I’d like to recommend something on TV. It’s called “The First Amendment Project” and being shown on Sundance and CourtTV. Tonight was the first night (Wed will have same programming on CourtTV,) and featured two short documentaries. The first was a look at Fox v. Franken. That flap was over Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, and the fact that it used the term “fair and balanced” in it’s subheading. Fox News claimed that the term “fair and balanced” was their trademark… and took Franken to federal court. Of course, the real reason this suit was prompted was because Franken throughly discredited O’Reilly in book and O’Reilly was pissed off. In the end Franken won. The documentary is a funny, pithy look into the case and the issues surrounding it.
The second documentary was about the Amiri Baraka scandal. Although I had not heard about this story previously, it turned out to be really interesting. Basically, Baraka, a controversial poet, was named by NJ as the state poet laureate. After 9/11, Baraka wrote a long poem about 9/11, which could be summed up as a, “who’s really the bad guy here?” type piece. In it, he hinted that perhaps the state of Israel knew about the attacks. This, of course, got the people at the ADL furious. Since NJ could not revoke Baraka’s title as poet laureate, and he refused to abscond, the NJ senate decided to abolish the position of state poet laureate… a roundabout way of firing him for what he wrote. The film uses this story to outline the importance of art as political speech, and examine to what extent, if any, art can be regulated when financed with public funds.
Lurking in the back of both stories, and explicitly touched upon in the latter was the idea of culture wars. Sure there are the Fox News’ and Franken’s of the world, but what of the many lesser battles that play out daily in the streets, courts, art galleries and schools? The question in my mind becomes, “Does the current administration, because it is so indebted to the religious right, stifle first amendment privileges in the name of decency, morality, national security, or what have you?” Although you all probably know my answer, it’s certainly not a question to be treated lightly.
To reel in this topic for some discussion (which I’m glad to see happening here) I’ll bring it to the specific instance of government funded art. If the government supports an individual artist, through a grant program or any other means of financial assistance, does it have the right to censor what that individual creates? Does the piper have to play to the tune of his benefactor, or should the first amendment supersede such patronage?
This is not about one poet lauriete nor is it about what he wrote. The issue here is whether a person can be fired if the boss doesnt like their work and the answer is a resounding: yep. If you are hired to do a specific job, and the boss does not like it, they are able to fire you. If you are hired as a salesman and the boss doesnt like the your selling approach you can be fired, even if you are making a lot of sales. If you are a professor in a university and if the school doesnt like your teaching methods you are gone.The bottom line is this: you can be fired if what you produce isnt liked by the boss. It makes no difference who that boss is. I have no problem with it, but I am sure others will have a different opinion.
As an artist I feel it’s completely necessary to be censored by public funding. If you seek the seal of approval from government money they have to approve your intentions before you can even begin. Getting an NEA grant or something of the same caliber is only a starting point as government funded art grants have to be matched by private donors. I do think it is positively ridiculous that the work of Andres Serrano was censored after titling a piece “Piss Christ.” The NEA and all of his private investors and museum curators had all of the information on what medium he was using, but when he actually titled it “Piss Christ” it caused an uproar big enough for Jesse Helms to get on board and change the format of applying for such grants and for the amounts that would be given. I read somewhere that france and Germany spend approximately $30.00 average person person in their country on publicly funded arts while America spends less than $.40 on the same. Something that also caught my eye was the fact that George Bush gave $18 million to the NEA and its outlying branches including the Whitney museum right before election time. I can’t imagine that was anything more than a last ditch attempt to grab some rich artsy types.
Thought someone might find interest in this article
http://www.shootthemessenger.com.au/u_jan_98/life/l_pisschrist.htm
about Australia’s take on censorship of the same piece of art, as well as their definitions of libel and how far the church in Australia can play into determining what is obscene, etc.
I think there’s a big difference between “stifling” and “not supporting”. The much-abused First Amendment doesn’t ever define “freedom of speech” as footing the bill for every person’s attempt at communication. That’s like saying “I have the Constitutional right to bear arms so NY state is going to pay for my AK47.” I don’t consider an institution’s refusal to endorse certain kinds of art as unreasonable at all, any more than I would fault a blog owner for removing objectionable content.
That, however, is a far cry from passing legislation that bans the creation of certain types of artwork, regardless of who’s funding it. Fox’s clumsy attempt to shut Franken up is arguably one example of this, and I’m glad they didn’t succeed. The fact remains, though, that if your process of expression includes someone else’s efforts, that other party has every right to influence what you do.
As an artist, I don’t favor federal funding of the arts. I think it directs unnecessary public wrath towards artists and gives the field a bad name in general. Someone who might just think artists are crazy and then ignore them is going to be livid and all the more anti-art if he finds out that his tax dollars – fifteen thousand of them – are going to some dude who dips crucifixes in urine.
On a more philosophical note, how avant-garde and socially critical can you claim to be when the government is paying your expenses? Can you ever convince your viewers that they’re seeing the un-Jesse-Helmsed version of your personal ideas? Is it fair for the most pervasive institution in America to favor one form of expression over another? Affirmative action for creative culture, perhaps?