|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Limits of Artistic Tolerance
| Article
# : |
16958 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1990 |
2,986 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
The discussion of the changing meaning of art in "Art for Life's Sake" by Ellen Dissanayake is perceptive and eminently sensible. Her conclusion: "Art, as the universal predilection to make important things special,…is far more…relevant than its intrinsic sanctity or freedom…" is justly proportioned. But I perceive as flawed her prior judgment: "The small proportion of offensive or poorly conceived works that are inevitable should not be the cause to hamstring or scrap the whole enterprise. (Were ours an authoritarian and elite society, then the funding [of art] should of course be restricted to officially approved and safe art.)"
The issue is not whether art or other forms of communication meet common approval but whether they transcend some line that makes them unacceptable, and, if so, in what institutional or social settings this is so. I do not approve of Gary Trudeau's half-baked cartoons, but they do not cross the line of tolerability, even if someone were so lacking in judgment as to place them in a museum of art. In 1920, blacks were often referred to in Congress as inferior. Today such a remark would be censured. But a similar remark in an ethnic bar, although regrettable, would be permissible.
Jackie Mason properly was forced off Rudolph Guiliani's campaign team during the mayoral contest in New York City last year because of his use of "schwartzer," a term that would have been acceptable in his night club act, but not in public debate. The use of code words for derogatory racial epithets by George Wallace in his 1968 presidential campaign may have been undesirable, but a cultural climate in which their hypocritical language could be replaced by plain meaning would have been far worse.
Suppose a painting portrayed a caricature of a Jew being lynched with the legend hanging form his neck "Drinker of the blood of Christian children." Surely it would be permissible for a private gallery to show such a work, although it would be our right to picket and to refuse to patronize such an establishment. If its creator were an otherwise great artist, it might be acceptable for a semipublic institution such as a museum to display such a piece among his collected works. However, the museum would have an obligation to supplement the show with an explanation - a justification that would distance the museum from any offensive individual works. But it would be unacceptable for governmental funds to be used, even in part, to support the exhibition.
GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND THE
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
