Art and Censorship
As a norm, society
does not take art or artists very seriously – entertaining, stimulating, thought provoking, patronized by
a select few , but hardly in the same company as economists, politicians and
other influential professionals . It then comes as a surprise when art is
removed, censored or destroyed, implying it has great power or influence on the
very society that marginalizes its relevance.
More direct criticism is expressed by journalists and politicians,
whereas the artist is essentially pleading for a sense of humanity to prevail.
The most influential analysis of censorship is John Milton’s
Aeropagitca ( 1644) in which he asserts censorship
inhibits the search for truth. He gave
four reasons for censorship. The first is a moral reason, to protect the
Supreme Idea – the values of a society taught from childhood and constantly
re-affirmed . An artist must not
threaten social discipline which is based on uniformity of views or Ordo Mundi.
Secondly, to protect the Rulers from criticism which would undermine their
authority. The third, and more condoned reason, is a temporary censorship in
national interest during times of war where society must be mobilized to
safeguard national independence. The fourth reason is for the education of
society. Art must not be in conflict with the moral, religious or political
attitudes of the rulers.
Milton believed censorship stifles critical reflection and
makes for an unequal conflict, generates a sense of helplessness, and prevents the healthy development of society. Art produced under censorship is
fake art. The Supreme Idea would die if
it does not evolve with changing
circumstances, and would lead to apathy, inertia, mistrust and corruption. As Stefan Morawski writes in his essay, Pros and Cons of Censorship
this would generate “a constant
terror which leads to the enslavement of the rulers as well as the enslaved
masses”
Morawski points out “ It is not the artists and writers who
are the source of social unrest, but the reality itself”. He adds “ it is assumed that art is very
powerful and a great influence on social consciousness. But in reality art is
but a repetition of what has already taken root in social consciousness” . Censorship
reflects the weakness and fears of the
ruling group.
In a USA that prides itself on freedom of expression, artwork
made by Guantanamo Bay detainees is no longer allowed to leave the Cuban base;
graffiti of a black youth killed by
police is painted over; an exhibition of art by Palestinian children is shut down. In 2006 FBI agents turned up before the public
opening of the exhibition “Axis of Evil, the Secret History of Sin”, in
Chicago, and ordered the museum director to turn over the names and phone
numbers of the artists. McCarthyism was the darkest period of censorship in
USA.
Morawski points out
“while censorship is old, resistance to censorship is relatively new” . Where Milton and Spinoza depended on essays,
today social media is quick to amplify resistance and counter-resistance in
countries all over the world. Censorship often defeats its purpose by drawing
greater attention to whatever is suppressed.
Many works of art avoid censorship by using symbols and
metaphors. Frieda Kahlo embedded symbols of revolution and Mexican nationalism
in her paintings. A.R. Nagori used animal characters to symbolize the evils of
society.
Censorship by ruling powers is only one aspect of
censorship. As societies become more
pluralistic, artists need to be more aware of multiple sensitivities. Freedom
of expression can become a narcissistic act. The cartoon depictions of the
Prophet Muhammad were defended as freedom of expression but offended 1.8
billion Muslims. In many countries art
and graffiti is regularly removed for offending racial, religious, moral or
political values.
Art is never produced in a vacuum but requires a process of
negotiation nudging the boundaries of acceptability. As the filmmaker Jean-Luc
Godard said, “We do what we can, not
what we want.”
Durriya Kazi
November 4, 2019
Comments
Post a Comment