Art and Censorship

Art and government are a lousy mix.  Whether it was Sen. Jesse Helms purportedly declaring “I don’t know art, but I know what I like” or then Attorney General John Ashcroft insisting on covering up Lady Justice’s naughty bits, anything even remotely edgy in the artistic sphere inevitably seems to raise someone’s hackles.

The latest to get his panties in an uproar is none other than Speaker Paul Ryan.  Ryan is upset about a painting by 18-year-old St. Louis artist David Pulphus–one painting among many that hangs on the wall of the Cannon House Office Building after its selection by the Congressional Art Competition.  Pulphus’ work depicts a chaotic riot, complete with animal-headed police officers and protestors (the former aiming guns at the latter), a young black man crucified on the scales of justice, and protest signs.  In the background is the St. Louis arch, more than hinting that the whole thing references the recent unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. There’s little doubt that Pulphus’ painting is liable to make some uncomfortable or angry.  But at least one Representative has suggested parallels between the painting and Picasso’s “Guernica” informed by Orwell’s “Animal Farm.”

For his part, Speaker Ryan has called the painting “disgusting” and has joined Fox News (of course) in calling for its removal.  In a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, the office that oversees the Capitol building and grounds, Speaker Ryan cited the rules of the Competition, which bars “exhibits depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature,” and argued that we are a nation of laws, and this is not a matter of someone’s First Amendment rights.

Bullshit, Speaker Ryan.  Of course, it’s about someone’s First Amendment rights. Because the restriction Ryan proposes should be enforced is unquestionably content-based, and if you can’t speak about subjects of contemporary political controversy right there in the halls of Congress, where can you?  Art should never be toothless, but this competition and Speaker Ryan’s interpretation of the rules would de-fang it, altogether.  Truth be told, if art makes someone uncomfortable, it’s probably doing its job just about right.

Opening the public sphere and public buildings to controversial subjects doesn’t mean there has to be a no-holds-barred free for all.  “Time, place, and manner” restrictions are allowed under our Constitution, but substantive and significant topics—even if controversial—should never be excluded from the halls of power just because someone might get offended.  Art is the classic genie that you can’t control once it’s out of the bottle.  But that being said, uncontrolled art, however coarse or controversial, is less of a threat to our public life than is out-of-control censorship.

H/T to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.