Note: The opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of ACT Insurance, its employees, or any of the companies affiliated with it.
In light of recent events, it seemed a good time to write a blog post about something that many artists and other creative people have faced for thousands of years and that some of them are still facing today. When, if ever, is it ok to censor art or books, and how much freedom of expression should creative people be allowed to have?
These are difficult questions that can’t be fully answered with this simple blog post. So why bring it up? Why bother even writing about it? Because having the conversation is just as important as answering the question.
As with most everything, people have differing opinions on the issue. There are those who believe that some images and words are not appropriate and should be censored every time. Other people believe that nothing should be censored - under any circumstances. There are also those who take a middle ground.
Sometimes the reasons art is censored changes over the years. “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain has been censored numerous times over the years. While today it is usually banned because of its racist language and stereotypes, it was first banned one month after its publication by a Massachusetts library in 1885, according to a Huck Finn teacher’s guide provided by PBS. Why was it banned? Because of the “very low grade of morality...couched in the language of a rough dialect [with] a systemic use of bad grammar and an employment of rough, coarse, inelegant expressions. It is also very irreverent…”
Ouch! What artist or author would want to hear that about their work? Mark Twain didn’t mind. His response: “They have expelled Huck from their library...this will sell us another 25,000 copies for sure.”
There are good reasons that people give for why censorship is needed (usually for the sake of children), whether you agree with them or not. There are good reasons that people give for why censorship is not needed, whether you agree with them or not.
Still, it seems odd to call for art to be censored simply because I don’t like what I’m seeing. Who am I to censor something that I consider “offensive” when someone else may have the opposite feelings as I do? My feelings about this “indecent” thing may be very strong. The other person may have feelings just as strong as mine. A piece of art that I consider “immoral” could be a beautiful work of art to someone else.
And here’s the great thing: If I am offended by some piece of art, I have options. I can be my own censor.
If I find a passage in a book that is offensive to me, I can stop reading and close the book.
If I’m at a museum and I see something “indecent,” I can walk away.
If I see art I consider offensive about someone or something that I consider sacred (or that I feel at least deserves reverential treatment), I can ignore it.
What I do know, and I think the majority of people in the world would agree with me, is that there is NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON LIVING ON THIS EARTH who has the right to kill someone else because they were offended by an image, word, or another piece of art. Ever. No exceptions.
Artists, authors, sculptors, and other creative individuals should have the right to create whatever art they want. I have the right to personally decide whether that art is something I want to look at or not. In essence, it really is that simple.
Do you agree with the post? Want to express your opinion about censorship? Please comment below.
Comments
Thank's Kaytee, your experience and perspective are appreciated. Feel free to drop me a line if you ever have any questions regarding liability insurance for the individual vendors. Best of success in 2020.
No liability insurance required to show in the ART SHOW-- although, I think there may be for some, if not all, vendors on the sales floor. Comic Con does have insurance, but has rules to (hopefully) make that insurance unnecessary-- no framed pictures with glass is one of the "safety" rules; local artists can "hang" their own work, but the display is checked by a staff member, and if there are "questions", the show director is the final authority. NOTE: this is a "gallery" type set-up-- staff run the show, artists do not hang around with hteir "stuff"-- any promotions/selling they do have to be outside the show, and everything on display is noted on a control sheet, and on bid sheets-- with no "in and out" of pieces, nor "filling in" for pieces sold.
The only insurance SUGGESTED, is to insure valuable pieces against damage/loss, especially for those who mail in their art. If pieces arrive damaged, or are somehow damaged during the show, photos are taken and sent to the artist-- they have the option on how they want it handled.
Comic Con International/San Diego Comic Con is a non-profit organization; other "comic cons" may have other policies, and are not related, other than be similar sounding names. https://comic-con.org/cci/art-show Is the link, but no 2020 info is up yet.
Kaytee - that is very insightful to understand the behind the scenes activities going on before a "Comic Con Art Show" begins. Is liability insurance required for each vendor?
The venue should state on the show application, if there are any restrictions on "nudity", etc. Some of those restrictions have to do with local laws/regulations, especially if children may be present, and others are just the policy of the show organizers. If the organizers "don't care" beyond satisfying local regulations... there may be "work arounds" if your art does have some of those "forbidden" elements.
At the Comic Con Art Show... before the show opens to the public, we go around and "dot" or put Post-it Notes over nipples (female ones) and genitalia. Vendors on the sales floor do the same, or sometimes have enclosed booths for which potential viewers need to show adult ID to enter (these include replica weapons booths, although the merchandise isn't hidden). These satisfy the "letter of the law" regarding San Diego's regulations for "family friendly" events, and some of the artists "pre-dot" their work, adding comments, like, "naughty bits!" on the dot/Post-it note, thus getting a bit of extra attention to their pieces.
Great insights Larry, it's a difficult topic to tackle that has several perspectives to consider. Ultimately, just having a dialog about it is a great first step for the betterment of society. I appreciate everyone's feedback and welcome others.
As you speak of censorship of "Art". We must first define "Art". Art brings up many differing viewpoints. As you have written, books - the written word, is art. Speech may be art. Speech is protected under the Freedom terms.
You pose the idea that none have the right to hurt others, just because of a written word or being offended by art.
However, what of the corollary? Mein Kampf was just writings. The speeches made by Hitler, were just his expressions. Under our laws and values, protected and not to be censored. However those types of "Artistic expression expanded and caused the mass destruction of many millions. So, if someone had heard the speeches, read the books and acted by killing Hitler, early on, would they have saved millions?
Perhaps there are times when we do have a right to act against Freedom of Speech and Artistic expressions.
I am not qualified to judge others. I do not condone violence. But a simple, one answer will not address this subject. I would feel any artistic expression that encourages and / or promotes harm to others is wrong. Having the ability to censor and stop such forms is important and warranted. Again, who gets to judge?
Morality and acceptance by society changes often. Even with such, the ability to recognize that which is designed to instill wrongful action and treatment, should be recognizable.
As to your Mark Twain story... I tried Twice and can't Fathom why :-)
That is fascinating, I never knew that aspect of the evolution of the western saddle.
In 2003 I juried a saddle show for the Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame in Colorado Springs, CO. One of the makers submitted a saddle with a carved reclining nude on the seat jockey. I saw nothing out of the ordinary about this as historically nudes were often carved on 19th century western saddles. The woman who managed the Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame at that time would not allow it. Her argument was that the hall was "a family place". During the saddle show I demonstrated there several days and didn't' see any kids. Some people are narrow minded and lack historical perspectives. The show was structured to show evolution of the western saddle from early fur trappers saddles to contemporary art saddles. I had two historical reproductions in the show.