencies and special interest groups for creating work that some considered to
be obscene, pornographic, blasphemous, politically motivated, or degrading of
national symbols. Those artists — whose work addressed specific social issues
such as war, economics, racism, environmental concerns, immigration, multi
culturalism, gender representations, sexuality, and AIDS — and by extension
their sponsors (the NEA, state arts councils, foundations, museums, and so on),
were criticized in Congress and the national media for the content of their
outspoken work. For example, Representative Richard Armey (R-Tex.), a
vociferous critic who tried to eliminate the NEA, admonished the agency in
1985 for funding gay-oriented literary journals. In response, the arts community
began to question congressional criticism, arguing that any attempt to legislate
the content of work that qualified for federal funding was tantamount to
censorship. Armey’s response: “This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter
of judgement, of values.”1 Arguments about symbolic speech and public moral
ity politicized the issue of arts patronage.
Less than four years later, the NEA again came under attack from members
of Congress, and from a handful of confrontational religious groups, led by
Reverend Donald Wildmon, executive director of the American Family Associ
ation (AFA) in Tupelo, Miss ...
1 Chicana Expression—Later 20th Century Public AVannaJoy20
1
Chicana Expression—Later 20th Century
Public Art and the Public Interest1 [Since the 1960s, a number of artists have engaged in
debates] over the nature of public space and the art that is to be placed within this space. In the
past in the United States, public art works often functioned as representations of civic virtues
meant to instill valuable moral lessons. They were also intended to mark the common values of a
diverse community and nation: heroic military efforts in defense of one’s country or one’s
freedoms, respect for the laws of the land. The 1960s changed all that. As people began to march
for civil rights and against the involvement of the United States in the war in Vietnam, many
began to look at public art and ask: “Whose values are being represented? Whose traditions and
beliefs? To whom are these works supposed to speak?” Certainly artists in the 1930s had created
images of working-class Americans in government buildings throughout the country, but those
murals omitted much—the racism directed at African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and
Asian Americans, the struggles to unionize, the labor of women outside the home. Calls were
issued for a new kind of public art, one that was truly, in the words of the art historian Arlene
Raven, “in the public interest.”
Walls of Pride: Chicano/a Murals These calls were met most effectively by a new generation
of muralists, who began covering walls throughout the country with images of local history or of
the less celebratory side of national history. These artists argued that a public art could only be
truly public if those who shared space with it were consulted about its ultimate form and use. In
California in particular, a new and dynamic movement evolved that took inspiration from both the
murals of Mexico and the struggles of farm workers in the United States, led by Cesar Chavez
and Luisa Moreno, to unionize under the United Farm Workers of America (UFW).
The growing political activism of individuals of Mexican descent around this unionization drive, which
ultimately grew into a full-blown civil rights movement, led to the adoption by many of the name Chicano,
derived from Mexicano. While it had circulated as an informal term for several decades within
communities whose members described themselves as Mexican Americans, it was now used publicly
as a form of positive self-identification, indicative of a new political consciousness and a commitment
to social change. One of the first Chicano murals was produced in 1968 by Antonio Bernal on the side of
the UFW Center in Del Ray, California. The piece celebrates modern revolutionary leaders, including
Pancho Villa, and Emiliano Zapata (key figures in the Mexican Revolution of 1910-20), Cesar Chavez, ,
Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King. A companion piece depicted Pre-Columbian leaders.
Chicana Muralist Judith Baca and The Great Wall of Los An ...
r of that voiced subjecIy a mental but also an .e terms.docxcatheryncouper
r of that voiced subjec
Iy a mental but also an
.e terms of intervention
)nceiving, reproducing
r, desire, time, space)."
xl by Godzilla and the
lery.
ian schema, I saw Jesus
topped my rented Fiat
Devonshire. I grabbed
ised in a flowing white
arled tree in the center
rery cold. It had been
to get some footage of
een Catholic for a very
r Sunday. Redemption
(spring/summer 1995):
dey: Bureau of Public
Basic Books, 1972), 149.
Jniversity of California
10. Internal Exiles: The Interventionist Public
and Performance Art of Asco
C. Ondine Chavoya
Asco (NAUSEA):
1, a feeling of sickness at the stomach, with an impulse to vomit
2, disgust; loathing
3. Gronk, Patssi, Gamboa, Herron
4. Collaborations 1972 thru 1976
-Harry Gamboa Jr. and Gronk in "Interview: Gronk and Gamboa"
Formed in the early 1970S by four Chicano artists from East Los Angeles, Asco set out ro
test the limits of art-its production, distribution, reception, and exhibition. As a col
laborative creative corps, the original members of Asco, Harry Gamboa Jr., Gronk,
Willie Herr6n, and Patssi Valdez,l engaged in performance, public art, and conceptual
multimedia art. The artists merged activism with performance in response ro this turbu
lent social and political period in Los Angeles and within the larger international con
text of alternative youth cultures and radical politics of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Asco created art by any means necessary, often using their bodies and guerrilla, or
hit-and-run, tactics. The artists banded together through their shared sense of dis
placement and as an alternative to gangs, violence, and other negative elements affect
ing the community. Manifesting their ideas in the public arena of the streets, the
artists recognized the power ofpublic representation and documentation and expertly
learned to circumvent traditional institutions by creating alternative methods of ac
cess and distribution. Their work critically satirized and challenged the conventions of
modernist "high" art as well as those of "ethnic" or community-based art. The conno
tations of their self-adopted name, Asco, testifies to the initial effect of the group. Asco
189
tho
Typewritten Text
from Erika Suderburg ed., Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000) 189 - 208.
