by Marty Coleman | Sep 19, 2012 | Art, Censorship - 2012 |
I am going to sell you on the fact that today is #5 in my censorship series.
Back Door Censorship
I love when a quote gets me thinking about something in a completely new way. I had not really considered that creating a market for some things but not others, based on moral judgment, is a back door method of censorship. It’s really not about whether something can sell or not, it’s much more about the powers that be building a market world that only allows certain types of images, books, films, dance, songs, to be distributed and sold.
Here ye, Here ye, Judge Money Presiding
Think about the Ratings Board for Film in the US. What is that but a censorship bureau? I am not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing, but that it is a construction meant to limit the commercial viability of products they deem as ‘too much’ in one way or another. The stated goal of the Ratings Board is to help society know what they are about to see, whether it is appropriate or not. But it also is guaranteeing that any film rated NC-17 will not be distributed widely at all, thus making it’s commercial viability minimal. That isn’t just a by-product of the Ratings Board, it’s one of the main functions of the ratings board, albeit not publicly stated.
Profit within the non-profit
How does a non-profit organization, like a museum deal with this idea? They can’t say the paintings won’t sell, since they aren’t selling anything. But they can say the artwork won’t bring in people to the museum, that it will cause a controversy, that it will offend people, and the result of that? The museum will lose what? Money, that’s what. Now, most museums I have been to make some pretty courageous choices about exhibitions. But they also reject exhibitions because they are not ‘commercially viable’ for their institution, even though their institution is supposedly not commercial.
Basically, behind it all, and around it all, I think the power of money is a huge censorship device. What do you think of this idea?
______________________________
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman
Quote by David Mamet, American playright
______________________________
Like this:
Like Loading...
by Marty Coleman | Sep 18, 2012 | Anonymous, Censorship - 2012 |
The Dividing Line between Reasons and Rationalizations
Where is the censorship line drawn? Kate Middleton, Britain’s Princess of Cambridge, is photographed with her bare breasts showing while sunning one a private balcony one half mile from the nearest road in the south of France.
How does a person rationalize taking the photos and selling them for what we have to assume is millions of dollars? The photographer says, ‘I could see her through my lens so she obviously was not in a private situation.’ What about the idea that she doesn’t want photographs of her breasts to be shown to anyone, much less published and seen by millions of people. Does that count for anything, does that matter? Obviously it isn’t a persuasive argument to the photographer, to the agent selling the photos, to the publisher purchasing the photos or to the editor and writer arranging and captioning the photos. They know she doesn’t want those photos taken or distributed. So, what is their rationalization? They might say, ‘Well, if she didn’t want her breasts shown she shouldn’t have shown them’ What do you think of that argument? Did she show them to the world when she exposed them to the sun and air on that secluded patio? Was it her fault?
Everyday Modesty and the Mundane
A friend of mine here in Tulsa, a news anchor, is an extremely modest woman. She is livid that anyone would do this and that laws allow it in certain countries. She said she would die of photos like that of her were exposed. She says it is a private, intimate moment, not one to be shared. What do you think? Is being nude in and of itself an intimate state of being, no matter where you are and what you are doing?
Others I know say it is just no big deal. It’s not a scandal, it’s not a moral failing on her part, it’s not a embarrassment. It’s just a woman sunning topless in private. Big deal. She isn’t in flagrante delicto, she isn’t doing anything outlandish. She is doing something incredibly mundane and pretty boring. Laying down and sunbathing, hardly the most arousing of activities whether topless, bottomless or both. Her boobs are shown, alright already. Done. Next.
Blame
What do you think of this whole situation? Is it ok or not that the photos were taken, sold and distributed? Who is to blame for it happening? Does Princess Kate hold any blame?
___________________
Drawing by Marty Coleman
Quote by Anonymous
___________________
Like this:
Like Loading...
by Marty Coleman | Sep 17, 2012 | Censorship - 2012 |
I think it is appropriate that it is Censorship series #3
Disapproving but Indulging
Being a photographer who often photographs women I have made a habit of checking those who favorite or comment on my photographs on Flickr, where I show them for the most part. My rule is that if the person has a well balanced range of photographs, either their own or those they favorite, then I will not do anything. But if I find they have photos only of one type, primarily pornographic or fetishistic, then I will block them from seeing more of my work.
