Controversial Art and Politics

Artistic Expression

A comedian named Tommy Smothers, member of the Smother's Brothers comedy team and target of a battle over censorship, once said "The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." (Smothers) This notion also applies to watching, and viewing artistic expression as well. While some in the United States have tried to impose their view of morality upon the nation through the censoring of what they consider "objectionable," others have fought back to maintain the right of free expression. In 1989, there was a case where a sitting Senator objected to the subject of a work of art that was awarded a government grant. This Senator wrote to the president complaining about the National Endowment for the Arts and it's support of this particular artist. In response the artist defiantly defended his right of artistic expression and warned of the dangers of censorship. If America is going to be a free nation, with freedom of speech and expression at the core of it's values, then American adults cannot be limited to the kinds of artistic expression that only some find acceptable. Americans must have the freedom of expression, even if they express very unpopular opinions; and if someone doesn't like it, they do not have to view it.

In 1989, Senator Jesse Helms objected to an artwork which depicted a crucifix in a bottle of urine. While the senator has every right to object to what he described as "Blasphemy" (Helms, 1989) he did not have the right to deny every other American their right to decide if it was blasphemous or not. Instead, the Senator suggested that the National Endowment for the Arts "ought to be abolished and all funds returned to the taxpayer" (Helms, 1989) And while the Senator acknowledged this artist's constitutional right to freedom of expression, he didn't think the American taxpayers should finance it.

In response the artist, Andres Serrano, wrote a letter to the National Endowment for the Arts explaining the concept of his art and rationalizing his grant. He also stated "In a free society ideas, even difficult ones, are not dangerous. The only danger lies in repressing them." (Serrano, 1989) Serrano was correct, he had every right to artistically express himself any way he wanted.

What Senator Helms calls "Blasphemy and insensitivity to the religious community" (Helms, 1989), Andres Serrano calls his "exploration and juxtaposition of these symbols from which Christianity draws its strength." (Serrano, 1989) If the national government is going to be in the business of promoting the arts, it must promote a wide variety of artistic expression, without judgment or censorship. The government cannot be the arbitor of what is appropriate artistic expression; if so, then can the government decide what words can be expressed? Of course not, but while the Senator said he did not want to repress the artist's constitutional rights, he was willing to shut down the National Endowment for the Arts. Senator Helms proposed that the entire endowment be shut down, that every artist be punished for something one artist did that he did not like. If this is not the actions of a tyrant, what is?

Serrano's artwork may be considered vulgar or blasphemous to some, but with all due respect, so what. The government was not created to make certain that certain religious beliefs were not insulted. Freedom of speech and expression is not limited to what one religious group thinks is appropriate. If anyone objects to this artwork, they do not have to view it. But if they want to have a National Endowment for the Arts, then they have to tolerate artistic expression that they may feel is "objectionable." The government must be fair and equal in it's appropriations and grants, and cannot pick and choose what artwork they will support. Freedom of expression must be freely expressed, or it is not free.

However free a society may be, it is only free for those who are capable of making decisions: Adults. In every society there is a point where an individual becomes an adult, where they gain all the privileges of adulthood, but also must take on the responsibility. In the United States this age is generally regarded as 18 years of age. For those under this age, American society retains a certain amount of authority over them, restricting their actions and privileges.