tho
Typewritten Text
tho
Typewritten Text
tho
Typewritten Text
tho
Typewritten Text
190 C. Ondine Chavoya
is Spanish for nausea or repulsion with the impulse to vomit. The name acknowledges
the response that their street and gallery work provoked, particularly from within the
Chicano art movement. Throughout the 1970S and into the 1980s, the Asco group ini
tiated urban street actions that critically interrogated the social space of Los Angeles.
Formed in the early 1970S by four Chicano artists from East Los Angeles, Asco set out
to explore and exploit the unlim ...
The Gallery of Light @ Beth Or presents A deep dive into the works of Jacob Lawrence by Cathi Rivera.
Inspired by the exhibition at the Lowe Art Museum @ the University of Miami.
1. ITALIAN RENAISSANCE: GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA Prior at Dominican Monastery of San Marco in Florence. Begins preaching against what he believes is the corrupting influence of modern (Renaissance) culture and its leading proponents (in Florence, the Medici family). Develops a huge following which temporarily expels the Medici and reorganizes the city’s government. Organizes “ Bonfires of the Vanities,” in which paintings, books, etc., which were believed to promote a degenerate or un-Christian way of life were destroyed. Executed in 1498.
2. PISS CHRIST by ANDRES SERRANO (USA; 1989) --Photograph of a plastic crucifix immersed in a glass of the artist’s own urine. Given an award by the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Arts, an organization which receives funding from the U.S. federal government. --Caused an uproar when first exhibited; infuriated members of conservative and religious organizations across the U.S.
3. PISS CHRIST by ANDRES SERRANO (USA; 1989) Questions which arise: --Does freedom of speech cover acts which might offend the religion or morality of another group? --Should federal funding be restricted only to art which is considered inoffensive? If so, who should decide what is offensive, or who should that determination be made? --Should museums and galleries bow to pressure, especially threats of violence, and censor themselves?
4. THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY by CHRIS OFILI (England; 1996) --An exaggerated, black depiction of the Virgin Mary which incorporates elephant dung, an apparent allusion to African ideas of fertility. --Greatly offended Christians when displayed at the Brooklyn Art Museum in New York. --Attacked by a 72-year-old Christian man who attempted to smear paint over it. --The then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to censor the museum, threatening to withhold funding unless they closed the exhibition. Led to a public debate on censorship.
5. Comments: “ The idea of having so-called works of art in which people are throwing elephant dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary is sick.”--Mayor Rudolph Giuliani “ Mayor Giuliani’s reactions appear to be based on the narrow definition that art should only be beautiful and an equally narrow picture of a Virgin Mary who looks like Ingrid Bergman.” --Art Historian Michael Davis THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY by CHRIS OFILI (England; 1996)
6. Questions and issues: --Again, freedom of speech vs. religious morality; but in this case, is there an additional issue of freedom of religion? Does censoring the picture infringe upon the artist’s right to express his own version of the Virgin Mary? And is an attempt to suppress this version of the Virgin a de facto racist act? Or was the artist’s religious sentiment in fact sincere? --Was Giuliani justified in not only attempting to censor the image but threaten the museum itself? Is it relevant that he never even bothered to look at the image in person, or meet with the museum or artist? THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY by CHRIS OFILI (England; 1996)
7. ROBERT MAPPLETHORPE --Part of influential gay subculture in 1970s New York; worked for Andy Warhol’s Interview Magazine. --Became famous for his graphic, homoerotic photos, but his total body of work also included still lifes, more traditional nudes, and celebrity portraits.
8. ROBERT MAPPLETHORPE --A career retrospective organized to tour seven cities in 1989. At this time, Mapplethorpe was dying of AIDS. --The show first went to Philadelphia and Chicago and did not provoke hostile attention; it had received mostly positive reviews. --The show next went to Washington D.C., and an uproar ensued. Conservative senators and congressmen (especially Jesse Helms) and religious used the Mapplethorpe exhibit to attack the NEA, since the Corcoran Gallery, which was scheduled to host the exhibit, received federal funding.
