What First Amendment??

[Tru Mackney]

How is it that we are allowed to create the images that we do in art class, but when we have the chance to put them on display, we're not allowed to because it might offend someone? Then when you decide to speak up about the issue, you're called "stupid" to your face by a member of the faculty.







My school's art club is hosting an art show, and very many pieces that were put into the art show were taken down because they were deemed unfit to represent Mount Airy High School. The images were seen as grotesque and offensive because they were only looked at from the surface. The truth is that these pieces did what true art is supposed to do. They made you think, but certain faculty members were too simple-minded to see the hidden meaning behind them. None of my pieces were taken down, but I'm still very upset about this because some of the best pieces were the ones that were taken down. The school didn't provide any funding toward the art show, but they're still able to dictate what goes in it. That's FAR from being right.



I was wondering what everyone's opinion was on my situation...

 

[Blondie Bear]

OMG! You're in Mt Airy? I'm in Radford! You're, like, an hour away!

Ahem. That wasn't really what you wanted to know, was it? I think you're right, but people, for some reason, think that "shall not be infringed" means "we can mess with it if we want." I'm sorry adults are being idiots to you.

 

[Aethra]

I'm on your side. Art is supposed to be about creativity and expression, no? Mostly anything is game in art, as far as my experiences go. That the art was taken down is an insult to the artist, I think. Also, like you say, the kids were allowed to create the pieces in the first place, so why shouldn't they be allowed to showcase them? The art teachers should know much better than school officials what is and isn't appropriate; that's why they are obligated to report to the school officials when something inappropriate raises their suspicions. At this rate, though, art classes will soon be taught by the principals/headmasters, and kids will only be allowed to create artwork featuring flowers and sunshine. And bunnies.

People today are much too concerned about offending people, and being politically correct. Not that I'm against political correctness, I just hate the extremes to which people take it. It's next to impossible to avoid offending everybody, so the fact that we still try so hard is ridiculous. What we can and cannot do and say changes so often, it's ridiculous.

O.O Were you called stupid by a faculty member?

 

[ckg927]

Here's another case that's in the same vein,which I read about in the online newsletter This Is True(WELL worth your time;subscribe to it!).

Seems that the Virginian-Pilot newspaper down in the Norfolk,Va. area held an art contest for area students-with people from 2 art galleries among the judges. But the winning entry was rejected by the paper as being "inappropriate"-the 17-year old did a self portrait where she posed naked. One of the judges said,basically,that nothing was showing...and in response,the paper sniffed that the paper was thinking about the audience and...THE CHILDREN...who would see these entries. So,on to the runner up...a sculpture. It,too,was rejected for the same reason. The paper gave the $1,000 prize to the second runner up. However,officials at the Chrysler Museum of Art were so pissed at the reaction that THEY raised $1,000 to give to the winner. And her portrait is still on display at the museum. Here's how the man behind "True",Randy Cunningham,summed it up: "The ultimate victory: the Pilot had to report on their own staff's stupidity."

 

[RogueHunter]

Political correctness is stupid, however school is an institution for MINORS so the same criteria cannot be observed. The school has an obligation to the parents to keep things within parameters.
Also, as an artist, I have to disagree on the theory that art is expression. Expression might be one element of art but it doesn't make it up entirely. Art should require skill and inspire emotion but remain within boundaries of good taste. "Art" that intentionally attempts to violate things that are sacred to people are publicity stunts. True art doesn't need to shock or be extreme to be appreciated. There is a huge difference in art that happens to be edgy and edginess disguised as art.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

I'm not too sure about the amendments stuff. But it sounds to me like you weren't allowed to display the picture, because it would, or may, offend some-one. But it is perfectly alright for the member of the faculty to breach the 1st amendment and offend you!.?
Glad I never went to school there. What a load of hypocrits you've got teaching you.

 

[Tru Mackney]

Just to clarify some thing: I wasn't the one that was called stupid. A friend of mine was saying something about it and that's when it happened.

My art teacher is very upset about this too, but she can't do anything about it because she doesn't want to risk losing her job. She can only go along with it even though she doesn't want to...she DID refuse to take it down herself. She made the principal take it all down...

