Censorship in the Arts

by Benjamin Pearson

Note to My Readers

This paper was written to investigate a controversial issue in the arts: censorship. I am interested in theater and love studying diverse art forms in college. I had initially been opposed to censorship, since I had sympathized with artists who had to alter their works under the pressure of higher authorities. When I began my search for sources, I found a few anti-censorship articles and decided to interview Professor Scott Working, my theater instructor, expecting him to share my ideas about artistic suppression. However, his interview covered the numerous benefits of controlling the spread of dangerous ideas, so I decided to rework my entire paper to expound upon the issue from the opposite perspective. The research for the paper was interesting, and I was amazed by how vulgar and distasteful some artists could be with their works. Censorship has been a part of human civilization since the first art forms developed, and naturally many artists detest the idea of having their works changed or limited to a specific audience. This paper will illuminate restrictions are a necessary evil in American culture. The power of free speech only extends so far, and some restrictions placed on artists can actually help them to create stronger pieces that can draw in audiences. Now, I want to clarify that I do not think that bowdlerization should be the ultimate and unquestionable solution for controversial art. The most important way to avoid situations that might result in a work being changed is to understand both the artist’s and the censor’s viewpoints, and hopefully come to a solution that satisfies both parties. I also do not support the government silencing art, as I feel that the decision for censoring a work should be made by concerned individuals as parents or corporations. This paper helps people look at censorship from a different perspective and how to confront the problems associated with it in the future.

No aspiring artist wants to see his or her project changed by the warping power of censors. Censorship can occur anywhere to almost anyone who creates art for a living. Advocates of diverse art pieces vehemently argue about the presence of censorship and its restrictive effects. While many artists believe that restrictions are a destructive force that limits their creativity, thorough research and analysis indicates that censorship can be essential in helping to protect minors, to eliminate unnecessary provocative material, and helping artists to empathize with their audiences.

A History of Censorship:

According to Funk & Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia, censorship is the “official supervision and control of the ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.” It also states that censorship is “intended to protect the family, the church, and the state.”  Artistic editing has been present in human civilization for as long as there has been subversive art.  The ancient Greek philosopher Plato was one of the first prominent people to write in support of censorship; ironically, his mentor, Socrates, had been opposed to the restrictions of his own works. Plato believed that art should imprint valuable lessons upon audiences, and any art that did not meet these standards should be banned.

The United States has had a long and varied history with censorship in the arts. Prior to the Civil War, abolitionist literature had been banned in the South in order to prevent slaves from instigating riots (“Censorship”). After the war, censorship increased significantly thanks to the efforts of a New York dry goods clerk named Anthony Comstock. He made numerous efforts to eliminate obscenity and restrict access to materials regarding abortion and contraception which eventually inspired the passage of the Anti-Obscenity Law of 1873 (Freivogel).  In 1906, Comstock helped to instigate a raid against the Art Students League in New York for its use of nude models (Freivogel). Censorship was also strongly in force during the Great Depression, as many artists came under attack for alleged Communist themes in their artwork. In 1933, a massive mural made by Diego Rivera in Rockefeller Center was destroyed due to it containing an image of Vladimir Lenin, and artists working for the federally-financed Public Works of Art Project came under attack for supposedly including left-wing agendas on murals on the Coit Tower in San Francisco in 1934 (Freivogel). The Motion Picture Association of America developed a rating system based around the content of films in 1968 in response to public complaints urging for greater control. The recording industry would implement a similar parental advisory rating in 1985, while television programs would eventually be subjected to a rating system in 1997 in order to restrict underage viewing of certain shows (“Censorship”). Filmmakers have been limited due to the effects of these systems since they prevent them from showing indecent material or, more importantly, from gaining a wider audience. But these people are also able to get away with projecting mature content that would not have been possible years ago, and they can tailor their work in a way that can attract and entertain the expected audience instead of worrying if someone underage might be exposed to the project.

