Does art need to
consider social views? This is a question that arises whenever there is a controversy
regarding the obscene nature of an artist’s work. According to the guardian, for example, an art work
named the Orbit, by artist Anish Kapoor,
has been called “a vanity project,” despised by the residents of Wilmer Lea Close,
London. Also known for his “crazy blood-red” color in the work, the artist has
been criticized, regardless of the symbolism behind the work.
Similar
contentions regarding artworks have existed in the comic book business.
According to the discussion the class had on Tuesday, censorship on the works
of Herge on his famous TINTIN series could be viewed in two major arguments.
First, there is a view that argues against censorship, stating that the
artworks, TINTIN, in this case, should show the deleted versions of the comic
book, such as the scene in page 49 where the last panel used to show an African
American nurse holding a white baby. Proponents of this view argue that the
panel was a social commentary on the racial biases of the time, which would
have provided valuable insight to the time the comic book was written.
On
the other hand, there is a view that argues for censorship, emphasizing the
medium the artworks were drawn: comic books. According to this view, it is
important to understand the effect that comic books bring to children, who are
the major readers of the print material. For readers of younger age, the social
commentaries mentioned in the previous paragraph might not be conceived as an
overview of the era, but as factual information. This could enforce the racial
bias depicted in the TINTIN series. It is hard to ignore the effect comic books
have on children, especially one like TINTIN that presents a childhood hero for
a lot of youngsters.
To
this seemingly endless discussion that evaluates the pros and cons of
censorship, artist Anish Kapoor, the sculptor mentioned in the first paragraph,
gives an interesting answer. An article from the guardian, published in September 8th, discusses the vandalized
sculpture of Kapoor. Kapoor’s art work Dirty
Cornera at Versailles, nicknamed the queen’s vagina, was presumably
vandalized with white paint by members of France’s right-leaning political
party Front National. The paint showed anti-Semitic graffiti which shocked the
public. Contrary to popular views, Kapoor decided that he would leave the
graffiti on his work, instead of removing the images from his work. Referring
to the hateful words as “part of my work,” Kapoor maintained that the sculpture
would not be cleaned, but would remain in the status quo.
Kapoor’s
decision to leave the abominable words on his work is relevant to the arguments
regarding comic book censorship in that the words are providing information of
the social views existent in France. In a way, the words are showing the
increase in popularity of French conservatism, also shown in numerous other
graffiti on contemporary artworks. Just like the discussion on comic book
censorship, Kapoor’s decision sparked debates. Some, like Jonathan Jones from the guardian, argue that Kapoor should
reconsider his decision. Jones mentions that he understands the political statement
of Kapoor’s decision and praises his “genuine” artistic skills, but argues that
leaving the white words on the artwork would fuel the “oxygen of publicity” for
the “bigots.”
Does censorship ruin artworks? Do comic
books shape children’s views on social structures? Would we have cared about
the censorship in comic books if we were not reading them from an academic
perspective? Questions are endless, and discussions continue.
Resources:
It seems to me that censorship is problematic for a few more reasons. Although it is true that censorship eliminates components of any work, which lend insight into the time of a work's conception, it seems that censorship also eliminates subsequent valuable components. When portions of a work are eliminated, the work is not presented as it was intended and thus it is inevitable that fluidity and context are both lost to some extent. Furthermore, putting aside cultural offense, censorship prioritizes the audience's perception, thus undermining the artist's intent, a fact, which seems to deconstruct/interfere with the artist/audience relationship. Censorship introduces a third party, creating a third realm of intention, and thus the audience is not provided with art in the personal context with which it was created. This does not mean that censorship is necessarily negative, but instead suggests that the censoring causes a departure from the standard artist/audience relationship.
ReplyDelete