 

[palabravampiress]

This happens to minors in a lot of public schools. When I was the editor of my high school paper, we wanted to do a spread on something deemed questionable for the faculty. I don't remember what the topic was anymore. Every issue, we did a center spread on a certain topic. Every year, one spread was homecoming and one was graduation. The rest were up to us. I recall doing one on a kid who'd died (her parents started a scholarship and a marathon in her honor). I recall doing one on Columbine. I recall one on censorship. I'm sure we did drugs and safe sex, too. We probably did politics, too. Anyway, one of the spreads got pulled at the last minute because it contained objectionable material. When I broached the subject of first amendment rights, I was told they didn't apply... because of something called in loco parentis, which basically gives the school parental rights during the school day, even to the extent that civil liberties can be denied. Even if that wasn't the case, it wasn't MY paper. It was the school's paper. I may have had the right to print whatever I chose, but I didn't have the right to do so on the school's time, on the school's dime, and on the school paper.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it. I think schools do go overboard with worrying about offending folks. At the same time, it makes sense that first amendment rights don't give you the right to put someone else's name on your potentially objectionable speech. If the artist wanted to display the art in a contest that was no affiliated with or hosted by the school then that would be one thing. But if the school organized, hosted, and judged the event, then it really would be within its rights to disassociate itself from potentially objectionable art.

I think people should always be free to express themselves -- but on their own time and with their own resources. As soon as you need a distributor of some sort, then that person or group kind of takes on some risk. With that risk comes the ability to edit and/or censor the images and/or ideas to which the name of the person or group is attached. Just as an employer doesn't have an obligation to act as a publishing house for an employee's independent newsletter, a school doesn't have to an obligation to support or enable a student's first amendment rights.

Of course, the fact that schools are usually state run institutions throws a monkey wrench into matters. An employer or other private group can censor something, but then the artist can just go to another private employer. But a school is a state run institution, and the government really shouldn't be allowed to actively infringe upon first amendment rights except by due process of law. Unfortunately, like I said, minors don't really have any rights. It's all up to the parents. The fact that some of the students are probably 18 might muck things up, too.

Are there any lawyers in the house? This one is way over my head, man.

 

[RogueHunter]

I'm not sure how to do the in-post comment thingy so I'll drop it here.
Some may say modern art is about expression, but if the artist decides that his expression is pooping on a canvas and because he did it as expression it is therefore art.
Sorry but that doesn't make it art to me.

 

[ckg927]

PV: These days,there are a couple of ways to get around stuff that the school admin doesn't want to put in their paper:

1. Have the students do their own paper,completely independent of the school.

2. Put it on the internets.

And,not withstanding,there is always the spectre of self-censorship...chopping your art(whether it's writing,painting,etc.)to pander to the whims of-well,fill in the blank.

 

[Joyce Summers]

Some may say modern art is about expression, but if the artist decides that his expression is pooping on a canvas and because he did it as expression it is therefore art.
Sorry but that doesn't make it art to me.

In all respect it's a little more complicated than that. I agree in the sense of I wouldn't wish to consider that art myself personally, but that doesn't mean it isn't if there is meaning and reasoning behind it. To say it is simply the artist's expression would not make it art as you are saying here (even if you do not agree). There is a lot more to it. For something like that to be claimed art (much like an artist recently produced an old overused armchair as a piece of art) there has to be numerous messages within it. It actually has to mean something. For example the armchair was shown to represent the underclass man. When asked to explain the artist pointed out the cigarette stains claiming that they were showing addiction in a life where living is no longer the thrill. She also went into a long theory about it showing the willingness to embrace death. She examined every flaw on the chair and explained it's meaning within the context of her art.
I don't know how someone would do that about "pooping on a canvas" but they would have to, to have it be called art. It cannot be simply deemed 'artist's expression'. I think they only ever get away with that is when the artist is incredibly famous, become too big for his/her boots and can say anything because people are now afraid to contradict them...

As for the situation this thread is about- I totally agree that Art is objective, is about expression, should be allowed to be whatever the artists' deem fit and totally falls into the freedom of expression and freedom of speech category. I had similar experiences in High School and your instinctive reaction is to rebel against what is being ordered. You're not hurting anybody- it just is what is. Art. Expression.
However, I think Palabra already mentioned about minors and that's what I'm going to reiterate. When minors are involved there are limits on expression, because the minors' rights are priority over everyone else. If images are unsuitable for their eyes then it can not be shown. It's like the watershed censor of 'anything of sexual or explicit nature cannot be aired until after 9pm'. We are keeping the younger members of society as safe and protected as we can.
Which brings me onto another point/question. What exactly do you mean by "The images were seen as grotesque and offensive" because if the art in question depicted nudity or over-detailed violence, etc then the 'watershed'-esque censorship becomes priority and the work does have to be taken down due to threat of exposure to those deemed to young to view it. However if you just mean the art wasn't pretty fairies and light and was merely more expression and perhaps not as obviously beautiful (Dark colors, violent/harsh stylism etc) as your school wishes to be then I agree that that kind of restriction is ridiculous. As I said to "Rogue Hunter" 'good taste' is in the eye of the beholder. In art you can't say what is good or bad taste

 

[Hello Cutie]

Simple. Because there is no such thing as freedom of speech or freedom of expression in a world that's overrun by political correctness, where 'big brother' is breathing down our necks all the time in an effort to curb anything that might be construed as free thinking or expression, which they don't agree with.

