Newspapers / The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.) / Jan. 14, 1991, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Consequences Growing Clearer, But Momentum May Be Too Much Lisa Pope Editorials Editor We're going to war. We're not going to war. Heads, tails, winners, losers, bluff, counter-bluff, "we're bigger than you are," "Oh yeah?", "Yeah!" Call it diplomacy in the modern age. But as the uneasy balance has continued to teeter and sway, a curious thing has happened. The forces of the Great American Media have moved in, adjusted their weight and launched their own form of the blitz. Ripping through magazines and switching channels, one Artists and Art Need NEA Benjamin J. Kealy Guest Writer Do you trust the government to decide what is offensive to you? Jesse Helms and other ultra-conservative senators recently led an attack on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA); their goal was to pre vent the NEA from supporting so-called offensive art. The controversy has its roots in a case filed in Cincinnati, where a gal lery owner was brought up on obscenity charges for displaying the photos of Robert Mapplethorpe. Ou tof an extensive exhibi tion, five photos were singled out as the offensive material. Jesse Helms proposed Congressional control over the NEA including an anti obscenity pledge that artists would have to sign in order to receive their grant. I oppose Congressional restrictions on how the NEA awards grants. Would you show your child photos of a man shoving the butt end of a bullwhip into his anus? It is highly unlikely, if at all THE GUILFORDIAN Editor-in-Chief Jacob Stohler Managing Editor Peter Smith News Editor Courtney Roberts Assistant News Editor Justin Cohen Features Editor Lara Ramsey Editorials Editor Lisa Pope Sports Editor Butch Maier Layout Editor Bruce James Assistant Layout Editor Jennifer Watts Photo Editor Eric Tomberlin Copy Editor Suzanne Moore Business Manager Lesley Funk Faculty Advisor Jeff Jeske The Guilfordian is the student newspaper of Guilford College, Greensboro, N.C. Submitted articles are welcome. Opinions expressed in editorials and letters to the editor do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and editorial board. The editors reserve the editorial licence to The Guilfordian staff. Please address all mail to: The Guilfordian, Box 17717, Greensboro, NC 27410. IvalMiM THE GUILFORD IAN Januaiy 14, 1991 2 PERSPECTIVES might easily think that the battle already started and you just missed the first shot (all that egg nog and fruitcake at Christ mas, you know). We've seen soldiers de part, soldiers arrive, soldiers at Thanksgiv ing, soldiers at Christmas, mothers and fathers leaving their families, gas mask drills, air raid drills... The list could go on and on. Everyone from Doonesbury to "48 Hours" to "Real Life with Jane Pauley" has jumped on the George Bush/Saddam Hussein bandwagon. It's the usual Ameri can information overload—you should recognize such past victims as the likely, that you would. Child pornography is equally unacceptable to most people. These are the type of photos that started the controversy. The existence of these pho tos is due to the existence of the NEA and the fact that the NEA awarded Robert Mapple thorpeagrant. Without a grant it is hard to say whether Robert Mapple thorpe would have ever taken the photos but the American people would not have paid for them. Why should the Ameri can people support art- L—______ ists like Robert Mapple thorpe? What we don't talk here about are the other photos in the Mapplethorpe exhibit, including extraordinary photos of flower and people. Art critics have described the photos as the work of a genius. So, how we see PRO on page 9 > Simpsons and Earth Day (now residing somewhere in the slightly dimmer recesses of the mind). Only now, the symptoms are the same but the consequences more serious. Of course, information is a wonderful thing, and it's nice to know that the media ma chines won't let a single statement or event pass by unnoticed: Dan Rather and Ted Koppel stand like the New Age Keepers of the Gate. But, ironically, all this attention not only informs us, it dulls us too. Hear the word "war" often enough and it's easy for it to become a fait accompli. Hear the Taxpayers Shouldn't Foot Bill Joseph Champion Guest Writer Art, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, is the "human ability to make things; creativity of —~~man as distinguished from the world of na ture." Their defini tion of obscene is "of fensive of one's feel ings of modesty of de cency; lewd." Com bined, these terms lead to controversy. This happens when artists like Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano pro duce things labeled as "obscene art." Mapplethorpe has taken several obscene photographs involving homosexuality and Serrano made "Piss Christ," the picture of a crucifix floating in urine. This "art" offends many taxpayers who bear the cost of funding. Using government funding to subsidize obscene art is wrong. However, others have a different view of art They say that a government which denies funding for art is abetting censor ship. The right to express yourself freely without censorship is granted in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Many believe that the fact that art offends should not be a factor in whether an artist gets government fund ing. As freshman art major Jessica Poland said, "If it offends, it affects." Arguing her point, she added, "Art should make you question personal beliefs. This will make you a stronger person." Poland also be lieves that art will never take new direc tions if the government subsidizes only "pretty pictures." Artists like Mapple thorpe and Serrano have made pictures that may not be "pretty" but are thought provoking. Funding art encourages self expression and ingenuity. Therefore, many believe that government funding for all spectrums of art is worthwhile. However, the people who believe in Head to Head The NEA has come under scrutiny lately, primarily for its controversial sponsoring of such artists as Serrano and Mapplethorpe. Here we pres ent two views on the organiza tion and its function in the arts. deadline of January 15 often enough and you' 11 expect something to happen—you *ll want something to happen. In a demented kind of way, you'll be let down if that vague "something" never materializes. Soon, reports of the "soldiers in the Middle East" aren't something to wonder at, but merely facts of life. And you don't think so much about other options or puzzle over what it's all about. You just get caught up in the momentum —the machinery of war that's been turning its wheels for thousands of years. And you forget to ask why. government funding for art that's offen sive are wrong. They are overlooking the fact that some taxpayers do not want to pay for offensive art These taxpayers feel that artists like Mapplethorpe and Serrano have a right to express themselves, but not with public monies. These artists have a right to display their art; no one is denying that. Therefore, the idea of art censorship is ludicrous because the art is not censored; it is just not publicly funded. Poland's idea that art will not take new directions if the government subsidizes "pretty pictures" is false. Salvador Dali opened doors for art ists without being offensive, thereby de fining a new style of art in the 20th century. Taking the art issue further, Robert Samuelson states that taxpayers should "get government out of the arts." In his Newsweek article "Highbrow Pork Bar rel," Samuelson believes that the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, should beabolished. He says that "public benefits are meager," and that "the good goes pri marily to the artist and his relatively small audience." Samuelson thinks that govern ment money can be spent in other ways that benefit society. After all, in 1989 the NEA was granted $ 169 million by theU.S. government The NEA in turn granted $15,000 to fund Andes Serrano's infa mous "Piss Christ." Funding this exhibit only benefited Serrano and the small amount of people who viewed it The money could have been used for more legitimate needs: for example, reducing the national debt and homelessness. Artis a majorarea of controversy. People have different views of what art is and whether ornot it should bepubhcly funded. I think the government should be taken out of art altogether. I am not aiding censor ship—any art has a right to be on display— but I am simply saying to leave art to private funding. Then artists like Mapple thorpe and Serrano can produce art with out offending taxpayers who don't support them. Therefore, the tax revenue can be better spent serving the entire population, not just the arts community.
The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Jan. 14, 1991, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75