Censorship Anyone Who Genuinely Believes

Censorship

Anyone who genuinely believes that art has something worthwhile to contribute to the world must necessarily believe that the censorship of art is an inherently destructive and dangerous thing, but this has not stopped powerful individuals from purporting to see a cultural value in art while simultaneously decrying particular works or collections of works which challenge their ideological authority. Purporting to retain the authority to determine what is and is not worthwhile or legitimate art, as in the 1999 case of then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani vowing to withhold funding from the Brooklyn Museum of Art, contradicts the very thing about art which makes it useful, which is its ability to challenge and disrupt. Thus, genuine respect for art means respecting it as the legitimate expression of any and all possible human expression, regardless of whether or not that expression agrees with one's political, cultural, or ideological assumptions.

In his preface to the Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde pinpoints the essential nature of art, and the reason why it must never be censored, when he states that "the artist can express everything. / Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. / Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art" (Wilde 588). Wilde notes that by definition, the potential scope of art as such is the entirety of possible human expressions, and thus "those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things," and would subsequently argue for the censorship of those perceived ugly meanings, "are corrupt without being charming" (Wilde 588). Put another way, when received by someone who appreciates the central function of art, which is to challenge assumptions by revealing some kind of truth, art can only produce "beautiful meanings," so anyone seeking to censor art has already by definition failed to appreciate art correctly.

In 1999, in response to an exhibition of young British artists, Rudy Giuliani embodied the notion of "corrupt without being charming" perfectly when he threatened to cut off funding for the Brooklyn Museum of Art over what he called "sick stuff" (Barry & Vogel 560). Of course, this case highlights the tension inherent in any public support for art, because Giuliani's contention was that "you don't have a right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's religion" (Barry & Vogel 560). By singling out the potential offensive that religious people might take, Giuliani reveals the truth that any official support for art is inherently problematic, because art exists to challenge the very ideological structures which hold up the official state.

Despite nominal movements toward a separation of church and state, Christian ideology still holds an unhealthy sway over American politics, so it is only natural that the mayor of the United States' largest city would find a work that challenges Christianity offensive, because that is similarly a challenge to the political order which has served to perpetuate and protect Christian ideology. Thus, while no one can claim a right to public funding for the arts, and it is in fact in the best interests of the powerful to control what art is deemed "acceptable," removing funding due to a specific work or collection of works is arbitrary censorship and as noted by "Floyd Abrams, a lawyer specializing in the First Amendment," also interprets the notion of free speech "precisely backward" (Barry & Vogel 562).