Skip to main content

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

Popular posts from this blog

Decorated Trucks of Pakistan

International Institute for Asian Studies / Association for Asian Studies / Asia Committee, European Science Foundation First International Convention of Asia Scholars Leeuenhorst Conference Centre, Noordwijkerhout , Netherlands , 25-28 June, 1998 Panel: “ Shaking the Tree: New Approaches to Asian Art” / Session: Decorated Transport Decorated Trucks of Pakistan Durriya Kazi June 1998. Karachi Meaning is always in process, what has been called “a momentary stop in a continuing flow of interpretations of interpretations”. This paper pauses at some facts and some observations about decorated trucks of Pakistan , a subject that has elicited tantalisingly few studies. Pakistan is often presented geographically and thus historically as the corridor of land between the mountain passes that separated the near East from the plains of India . Less mentioned and more significant is its identity as the valley of the River Indus which has historically ...
  How Much is Enough? Most discussions about what is considered ‘enough’ centre around money and power. To be the most powerful, the wealthiest or the most famous, once the desire of mighty kings and despots, has now filtered down in modern societies, with rags to riches stories becoming commonplace. However, the modern world is increasingly characterised by insatiability, an inability to say “enough is enough”, and an insatiable desire for more money or power. Enough means having enough to live, enough to be happy, and enough to thrive. So how does one arrive at what is enough? Enough is not a number. Individuals have their own measure of enough. The wise know what that limit is, for others, society’s limiting systems — legal or moral — determine when enough is enough. King Ashoka won a battle against the Kalinga kingdom, with 100,000 deaths and even more taken captive. That was his ‘enough’. Appalled by his own ruthlessness, Ashoka became a Buddhist, dedicated to spreading th...
  ‘o Travelling Together or Going Our Separate Ways We live, and have lived for centuries, in a politically and economically divided world.   Unable to accept these differences, there is always one group that takes the further step of dominating another. The most direct way is for a stronger group to take over a weaker group by sheer force. Where the two forces are equally matched, subterfuge, divide et imperia – divide and rule, is effective. Sometimes all it takes is cultural seduction. Something as innocuous as blue jeans became an important symbol of the Free West during the Cold War. Bruce Springsteen told the East Berlin youth in a July 1988 concert “I’m not here for any government. I’ve come to play rock ‘n’ roll for you in the hope that one day all the barriers will be torn down.”   History books are filled with the constant constructing and dismantling of alliances, based on the perceived enemy of the moment. All the great wars in Europe, India and China ...