Connect Post: The Art of Controversy and the Great Fig-Leaf Debate

The transcript of the “Art of Controversy” and the article “Of Fig Leaves, Art and Other Disputes; Italy: the Great Fig-Leaf Debate” both discuss the role of censorship in the world of art through contemporary history. The Controversy article focused on the “Sensation” Exhibition of controversial young British artists at the New York’s Brooklyn Museum of Art and the Fig Leaves article focused on the issue with the intentional covering of frescoes in the Brancacci Chapel in Florence. Although the articles featured works from different periods, both share a current concern what should and should not be revealed to the public eye.
One theme brought up by the Controversy article was the ability of a government to cut funding in public museums as a means to remove a work or collection from display. The transcript featured opinions from both sides of the argument. The discussion caused me to consider the role of government censorship in more conservative countries. How does the public respond if they do not have precedents of controversial exhibits as in the United States? More specifically, as I assume is discussed in the Ai Wei Wei article, in countries where the government has specific criteria in which art is created, how does the public react to challenging works? In countries like the Soviet Union of the past as well as the China of today, do countries such as the United States serve as a model for rights of artists? In this case, the counter-point in which the United States have also been found guilty for censorship should be brought up--just as it has in previous connect posts. However, the US also has a reason for this censorship, in which the government serves as the rightful critic in the sense of tax dollar management. (The Art of Controversial, p.5.) As certain museums are open to the general public, the ability of private and public galleries to house controversial works should be considered. The government does not have or should not have the capability of censoring controversial works in private institutions, as art is an important cultural symbol and functions as food for thought, but public galleries are able to continue art's purpose better with a greater audience.
Extending the topic of labelling works as “inappropriate” is the concept of trigger warning or age limits. The “Sensation” exhibit had a age requirement of 17 or older or accompaniment by an adult (The Art of Controversy, p.4.) Here, viewers made a conscious decision to enter the gallery space and were to prepare themselves to be shocked or scared. So why was there a spark to censor the works? Why is freedom of expression used in limiting the freedom of expression of others? The work has been labelled as inappropriate and offensive, and this fact may cause individuals to make the decision to view these works as well as others and change their opinion as a result. Works usually have a message attached to them, and gallery spaces allow a vehicle for the message. While the speaker on the side of the government in the transcript sides with the fact that the mayor was not saying the works of “Sensation” should not be hidden away but could instead be exhibited in a private gallery, this provides another layer of censorship as well as the age requirement. However, the fact that the artists’ messages are no longer easily accessible to the public prevents the circulation of skepticism and thoughts.
Works gain personality with a history of censorship, whether through infamy or through eventual popularity. The Fig Leaves article brought up the question of whether the Fig Leaves should be removed, as they are now part of the frescoes’ history. The article debated whether or not restorers should do anything that is irreversible (“Of Fig Leaves…, end of p.1.) While the whole of the article was short and seemed to be for general news-- weakening its argument-- these two questions regard an important aspect in the concept of censorship. My question after reading this involved whether these censored works should be left censored to serve as an example of the times as well for future censors. Art typically exists as an indicator of feelings of any given period, so existing censorship should be kept in some sense in order to continue this. The article also mentions how not all leaves were removed, simply those that were deteriorating (p.2.) It appears that the deteriorating leaves were detracting from the works, and so they were removed. On the other hand, the chief restorer of the Chapel spoke about the need to respect the artist Masaccio by restoring the other frescoes to their original state (p.1.) At what point is censorship of censorship unnecessary, and does it continue to detract from the work? I understand that in this case the censorship is not hard to remove and is also relatively passive, whereas the permanent damage of works falls under a different category, especially those works which are made to convey a challenging message. In the Controversy article, extra measures were taken to protect the works at the Brooklyn show, knowing that the content could anger viewers. While some artists may be able to incorporate any damage that occurs into their message, the case is normally the opposite. However, I stand by my original statement, where damage contributes to the history of an item, which cannot be summarized by a simple line in a written description.
These articles touched on the controversial debate of censorship which will continue just as works deemed challenging will continue to be made and exhibited. However, as viewers continue to attend these exhibits and exposing themselves to history in the making and different opinions, the American right to freedom of expression continues to function as it should, even if some criticize the works.