Art Censorship
Throughout the history of mankind, a portion of the population has felt the need to remove or suppress material that they consider to be morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable, such as artworks, books, films, or other materials, and what they are really trying to take away is the artists right to be creative and expressive. Censorship can be dated back to ancient Greek and Roman times. Some of the works of art and literature that were considered taboo a long time ago are widely available in modern day life. William Shakespeare, Michelangelo, John Lennon, Diego Rivera, and the Venus de Milo were all thought to be morally wrong or offensive at one time or another. In the twentieth century, censorship has gone to more extreme measures by involving the government and legal system. In 1998, the United States Supreme Court was faced with deciding whether a provision of the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities Act was constitutional or whether it violated the First Amendment rights of artists applying for grants. The National Endowment of the Arts is the federal agency responsible for providing funding for various artists and arts groups such as museums, theater, and dance groups. Section 5D of the Act says t
hat the Chairperson of the National Endowment of the Arts shall ensure that when reviewing funding applications that consideration be given to “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public”(Hale). This provision is commonly known as the “decency and respect” clause. Another case demonstrates that the issue of art obscenity and government funding is far from settled. As recently as the fall of 1999 a great deal for publicity and media attention was generated by an art show appearing at the Brooklyn Museum of Art entitled Sensation. Sensation included a piece done by Chris Ofili, “which illustrated a picture of the Virgin Mary, which is covered with elephant dung and pornographic cutouts” (Boyd). New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, responding to massive complaints from New York citizens, threatened to cut off all New York City funding for the Museum, unless the show was shut down. “When the Museum refused to shutdown the exhibit, Mayor Giuliani went to federal court seeking an injunction to halt the show. In addition, he cut off the annual funding from the City to the museum which was about $6-7 million, and directed various City agencies to have the Museum evicted from the City owned building in which it was housed” (Boyd). The Museum also sued Mayor Guiliani to prevent him from taking these actions. In November, 2000, federal judge Nina Gershon granted a preliminary injunction that bars Guiliani and other city officials from “taking steps to inflict any punishment, retaliation, discrimination or sanction” against the Museum because of the exhibit (Boyd). About six months later this dispute was settled when both sides a
Some topics in this essay:
Endowment Arts,
Jacobellis Ohio,
United Senate,
Supreme Court,
Brooklyn Museum,
Finley” Hale,
Nina Gershon,
Mayor Giuliani,
,
Rivera Venus,
endowment arts,
national endowment,
national endowment arts,
supreme court,
decency respect,
united supreme court,
united supreme,
providing funding,
york city,
regulate artistic,
artistic expression,
brooklyn museum,
decency respect clause,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1152
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
More Essays on Art Censorship Professional Papers: |
CUSTOMER SERVICES
|
|
Saved Papers
You haven't saved any papers.
|