Michaelangelo’s little sculpture...
Should Art be censored based on its contents?
Throughout history, we humans have always felt a connection to the idea of creation. Art, as a result, is always brought up in this weird fixation. What does an artist mean by their creation? Can you separate the art from the artist as easily as so many of us do? Why does Taylor Swift earn roughly 10,000 times more money than a typical teacher? These are all valid questions, but I think the most debated and important topic is about what you can and, more significantly, cannot show with art.
The title of this article is based off the story where a headteacher of a school in Florida was fired for showing students without warning or parental permission Michaelangelo’s David, one of the most famous works of art in history. Due to the sculptures more “exposed” areas of the body, parents complained about the showing and stated that the art was “pornographic”. This case is particularly interesting because it brings to light the issue of censoring art for people and how that negatively affects the artist's vision. I’m sure Michaelangelo did not mean to offend anyone with his sculpture, that would just his depiction of David, depicting him in his most vulnerable yet heroic form. Whether or not art offends people, if that was not the artists intention it is entirely down to the individual who interprets the piece.
Some people might look at David’s private parts and be offended, others might not. But this type of art I think should be looked upon as sacred, especially when understanding it is so crucial to our own understanding of how the world works. If we enable people to express their distaste with anything they want, then everyone is going to want everything taken away and we will be left in a beige world full of monotony. Sounds boring to me. We need to let people express themselves rather than tear them down, build ourselves up so we can help to interpret their messages.
However, the discourse shifts when talking about people who use art in a different way. Many artists use their medium to challenge society and open people’s minds to their perspectives and experiences of the world. For example, ‘Rage Against The Machine’ are a band known for their songs about political activism and social change against the people who mistreat their power. Their aggressive music is seen as a form of justice and a voice for so many people who have felt oppressed and neglected by those in charge. Therefore, to censor people fighting for true equality, which is not only backwards but also furthers Rage’s point that the higher ups just try to protect themselves by censoring those who they see as beneath them. In contrast, lots of art might try to do this but end up going in the wrong direction.
Sabrina Carpenter has gotten into some hot water over the last year regarding her most recent album cover depicting her being submissive to the men that control her. This sparked enormous controversy in the media, with outlets saying she promotes male domination and is actively pushing feminism backwards in terms of progress. Although others, including Sabrina herself, argue that she is furthering feminism by enabling herself in this way as it is a choice to pose like how she does, therefore she has all the power. So, if she puts herself in this situation, is that okay to show?
Ultimately, I think it is a matter of taste and general reading of the art. I think if an artist wants to make art that enables them, inspires others, and challenges the norm through unconventional means, that should be supported. But there is a fine line between encouraging and discouraging, thus any art that discriminates against innocent people, or is made to alienate others, should not be tolerated.
As a society, I think we need to learn who are artists and why they choose to show us their work, instead of casting the blame to the first thing that makes your grandma fall out of her chair.
Beautiful roman figure carving | Free Photo
Ellis Waddams
