Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.

Meta
Title:	Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.
Creator:	David H
Date(s):	May 1994
Medium:	print
Fandom:
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. is a 1994 essay by David H., a fan who was one of those in charge of the art show at a science fiction convention.

The essay, in the form of a letter, was printed in Artistic Endeavors #19.

The topic of the essay is the censorship and art shows at conventions.

NOTE: the essay as printed does not have a formal title; the title used here on Fanlore is a line from this essay, one that hopefully expresses its topic.

Some Topics Discussed

• fanart based on media characters, permissions
• the difficulty in determining what is "profane"
• responsibility to his con's attendees
• the slippery slope of deciding what is offensive
• "watchdog" groups in the United States deciding morals
• the film "Siren"

Excerpts

As an artist I am totally opposed to censorship in any form for any reason. I believe that the amendments concerning free speech and freedom of the press constitute an absolute right of freedom of expression in any form short of inciting riot. This does not mean that if that form of expression is, for example, a lie, that someone injured by that lie may not seek civil damages. Nor do I mean that some forms should not be restricted from access to children. I do mean, however, that forms of expression that some consider to be blasphemous or pornographic are definitely protected by the constitution and any adult should be free to view them.

Having made this statement as an artist I must admit that I am also, occasionally, an art show director. Then, the viewpoint changes. I have a responsibility to the welfare of the convention. On three occasions works have been removed from my shows. Two, for reasons of plagiarism. One was an outright tracing of another work. Another was a commissioned copy of another work and not offered for sale. I feel that the creation of one artist should never be used by another without written permission. This includes so called "fan art" such as paintings of copyright characters and hardware from movies and television. To remove every Spock or Doctor Who would upset a great many people so our rules stale that everyone submitting such art is required to have permission from the copyright holder and we take no responsibility if they find themselves in the middle of a suit. No one has ever shown mc a letter of license or permission.

The third work that I removed was sexual in nature, an issue that makes me uncomfortable since I do not, in principal, object lo it. The piece in question was of a man with a prominent erection. I felt like a hypocrite removing that piece from the show because it showed genitals but I also felt that I had no choice.

Our convention is a sizable one, about six to eight hundred people. Not only do I have to consider a local government that removes video tapes from stores, many of our attendees are children of various ages. Some come wilh their parents. We want to encourage these kids' interest in SF. We don't need to offend their parents with a piece off art that they may consider pornographic. It isn't possible for us to have an adult area that I think it's unreasonable that we should.

The concept of what is acceptable to be viewed by children is mercurial. Can they look at Botticelli's Venus? How about "Rape of the Sabine Woman", the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or the works of Gaugin or Rosch? A school field trip to an art museum will expose them lo these. And what of my own paintings? At the next InConjunction I intend to have two, perhaps three large works featuring nude woman.

Monday the INDIANAPOLIS STAR carried an AP story about a report by People for the American Way. The report. ARTISTIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK, cited 204 challenges to all forms of visual or performing art in 1992 and 1993. The article stated: "Half were based on nudity or sexual material and one sixth of them involved claims that the works were anti-religious. Homosexuality themes accounted for 13 percent of the objections and allegations that the material was sexually harassing made up 6 percent." With the exception of mentioning theatre events that contained elements of homosexuality (One was SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION) the article goes into no specifics. I can't help but wonder though how a work of art can be "sexually harassing". Are Playboy centerfolds any more harassing than that statue in Rockefeller Centre depicting a river as a horizontal nude woman or Rodin's "The Kiss".

Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. I, for example, am bothered by anything depicting homosexuality. On the other hand I don't go out of my way to look at them either.

The other day Robin and I went to see SIRENS. We laughed out loud. The film concerns an art exhibit in mid thirties Australia. [snipped, much about this film] I loved this film. It's a kind of modem MIDSUMMER'S NIGHT DREAM. I suspect Jerry Falwell hates it. SIRENS examines the issue of censorship directly and exposes it for what it is, a fear, not of the art, but of the subject. Fear of sex. Fear of criticism. Those people who have not confronted their sexuality honestly cannot endure nudity or sexual themes in art. Religions cannot endure criticisms or opposing points of view. (Evolution is of course blasphemous.) The offense is in the mind of the beholder.