But what that means of course is I have to go look at their site and their favorites. And that in turn means I see those pornographic and fetishistic photos. And the truth? I can be hypocritical about it. I see immediately that I am going to block this person, but I also sometimes spend more time looking than I need to. Why do I do that? Because the images are exciting to look at, duh.
The Company You Keep
What is the alternative? Here are the questions I have thought through. If I believe my art and photography is not pornographic and is worth looking at, then maybe it doesn’t matter who favorites it. They might favorite some cheesy sex kitten porn image that I think is pretty trashy, but if mine is next to it, doesn’t mine shine through? Or is mine diminished due to the company it keeps? And the other question is if I allow my image to be in a gallery of images I find offensive, then aren’t I approving of those other images? Aren’t I telling my viewers that it’s ok if they follow threads and go to that other site?
50 Shades of Appropriateness
That is where I draw the line. If someone sees my image and collects it somehow, along with images I don’t like, but they keep it to themselves, there isn’t much I can do about it. But if they are going to put it for public view then I am going to censor it if I find its surroundings offensive. This might be similar to the written word, let’s say, 50 Shades of Grey, which is now a very popular book. We have a copy of it (given to me by my wife, as of yet unread) and it is on my nightstand. We live alone and all our daughters are grown women now. As a matter of fact we know one of them has read it. But I wouldn’t have it on the nightstand if they were still living at home and were teenagers or younger. I would censor myself so that what I had in public was appropriate for those who might see it. It isn’t a matter of approval, it’s a matter of appropriateness. if, upon reading it, whether I am aroused by it or not, if I find it bad, trashy, mean-spirited, or otherwise lacking, I will get rid of it because I won’t want it infecting my bookshelf. I will let you know what I decide in a later post.
___________________________
Drawing by Marty Coleman
Quote by Edward Anthony, 1895-1971, American writer
___________________________
Like this:
Like Loading...
by Marty Coleman | Sep 14, 2012 | Censorship - 2012, Henry Steele Commager |
Don’t tell me I can’t make today day #2 of my Censorship series.
"The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purposes, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion."
Going Berzerk
The recent events regarding the anti-muslim film, the riots in the middle east, and our American conflict between first amendment principles, common sense and common decency have got me thinking, How and why do we censor ourselves? The reason I ask is that self-censorship really is the the art of exercising real discretion in life and it is quite important to becoming a mature adult.
Some live in a rule bound society where they have very little freedom of expression. As a result they don’t have much reason to learn self-censorship and self-discretion. When those rules are changed or abandoned, or they move to another land with less rules, it can be very hard for the person to stay within any bounds, since none of the restrictions they had before were necessarily theirs. They were put on from the outside. I am not saying everyone in a rule bound society goes berzerk with freedom when the rules are lifted, but there can be that danger.
Figure Drawing
Last night I did something I haven’t done in many, many years. I went to an open figure drawing session. What that means is you aren’t in a class being instructed, you are just being given access to a studio and a model in a group setting so you can draw as you please. I don’t think I have gone to an actual figure drawing session since before I moved to Tulsa in 1994. I have drawn from the figure here and there, but not in a group studio setting. It was great fun and very energizing and challenging for me. It engaged me in a very rigorous and serious period of time of seeing, evaluating, drawing and creating.
I decided since I was thinking a lot about censorship yesterday that I would do something different in my drawings. I decided I would censor myself and see what I could come up with. There were 2 twenty minute poses where I was able to arrange myself so that there were objects in between the model and me. I worked it out so I could see that she was nude but that she was also obscured in the areas most people see as most private. Then I started drawing. What I love about those sorts of challenges I give myself is that I almost always end up with something more original, unexpected and visually compelling that if I had not given myself the challenge.
Self-censorship #1
These were drawn at Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, OK
Self-censorship #2
It was an added bonus that I learned after the class that the model was a friend of 2 of my daughters from their time in Tulsa. We had a good conversation in particular about one of them. I was very happy I went for the drawing and the new insight she gave about my daughter.
What do you think of these drawings and what are your thoughts on censorship in general?
__________________________
Drawings and commentary by Marty Coleman
Quote by Henry Steele Commager, 1902-1998, American historian
__________________________
Like this:
Like Loading...
