Almost everyday there are articles in the press, particularly the press that is devoted to the pictorial arts, about controversy over particular art works and their desecration (two Virgin Mary decapitations recently), their political content (a recent show of Palestinian art), and various exhibitions (the Boston Museum of Fine Arts show of art made in the golden age of Dutch art). The theme of these articles seems to be that the works shown are too political to be seen and that they either offend some people, are irreligious to some people, or are not shown in context with the often horrible conditions during the time of their production (the Dutch Golden Age was the beginning of the global exploitation and mass slavery of Black people by a European state).
What do we do with great art (or not so great art) that is so controversial for the above reasons that many of us do not want it shown? To me, it is similar to free speech arguments; the solution to free speech is more speech (i.e., explanations of the context of its creation, of its point of view, and the availability of space for divergent views—literally and figuratively).
This course of action has numerous detractors. Should we allow displays of photographs of dead Palestinian children which are clearly part of a show that also claims that Palestine should exist without Jews from the river to the sea? How about works that are similarly fraught, such as images owned by Harvard of Black slaves (who had no choice about posing) that show the sitters in grotesque poses designed to depict them as less human that white Europeans.
I think the first inquiry must be the artistic or historical value of the work. Showing pure propaganda doesn’t seem interesting unless a show is about that propaganda, its production, and its effect on society. But that is a call that should be left completely up to the entity showing the works. Offended? Don’t go. Not offended but interested in seeing clearly great art produced within the context of horrible regimes, read about the time and place of its production and the viewpoint of the artists producing it.
It appears that the issue of artistic censorship is time related. The issue most arises both for more contemporary works and works which were produced during autocratic and repressive societies. I haven’t heard a peep about the display of ancient Egyptian art or works by African artists made under kingships that enslaved hundreds of thousands of their citizens. (The Kingdoms of Ashanti and Dahomey produced wonderful art and for 200 years sold captured peoples and sometimes its own citizens to European slave merchants.) The Italian city-states during the Renaissance and since the Middle Ages had large Black and white slave populations, yet we still flock to exhibits of the great Italian artists of the time.
The problem with free speech and censorship is where we draw the line on what to prohibit. Our courts, in a very free society concerning speech and expression, regularly ponder this question. We prohibit certain books in libraries, certain speech on college campuses, and certain images of children in sexual poses. These cases regularly result in court decisions which basically are only related to the particular cases being decided.
What to do—perhaps less is more. Opposition to certain events or displays are part and parcel of a free society. Violence is not, nor is branding every display or discussion as an assault on a particular religion or ethnic group. With pictorial art it is easier. It is not subject to anything other than an immediate response and analysis by the viewer.
I will continue to admire the great artists of the Dutch Golden Age as shown in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ recent exhibit, knowing fully well how some of the images produced may be problematical and even racist. Read the labels and explanations in the exhibit and read about the times and the artists. The older the works, the less we may know about the artists’ personal characteristics, but if you are still troubled about the history of the era, take that into consideration when you view the paintings. If it is too painful, don’t go, but to make these kind of judgments will limit your appreciation of human creativity and history, for good or bad.
Humans have represented the sublime and the reprehensible as art. Goya’s black paintings depict his personal hell, and Renaissance and medieval masterpieces depict hell, antisemitism, and a bias against women and non-Europeans. Can we turn our backs on our artistic heritage because the works make us uncomfortable or are not politically correct today even though they were created in a different world? To do so would deny our humanity and discount our hopefully evolving sense of morality.