Censorship in the World Today:

Censorship has been enforced continuously for years in nearly every form of media. The proponents and enforcers of censorship range from producers, media watchdog groups, concerned parents, religious organizations, and audiences repulsed by offensive material.  The motives and reasoning for censoring among these groups can vary significantly with some considering offensive material sacrilegious, while others believe that countries like America are too permissive of indecent, audience-alienating art. On the other hand, several artists also believe that art should be free from the limitations placed upon them by censors, and that editing a project for the masses dilutes the impact and range of their art. Dominic Cooke, a prominent English theatre playwright and director, says “Artists have a right—and sometimes a duty—to offend their audiences.” Cooke believes that art will stagnate and cease to exist or remain relevant the more it is censored. Many of these artists state that the First Amendment protects their projects from artistic suppression, and that art is protected by freedom of speech. The legality and expanse of censorship remains a strong subject for debate.

Censorship Protects Minors:

One major topic of the debate concerns the issues of banned books in public schools. Some librarians argue that more controversial books need to be added to libraries in order to celebrate diversity. Opponents to this notion say that an educational facility is not the place for the sharing of potentially dangerous materials, and if students so desired they can find readings on their own elsewhere via a public library or the Internet. Regardless of the debate, several school libraries still participate in selective censorship to this day. According to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Idaho Library in 2014 for the Library Philosophy and Practice, a majority of high school libraries in the state of Idaho possess “a formal written policy” for controversial books and rarely deviate from it, showing an intense faith in the system (Monks, Gaines, and Marineau).  Another study in 2002 conducted by School Library Media Research revealed that eighty-two percent of the one hundred Texas high schools selected engaged in some form of self-censorship, regardless of a challenged book’s praise from critics or the number of awards won (Coley).  The decision to ban a book from schools is traditionally made by the school board; however, arguments have been made attempting to promote parental controls instead.

Huckleberry Finn:

            A frequently banned book in schools is Mark Twain’s classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The book takes place in the southern United States during a particularly racist time in history, and racial slurs abound throughout the novel. An often-neglected aspect of the story is the fact that the titular protagonist is not racist, and only uses demeaning language because he has grown up hearing that talk. Some librarians are aware of the satire and encourage students to read the book for English classes, while others believe that the constant derogatory language sullies a perfectly fine book. In the article “Counterpoint: The Value of Censorship,” author Brian Wilson (presumably no relation to the Beach Boy) explains why the decision to ban the novel is short sighted: “Although racism is understood now to be reprehensible, it cannot be denied as a part of human history. Therefore, to ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from America’s schools because it uses a demeaning term for African Americans is wrong.” In other words, banning a novel just because of the content can ignore the historical or social impact that a book can have on an audience, especially school students who need to learn about the world around them without having sugarcoated information.  Educators need to evaluate whether the book can appropriately teach teenagers about relevant issues like racism before banning it. Thus, school boards should exercise caution when selecting books to be banned.

Parents Should Take an Active Stance:

The University of New Hampshire Professor Christina Healey and Tracey M. DiLascio, a graduate of the Boston School of Business, argue that parents should be responsible for choosing whether their children are exposed to potentially dark subject matters in the media, like gratuitous violence or sex. In their jointly-written article titled “Counterpoint: Book Censorship can be Justified in Some Cases, “they say that “parents are the primary educators of their children, and have the right to restrict what their children are exposed to in public schools and libraries.” Healey and DiLascio believe that parents should make efforts to find suitable alternatives to controversial books to help educate their children. Children and teenagers are significantly influenced by the arts, and any books that can be found in a school library or read for a class should be educational and help speak to minors during an important stage of their growth. Concerned parents should evaluate books with controversial content closely before deciding if their children are ready to handle the themes that are present, as they understand their children more than any educator ever will.

