:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Why
Censor 'Bad' Art?
An Appeal For A Great Patronage Of The Arts
As a Christian in the New York art world, it is hard not to be drawn into the latest skirmish in the ongoing culture wars between conservative politicians and the liberal art world that has erupted at the Brooklyn Museum of Art (BMA). The details and motivations that brought about this controversy are somewhat murky, suspect, and ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. Very simply, the mayor of New York City, Rudolf Giuliani, has threatened to remove funding from the BMA and evict it from its city-owned building over the exhibition Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection which includes Chris Ofili's work of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung attached to it like Christmas ornaments. With suits and countersuits pending in court, the only sure outcome of this controversy is that overnight Ofili, who for the record describes himself as a practicing Catholic, has become an art world superstar.
As difficult as it is to remain unaffected by the incessant media coverage of this controversy, it is even harder to find any side with integrity when both sides are squabbling like a couple of children over who pulled whose hair first. That the mayor and the other critics of Ofili's works are offended more by the idea than the actual art work points to the urgent need for a better art educated public. One of the most discouraging aspects of this controversy is that a more art savvy public, who knew what qualities lend spiritual depth and aesthetic excellence to a work of art, would ignore generally mediocre works rather than giving them undue attention by reacting in a knee jerk fashion to their intentionally sensational subject matter. Threatening to remove funding from the arts because of a few works that may be distasteful is irresponsible in the long run because good art can only be created in a cultural environment that allows artists the freedom to create bad art and trusts history to sort out which is which.
There is also an odor emanating from the BMA, and it's not the fish in formaldehyde. The board of the trustees of the BMA and its director have forgotten their public responsibility, not because they dared to exhibit Ofili's forgettable work, but because they have invited their public space to be used for private profiteering. The entire Sensation exhibition is owned by a single individual, Charles Saatchi, a British advertising executive. Furthermore, the exhibition in Brooklyn is being sponsored by Christie's auction house, who would most certainly like to be the agent through which Saatchi may liquidate his collections. Denials of backroom deals have been issued by all parties but the only thing known for certain is that Saatchi's collection is worth a lot more today than it was before this controversy. This brings me to my main reason for opposing this sort of sideline mud slinging.
The worst part about this controversy is that it is over art that doesn't deserve, on its own merits, the attention showered on it. Ofili's work is neither truly transgressive nor transcendent (it could be good art either way); it is simply tedious. As a Christian in the arts concerned with cultural renewal, I have resolved to be an advocate for the ideas and principles about art that I believe in rather than a critic of the art that I dislike. The reason for this is that to do otherwise would be to self-defeatingly draw attention to the work that I would rather consign to the dung heap of history. Furthermore, such discussions of what is good or bad art, especially regarding contemporary art, is too much a matter of personal taste. I find certain works in the Sensation exhibition very moving and deserving of more attention while others are lacking in depth of creativity and little more than gimmick art. There is, however, a more important issue regarding this current controversy that is applicable regardless of one's taste in art.
If there is one thing proven by the Sensation exhibition it is that art follows money; it always has and it always will. More specifically, artists need a freedom to create that only comes from strong and consistent patronage. Currently government support for the arts is minimal. Private and corporate funding has taken over the role that was once primarily that of the church. It is not surprising than that the church's values are no longer part of what art is exhibited. Charles Saatchi represents one person who single-handedly affected the focus, tone and even geography of the current art dialogue. One of the main reasons that the mainstream art world no longer reflects strong Christian values is that Christians privately, and the Church as an institution, have abdicated their responsibilities to the arts.
Consistent patronage is necessary to give artists a degree of autonomy, freedom and independence to create. The Christian community should provide artists a sanctuary or censorship-free place for creativity without distractions. Artists of the Christian faith will find it very difficult to compete in the arena of ideas and values if they are restricted by circumstance to work only part time on their art and lack the freedom to take risks and even fail without the fear of overstepping the boundaries of popular taste.
The best response to inflammatory art is not to remove funding from the arts but to reinvest in culture. If every Christian who felt offended by the work of Mapplethorpe, Serrano or Ofili bought a work of art of spiritual depth and aesthetic excellence it would change the dynamics of the culture wars. In these culture wars, as they are currently being waged, no one wins, except for the artist who receives the often undeserved attention. Rather than trying to ban art or criticize it from the sidelines, Christians should engage their culture, on the terms of its current dialog, and transform it.