Last year I spoke to an artist who had had to remove and rehang her exhibition three times until it was out of the view of offended pensioners using a community centre. She took her dilemma to a radio station and received a sympathetic reception but in the end, it made little difference. Her depiction of ancient Greek gods as nude figures raised the age-old question of censorship in the Arts. There is nothing new about any of this of course. Famed art historian Robert Hughes in Shock of the New joked about the box he supposed to be secreted in the Vatican basement containing all of the marble penises removed from marble statuary by an incumbent Pope. The aforesaid Pope no doubt wanted no questions asked about celibate priests and symbolic castration seemed liked a wise move at the time.
And today we learn that once again a marble statue that has been around for a number of centuries and is pictured in every art history book has been banned as obscene. Poor old Michaelangelo cops it every time – this time from the Florida education establishment. He would no doubt be turning in his grave at the state of the world. Australia for all of its vaunted liberalism [at least in more enlightened quarters beyond the religious right] has a history as well. The moral police of the 1960s in Victoria prosecuted an art store owner for having a poster of David in his window and no doubt other examples could be unearthed closer to home.
Much has been written about censorship in the Arts and what it says about society. At various times every medium has been deemed to be offensive and even treasonable from print on paper to paint on canvas to fabric to carved wood. Some mediums of course lend themselves to propaganda very well particularly as used by governments and religious groups who see their limited view and power over the world and humanity as so fragile that one picture of one nude is capable of upsetting the status quo. After all, slogans on walls have been known to foment and exacerbate dissent in the short term and even bring down governments.
Perhaps the ‘rules’ of morality are based upon such thin ice that it would take almost nothing for society to revert to chaos. Certainly, in recent times we have seen how the rule of law, international peace and personal safety have all been challenged by disruptive forces but I doubt that any of that uncertainty can be laid at the door of the Arts or for that matter that the Arts can alter the course of human history at any level. Comment – it can definitely do that, and many see the role as imperative in any society.
So, just what are we afraid of and why are ‘people’ so offended by nudity in the 21st century? I can venture a guess as to which people but I could be entirely wrong, hypocrisy being what it is. The question in my mind though concerns just what is a healthy society and to that there is no single answer. Not asking questions or not seeking clarification on issues would eliminate dissent and various dictators have tried this with little success. Imposing moral codes has also had limited appeal in a dog-eat-dog world although there would seem to be a general acceptance about the value of human life at the expense of nature and the animal kingdom. Art though is difficult to both qualify and quantify. It exacts no toll on the world and has had little or no effect on anything other than – Art. In fact, I can’t come up with a single instance of Art doing anything but define the thinking of its time in retrospect. Perhaps it is this that is most feared although the ongoing fuss about nudity is not just retrospective but promises to reach far into the future.
Before we know it we’ll be back to not just banning the nude from art but banning all knowledge of human reproduction from schools again. According to the old adage, ignorance is bliss. What we don’t know can’t harm us apparently and sweeping controversy under the carpet or locking it away is the best way of dealing with anything other than banning it completely.
In Jun 2013 Steve Cox wrote in the Guardian that challenging Australian art was being attacked and censored and that only “correct”, officially sanctioned work was allowed to be created and seen. He saw art’s primary function as revealing ourselves and that that function was being systematically undermined. He blamed a puritanical mindset and prudishness about sexual matters for a confusing, deep-seated anxiety which was seen as moral rectitude. When it came to so-called “difficult” art, he called it moral panic.
Again, though I ask, just what is a picture of a flacid penis, pubic hair or nipples supposed to actually do to compromise moral rectitude? If we were talking about a picture of a gun [not banned at the moment] then I could understand it. Any picture of any gun will likely send people into the streets on a mindless killing spree. In some countries, men in particular collect guns to hang on the wall and salivate over with the eternal hope of being able to legally or illegally kill someone…and of course, many do. Is there any evidence whatsoever though that Michaelangelo’s imitation human being, as carved in cold marble, has initiated any thoughts other than admiration for its artistry? I doubt it any more than a still life of fruit will drive people to veganism or that Magritte’s pipe [ceci n’es’t pas une pipe] will encourage smoking.
Or is it that artists live in a parallel world where nudity means something else entirely that has nothing to do with moral rectitude and that our objective vision of beauty should be the norm and not the exception.