Censorship Helps Remove Provocative Material:

Censorship can be useful in helping to remove scandalous imagery or scenes from projects that can function entirely without them. Professor Scott Working, a theater instructor at Metropolitan Community College, explained a situation at the Blue Barn Theater where a colleague of his wrote a play called Anti-Porn. The playwright had wanted the actors to actually perform certain scenes in the nude, which certainly would not be allowed in most establishments and was racy even for the Blue Barn. Anti-Porn was eventually censored instead of being banned outright because the play contained several poignant scenes without nudity, such as a senator’s speech about porn stars. Working has approved of the final version of the production: “I’m not anti-nudity, I just believe that there is a time and a place for it.” This was an excellent example of an artist having their work changed, but preserving elements that can still work in lieu of the controversy.

No Guts, No Glory!

Movies are also often censored in various ways during the production/post production phase or when aired for television.  Some notable people or companies edit the theatrical cut of a film in order to censor unwanted content. Pepsi once created an edited version of the Civil War drama film Glory intended for release in public schools. The edited movie removed several graphic depictions of violence and bloody scenes; however, the film is not really changed that much. The central themes of sacrifice and the persistence in the face of adversity still resonate without the gory imagery of the original cut, and the historical aspects of the movie, as well as the overall triumphant yet poignant tone, can be shown in schools to help educate and inspire students.  Professor Working once said something similar when he said that funerals for soldiers do not show the charred corpse if they died horribly: “We can describe the tragedies a soldier went through without showing the horrific battlefield. You show them with honor.”

The First Amendment:

Another topic for discussion regarding censorship is the debate whether censoring art violates the First Amendment. Some artists claim that any form of censorship in America violates the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. What many of these artists forget is that not everyone can say anything they want with complete immunity. The Supreme Court ruled that accusatory language that is used “as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress [or the state] has a right to protect”(“Censorship”). Even journalists have to avoid publishing certain statistics and other information during wartime; leaks of precious military secrets are considered acts of treason because they can be seized and abused by opportunistic terrorists or enemy nations (Witherbee and Cushman).

Amy Witherbee, a professor of English at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, says “for everything that needs to be said, there are always those that should never be.” She argues that the nation needs censorship in order to encourage free thought, not just free speech. Many artists use obscene images and materials as a crutch to shock and offend audiences rather than creating any material of substance or thought.  They use everything in their power to subvert an audience’s expectations rather than on focusing on using elements to enhance the quality of their art. The columnist Ben Shapiro says that the abundance of subversive art is polluting the culture of America and that artists must function within certain boundaries if they are going to work: “All rights have reasonable limits. The right to bear arms does not include a right to own a nuclear weapon. The right to free exercise of religion does not include a right to ritualistic child sacrifice.” Artists have to adapt to this line of thinking, otherwise their work will suffer without gaining an audience that will accept and appreciate it.

Pornography:

Professor Witherbee believes that the level of violence in the media has a profound damaging effect on young people. In the article “Counterpoint: Sometimes Censorship is Necessary” co-authored with C. Ames Cushman, the effects of pornography on both children and adults were analyzed and evaluated.  Minors often learn many valuable lessons from the media, so the influence that porn can have on their psychological processes can be especially dangerous. The research indicated that “children exposed to pornography through the Internet or other popular media tend to model their own behavior and expectations of the opposite gender on the often bizarre and abusive sexual dynamics they see” (Witherbee and Cushman). Adults regularly viewing porn are not exempt from its influences either; as studies show that these people tend to be more violent and sexually abusive to their spouses (Witherbee and Cushman). Porn arguably has the worst effect on women, who often lose self-esteem or are abused for not complying with the degrading images presented in this medium (Witherbee and Cushman). Whether porn constitutes art can still be debated, it is undeniable that the media can instill dangerous values, and that these provocative materials must be limited to stop the spread of caustic influence.

Censorship Helps Artists Understand Audiences:

Censorship can be vital in helping artists anticipate and empathize with their audiences. Professor Working described an incident that occurred while he was arranging a Day of the Dead presentation for a local church in Omaha. He had his students write stories from the perspectives of deceased people, and one student decided to use expletives in his speech. Working figured that this would provoke a hostile reaction from the average churchgoers, so he talked with the student and convinced him to change it. A potential scandal was narrowly averted, and Working argued that the entire event was a matter of time and place. He explained that artists should “have an expectation up front of who the audience is…” before creating a story or work of art, as some places, like the Blue Barn Theater, might be more lenient towards a raunchy or risqué production as opposed to a house of worship. This argument ruled that producers can have the right to censor a controversial production.

