Blog Post #9

            Attending the museum last week was very beneficial to understanding this week’s main concepts. While exploring the museum, I was able to notice a wide variety of artwork; the pieces were all very different and expressed different emotions, concepts, stories etc. Depending on the individual, some pieces may be considered offensive or inappropriate. I personally was not offended by any of the artwork, but others may have been. Who gets to judge what really is appropriate? What’s offensive to some, isn’t necessarily offensive to others.

            The lecture focused a lot on the politics of art. In the case of the NEA Four, Holly Hughes, Karen Finley, Tim Miller and John Fleck were targeted by Congress because their work was considered to be offensive, inappropriate, against one’s religion etc. However, I believe that these artists should have the freedom to express whatever they want to. The artists explored topics such as homosexuality, hyper-female sexuality and so on. These topics are very controversial in society but that does not mean that artists shouldn’t be able to express their feelings and opinions about these specific topics. I think the main issue is that the opinions of these artists are not necessarily the same as the majority of society. Because the views being expressed were different than their own, Congress members became offended. The debate was about whether Congress could intervene when the NEA funded work that offensive and so on. However, this technically violates the artist’s First Amendment rights. This weeks reading includes, “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.’”  The reading then states, “Artwork is generally considered speech.” Since artwork is technically considered speech, the artists have the freedom to “say” whatever they want to. The reading clarifies that motion pictures, radio broadcasts, live entertainment, dramatic works etc. all “fall within the First Amendment guarantee,” meaning the artists work does as well.

            I now want to focus on censorship. Censorship ultimately shelters individuals from the truth. One quiz question focused on censorship in high schools and college. In general, I do not believe that anything should be censored. Our society is a diverse society and I believe that students need to understand different viewpoints in order to become a well-rounded individual. For example, instead of being taught that homosexuality is “not normal,” or not being taught about homosexuality at all, students should be able to experience different opinions on the topic and formulate their own ideas. In 2012, the Tuscon school district banned its Mexican-American Studies program. I believe that this is censorship and I believe that it’s wrong. The video we watched expressed the racism involved in this policy. The program was banned because it focused on topics such as violence. Can we really not teach high schoolers and college students about violence even though it’s a part of history? Does this mean we can’t teach students about wars because they are violent? If we don’t give students accurate descriptions then will they be blind to the truth forever? If we ignore facts, we are ignoring important people, places and events that took place in the past. We need to discuss the past and the mistakes that were made in order to strive for a better future.