9. ROBERT MAPPLETHORPE --Dick Armey (Texas congressman) circulated copies of the catalog of the Mapplethorpe exhibit and a petition calling for a review of the NEA. --Pat Buchanan claimed the Mapplethorpe show was evidence of a band of gay and arts based radicals, suffering from “an infantile disorder,” who wanted to subvert Christian American culture and create a pagan society. --Jesse Helms introduced an amendment to restrict funding for the arts, and bar the use of federal funds for things which he deemed offensive or pornographic.
10. ROBERT MAPPLETHORPE --Against this onslaught, and fearful of losing its own funding, the Corcoran Gallery decided, the night before it was scheduled to open, not to show the exhibit. --Arts activists and proponents of freedom of speech then took action against the Corcoran, staging protests and projecting Mapplethorpe’s images onto the gallery walls at night. --The Washington Project for the Arts, a private organization, then stepped in and hosted the show, and attendance set new records.
11. ROBERT MAPPLETHORPE --Protests awaited the show when it traveled to Cincinnati. The Contemporary Arts Center was the subject of harassment and threats before the show opened, and they put it on without using only private funds. They attempted to have their legal status clarified by asking a grand jury to look at the photographs before the show opened. The grand jury refused. --When the show opened, the grand jury arrived, declared the exhibit obscene, had the police close it, and had the gallery’s director, arrested. He was tried on obscenity charges but acquitted.
12. Questions and issues: --To what extent were the problems over the Mapplethorpe show due to homophobia? Would it have been different if the images were heterosexual? --Again, the issue of public funds supporting potentially offensive art exhibits. Do not people of minority races or sexual orientations have a right not just to publically exhibit their images, but to have their own tax dollars used to that end? --Should the curator in Cincinnati have been arrested? Had he done enough to try to prepare the viewer for the show and clarify the gallery’s legal position?
13. Mayor Harold Washington: --Elected first Black mayor of Chicago, 1983 --Difficult first term, marked by racial divisions; several of his programs stymied by White aldermen from working class districts --Re-elected in 1987 --Re-apportionment put him in a better position to exercise his will and enact his programs
14. Mayor Richard Washington: --Died soon after being re-elected (November 1987); suffered a heart attack while at his desk
15. David Nelson: --White student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago --At the school’s gallery in early 1988 displays a portrait of Mayor Washington dressed in women’s undergarments and holding a pencil --The women’s undergarments are a reference to rumors that Washington, who was a bachelor, may have been gay; his adversaries also claimed he was a transvestite. These rumors were never proven. --He titled the painting “Girth and Mirth,” after a magazine for overweight gay men --The pencil is a reference to a pencil Washington was holding when he was found dead.
16. Questions which arise from the episode: --What was Nelson’s real motivation? How important are his motives in the controversy? --Should censorship have occurred? Does the painting qualify as an expression of “free speech?” What are the limits of free speech, and are there points at which that right should be curtailed in the public interest? --How important to the ensuing controversy was the racial aspect?—would things have been different had Nelson been Black? How important was the sexual aspect?—would things have been different if there had not been an implication of homosexuality? --What about the role of school? Should the School of the Art Institute of Chicago shown the painting in the first place? Could they, or should they, have taken steps from the outset to prevent a controversy? --Was the reaction somehow specific to Chicago?— might things have been different in another city?
17. --A few months later, a Black student named “Dread” Scott Tyler, also from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago would ignite further controversy. --In early 1989 he exhibited “ What is the Proper Way to Display a US Flag?” It was composed of 3 elements: an American flag on the floor, and above it a photo collage and a shelf with a book for comments. “ Dread” Scott Tyler
18. “ Dread” Scott Tyler --He denied that his exhibit was in some way a reaction to Nelson’s, but had stated that Nelson’s painting was “pretty damn shallow and pretty damn offensive.” --Scott Tyler was a politically active artist who took the name Dread the 1857 court case “Dread Scott vs. Sandford,” which upheld a Black man’s legal status as a slave. It was one of the causes of the Civil War. --The exhibit appeared in a show of minority artists, ironically intended as part of a healing process after the Nelson affair.
19. “ What is the Proper Way to Display a US Flag?” by “ Dread” Scott Tyler, 1989
21. --As part of an “effort to oppose moves to make patriotism compulsory,” that artist and several supporters went to Washington and burned flags on the steps of the US Capitol.
22. --The Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional, and ruled that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
23. Again, question arise: --Despite his claims, do you think the artist was in part motivated by the Nelson incident? --Again, should the school have intervened? Did they do the right thing by backing down, to the artist’s refusal to remove the piece, and the students’ threats of a strike? --To what extent do you think race might have again been a factor in the controversy?—i.e., might it have been any different if the artist was white? Either way, to what extent did his militant stance fuel the controversy? --Should free speech be curtailed when it comes to un-patriotic gestures? --Did the veterans have a fair right to be offended?—if they fought for “American rights,” should they have respected the artist’s right to free speech and not tried to interfere? --Do the President or Senate have a right to publicly criticize artists, and if so, should they use it? --Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision? --Does the episode still have relevance today (the Patriot Act, etc.)?