Censorship, 'Decency', and Dollars

1.0 Robert Mapplethorpe, Andreas Serrano, Karen Finley, and now Chris Olfini. They are members of a special club: the club of Those Who Offend. Let's take an example from Mr. Serrano. Splayed with appropriate submission, the image was hidden behind a haze of blue paint and — but wait, something else was on the canvas: splattered unevenly was a spray of well, you don't know, so you look at the title where the secret is revealed: Piss Christ. Now the reaction(s) sets in. Reaction (1). If you are an average American, not used to viewing contemporary art, the reaction is probably: eyes widened to bulging and jaw dropping completely open and gaping, with guttural objections spewing out uninvited. Emotions of shock, anger, dismay, and repulsion sweep over this person. Reaction (2). If you are used to looking at art and thus more jaded, the eyes slightly widen, the mouth opening a bit or not at all. The verbal response, spoken probably to oneself only, is something like: "Hmm, this is a slightly new one, wonder what the boy had in mind with this one". Those belonging to Reaction (1) vote to lynch, or if not possible, then not to fund (a more decorum response). In response to ( l ) ' s reaction i.e. the general public's reaction those belonging to Reaction (2) i.e. the artworld experience shock, anger, dismay and repulsion and the uninvited guttural objection of "censorship!" comes spewing out. The Greek chorus starts hooting and running amok. The recent case with Chris Olfini is similar: there is the artworld response the majority of whom feel benign toward the work and the more general population's response, many of whom haven't seen the work at all, yet are still appalled enough to support the House and Senate measures to cut funding. Both sets of responses are highly emotional. Both fail to see the difficult legal, political, and philosophical problems underneath the commotion.