“Blasphemy or Art?”:

Art that is critical of religions generally tends to receive the most venomous responses and demands to be banned. A study performed at Western Illinois University studied the effects of art that fused sacred symbols to several religions with obscene or disgusting imagery, like urine or dirty animals. The results of the experiment revealed that Christians were generally more hostile towards artwork that depicted Jesus in a profane way, while Muslims were angered by art that could be seen as disrespectful to the holy prophet Muhammad, such as Vilk’s Roundabout Dog, which fused the religious figure with a dog (Dunkel and Hillard). Participants in the research who identified themselves as nonreligious also felt offended by some of the artwork, but most of them generally felt that the art that was offensive to Muslims should be banned. In conclusion, artwork that simply contained repulsive themes or imagery was not enough to elicit an angry reaction in the test group; the art that received the most vocal complaints and requests to be banned had to involve sacred symbols or prophets paired with degrading and filthy visuals.

Those Danes!:

The arts and the media have often been disrespectful to several religious people, especially Muslims. In the article “Counterpoint: The Media Should Exercise Restraint When Publishing Offensive Material,” author Michael P. Auerbach described a situation where a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten published a series of controversial editorial cartoons in 2005 with some less than flattering depictions of Muhammad. These images included a picture of the prophet concealing a bomb with his turban, which sparked several outrages among many Muslims. Any images of Muhammad are inherently sacrilegious to the Islamic faith, so the pictures would likely have received a harsh reaction, but the issue was made even more complicated thanks to the inclusion of a revered figure as a terrorist. Other newspapers defended Jyllands-Posten’s actions citing freedom of the press and reprinted the cartoons within only a few weeks of its publication, adding fuel to the fire.

Auerbach says that the problems illuminated by this scandal demonstrate why the media should be cautious when publishing material that could be seen as offensive by several people. Muslims had already experienced hardships trying to maintain their faith when everyone else around them suspected them of terrorism, and a cartoon promoting these stereotypical views alienated and hurt several Muslims internationally. “The purpose of the media is to educate, entertain, and inform the public. As such, it must be a representative of the audience it serves, understanding its interests as well as its sensitivities. Although democratic states must ensure the freedom of speech and the press, the press itself must act responsibly” (Auerbach). Muslims are present all over the world, and thus are a part of the audiences of these newspapers and the global media as a whole. They should be not alienated and mocked like they are not considered part of the viewing audience. The immature handling of the situation does not reflect well on Jyllands Posten’s part, as the newspaper came off as intolerant of people who are different, rather than witty. If the artists of the cartoon had anticipated the hostile reaction they were probably going to receive, perhaps the images would never have been published. Likewise, if the editors and publishers of the newspaper had blocked the images and advised against their publication, the entire scandal might have been avoided.

It is essential for artists to understand their audiences before creating works of art, as it is ultimately up to them to determine the longevity and influence of the art. If someone is anticipating a wide mainstream audience, then the artist should avoid including elements to deliberately offend people, as the backlash could be catastrophic. If an artist wanted to appeal to a more niche, select crowd, then that artist would have to be content that he/she is appealing to a limited audience and will probably not generate a lucrative amount of money. The age of the audience in question is important as well, as the material in a work geared towards children will likely not include a multitude of swearing, etc. The knowledge of what audience is going to be viewing certain art pieces will allow artists to refine and adapt their artwork to appeal to the expected audience, and producers can help to censor an artist’s work to achieve this goal.