 

[white avenger]

"The images were seen as gross and offensive" isn't really enough information to make a judgment here. There are times when simple rules of propriety dictate whether something may or may not be displayed in a particular situation. Nude photographs may be considered either art or pornography, but are in either case inappropriate to display in an elementary school. The fact that the "images," in question, whatever they were, were not allowed to be displayed, is not a judgment of whether or not they are art, or whether the artist has the right to display them, but simply that they were deemed offensive or inappropriate to be displayed in that particular case and in that particular place.

 

[Kemy]

For you art to have been called grotesque and offensive, strong words, you must have drawn something rather inappropriate or unnecessarily graphic.

Without you showing us said art, how can we make any kind of judgment on the matter? for all we know you drew something indeed grotesque, and if its a school art show then children will see these images, if you drew something bad then yes they have ever right to take it down.

Show us these images so we can make our own minds up.

 

[RogueHunter]

Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is a communication between the artist and the viewer. Since it is being exhibited it is inherently judged. It may be the eye of the beholder that determines individual matters of taste but society determines a macro scale of good and bad taste. For example, a painting celebrating the rape of children may qualify as art but is inherently in bad taste, because the subject matter cannot be done tastefully.
There are some things that are statements and some things that are art. PissChrist for example is a statement, but not art in my opinion. Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine isn't the same as taking a brush to canvas or chisel to stone. Thats what I was referring to earlier. As an art major in college I saw a fellow student making anatomically correct nude portraits of cartoon characters. They were very well done, but his intention was merely to draw attention to himself by being 'controversial'.
In the end, art must be defined by the viewer but society determines the appropriate time and place of the viewing. For minors, parents get to decide what they want their children exposed to so the school must act as custodians of parental faith. Similarly a public square isn't fair game to display 'art' society might deem offensive, but it should not be censored if it is displayed in a gallery where those who choose to view it are free to do so.

 

[Joyce Summers]

For example, a painting celebrating the rape of children may qualify as art but is inherently in bad taste, because the subject matter cannot be done tastefully.

But could it be called bad taste if the painting was done to draw attention to a particular area or part of the world? It may not be able to be done tastefully in the sense of hanging it up on your living room wall, but it is done in good taste because of it's purpose to raise awareness. Bad/Good taste and something being done tastefully seem to be two different things to me.

Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine isn't the same as taking a brush to canvas or chisel to stone.

I very much get what you mean here, and I totally agree that it isn't the same. And I much prefer oil on canvas to 'poop on board' (as you mentioned before). However that makes it our preference, it doesn't stop the other from being art, you get me? That's what I was saying before.

And you were an art major? Cool. I minored in art history; we spent like a liftime of a lifetime discussing what makes art art...which probably explains my rambles on this thread, haha. 😉

 

[RogueHunter]

Thats why I described it as CELEBRATING the subject matter, not just drawing attention to it.

Yeah, I was working on my degree, then my dad died in May of '91. Then my mom died in Jan of '92 and I said "I need a semester off"....
Then I got a job making $40,000, then i got married, then I had kids...

Yeah I tend to be critical of art and artists just because I know so many posers that were acting deep to get laid.

 

[Joyce Summers]

Thats why I described it as CELEBRATING the subject matter, not just drawing attention to it.

Yeah, I was working on my degree, then my dad died in May of '91. Then my mom died in Jan of '92 and I said "I need a semester off"....
Then I got a job making $40,000, then i got married, then I had kids...

Yeah I tend to be critical of art and artists just because I know so many posers that were acting deep to get laid.

So sorry to hear about your parents- and so close together too.

And I erm, missed or rather skimmed the celebrating matter. I blame sleep-deprivation...and me having a bad habit of reading too fast. I apologize. :blush:

And I like how you rolled 'got job, got married, had kids' into one, effectively presenting it as a blur. I can relate. Haha.

 

[RogueHunter]

OOh sleep deprivation!! I know it well. Especially when I'm up late sculpting and have to get up early. Yuck!!

 

[Aethra]

I've never had many art classes, and the one I did elect to take was ruined by the teacher. I'm more of a creative writing person. But in the art and history classes I have had, we've looked at some famous artwork that had nudity, violence, and other things deemed inappropriate by the school. I have to ask the question, why are we allowed to look at and study the stuff, but not to create it? I know we're minors and all, but don't you think that's sending mixed messages? "These are some of the greatest pieces of art in history... but you can't do anything remotely like that because you're not old enough."

I do get that the people viewing the stuff might not understand it and might take offense, and that schools have to be cautious about these things, really. My point, though, is that the teacher okayed the artwork in the first place. One would think that that would mean the pieces weren't really too inappropriate, and that the school was being overlycautious.