The Downside of Censorship:

Despite all of these beneficial effects, censorship must still be applied modestly. After all, the Nazis burned any books that they found disagreeable and are thus not respected by many people for doing so. Those in charge of evaluating an artist’s work should not assume the role of a goose-stepping storm trooper. Any form of censorship must be used to enhance the quality of a work of art in order to gain a wider audience, downplay offensive aspects, or even improve the cohesiveness or overall tone of a piece. Artists should be receptive and open when people request that their work should be censored, and in return artists should defend why they feel that their work should stay the same or adapt willingly to the changes. Producers should clearly state why material must be censored and understand the artist’s viewpoint and the contested material’s purpose in the overall piece, and explain to the artists how the controversy that the objectionable content might receive would hurt the producers and perhaps the artist’s credibility or future in the business. This conversation or comprehension can be essential in helping artists to understand why their work might be seen as controversial, and it is even possible to avoid changing the material at all. Professor Working believes that these conversations will lead to a compromise that gets the artist’s work recognized and leaves the producers free from suffering any backlash that the uncensored material might have created. He also says that producers or organizations must know exactly what kinds of artists they are dealing with before letting them create something so that scenarios like a “heavy metal rock band in a sacred church” do not occur.  Accomplishing this feat should help artists to refine their work, help producers to anticipate an audience’s reaction and communicate with artists, and might even increase the audience’s respect or appreciation for a work of art.

Final Thoughts on Censorship:

Censorship is an essential aspect of the artistic medium that cannot be avoided by creators. The benefits of censorship help to grant authority to parents and teachers who wish to educate children about the world in their own distinct way. The indecent imagery that sometimes finds its way into projects can be eliminated to provide for a more palatable presentation and perhaps a stronger product. Artists can use changes in their work as a tool to help them to anticipate their audiences and update their work to reflect the audience’s expectations and avoid a scandal due to inappropriate subjects or segments. While artistic limitations are necessary to ensure quality control, it can get out of hand.  This is why artists should maintain a dialogue with the producers to defend the integrity of an art project and protect it from being changed unnecessarily. Effective censorship in moderation can help increase the quality of the artistic culture to create a more refined, intelligent experience.

Works Cited

Auerbach, Michael P. “Counterpoint: The Media Should Exercise Restraint When Publishing Offensive Material.” Points Of View: Political Cartoons & Islam (2015): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

“Censorship.” Funk & Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia, 2014, 1p. World Book, Inc., Chicago. Ebscohost.Web. 20 October 2015.

Coley, Ken P. “Moving toward a Method to Test for Self-Censorship by School Library Media Specialists.” School Library Media Research 5 (2002). ERIC. Web. 22 Oct. 2015 

Cooke, Dominic. “The Arts Should Not Be Censored.” Censorship. Ed. Byron L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “An Insidious Form of Censorship.” The Spectator (11 Oct. 2008): 49. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Dunkel, Curtis S. and Erin E. Hillard. “Blasphemy Or Art: What Art Should Be Censored And Who Wants To Censor It?” Journal Of Psychology 148.1 (2014): 1-21.Business Source Elite. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Freivogel, William H. “Art Censorship Linked to Hard, Violent Times.” St. Louis Post- Dispatch [Missouri] 5 Nov. 1991, FIVE STAR ed.: 10B. LexisNexis Academic [LexisNexis]. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

Healey, Christina and Tracey M DiLascio. “Counterpoint: Book Censorship Can Be Justified in Some Cases.” Points of View: Banning Books. 2015, p3–3, 1p. Points of View Reference Center. 20 October 2015.

Monks, Kathleen M., Anne M. Gaines, and Caitlin A. Marineau. “A Statewide Survey of Censorship and Intellectual Freedom.” Library Philosophy & Practice (2014): 1-36. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Shapiro, Ben. “The Arts Should Be Censored.” Censorship. Ed. Bryon L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints.  Rpt. from “No Bodily Fluids in the Public Square.” Human Events.com. 2008. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

Wilson, Brian. “Counterpoint: The Value of Censorship.” Points of View: Banning Books (2015): 6. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

Witherbee, Amy and Ames C. Cushman.  “Counterpoint: Sometimes Censorship Is Necessary.” Points of View: Censorship & Democracy. 2015, p3—3. 1p. Points of View Reference Center. 20 October 2015.

Working, Scott. Personal Interview. 28 Sept. 2015.