Robin thinks that if you print this it might set off a storm of controversy. She may be right but I hope not. I just wanted to express opinion. I'm sure there is someone who might read this and think to themselves, "There must be some standards of decency". I used to think that, but I have lived long enough to see "some standards" misused to ban everything from children's books to Stephen King. A man arrested in Indianapolis once for selling THE TROPIC OF CANCER. There are a lot of things out there that I don't like, won't read, or don't want to look at. Fine. I won't. I have that right but censorship is a mistake.

Fan Comments

[from the editor of Artistic Endeavors, printed directly below the essay]:

I'm going to climb up on my own soap box since you've commented on things that I feel VERY strongly about. First off I am quite against censorship in any form, I don't feel the government or church has any right to say what I can or cannot look at, read, indulge in, or paint. As long as all participants are willing and no one gels hurt. If people don't like it they don't have to look. I'm also heartily sick of words like "community standards" and "family values".

I have also run art shows. A lot of them, and I've seen a lot art pieces that were sure to offend some group or the other. The Team Eh? has never removed a piece from a show because of sexual content. That said, I have no problem personally with shows that choice not to hang sexually suggestive material. It is their choice (though I wish such shows would point out such restrictions in their rules).

But, and it's a big but, I will admit to getting cheesed off by shows that ban pieces that have erections or simply male nudes but make no quibble about having female nudes. I have no problem with art depicting woman as sexual objects. I just want the opportunity to view and do work that shows men in the same light. It makes me really nuts when I run up against that particular double standard. Yes, I like to paint males nudes and yes, a certain amount of them have rather prominent erections. Only one art show has ever refused to hang one of these pieces (and it was a mild one at that). I get a sizable amount of fan mail about my male nudes and erotic couples. AII of it has been very positive. It gives me hope that North America is finally learning to loosen up and appreciate the beauty of the nude male.

Yes, there are a lot of children or young people at conventions and some of them do bring their parents. However it doesn't seem to cause many problems very often. The Team Eh runs around six art shows a year of various sizes and I can't think of one instance where a parent has objected to art in the art show. It does happen though, as I have heard from directors who have told me that a piece of mine has drawn some comment. But then, what is life without a little controversy?' I've fielded some negative comments about that aspect of my work but then I'm a big girl, it's no skin off my nose that everyone doesn't like my work. Bottom line is that I don't believe in censorship of sexual material in convention art shows but it is up to the individual directors to set their own standards. It is, of course, their art show.

I've been an artist and I've been an art show director and I must add my two cents on the censorship issue. I have to stress there is a big difference between censorship and setting guidelines. For several years I ran a media con's art show and we consistently had a very mixed audience with a lot of kids. Nudity was discouraged and I made that clear in my rules. Anyone having a problem with my approach knew it up front and could then act accordingly. Only once did 1 not hang a piece because it was in direct violation of the rules and I firmly believe in enforcing my rules fairly across the board.

The reason I stress guidelines and the artist's responsibility to adhere to them is because of a nasty incident that happened at one of my shows. A young artist who was told up front, repeatedly, what was and was not acceptable, decided to try my patience and see if the envelope could be pushed. While I have no objections to an artist trying to stretch things. I do object to a deliberate attempt to flaunt contrariness in the face of having been told what the deal was. I took down the piece in question (I was not there when it was hung and probably the whole thing would have been a mere drop in the bucket of controversy had it not been brought to my attention by several patrons who complained about--very nicely and politely. I might add). I took the piece down and explained the situation to the artist personally and privately. I was then raked over the coals by the artist verbally and accused of all manner of violation of the rights of the artists, censorship, etc. This disgruntled little person even went so far as to complain to the convention head about me and stood outside the art show auction room with a petition to get me removed from my post, loudly lamenting the poor treatment suffered at my hands. Needless to say, this artist was barred from participation in any future shows I was running.

Granted, this is an extreme case, but I've seen it being worked out in a similar fashion with artists crabbing about guidelines set up that do not fit their ideals, whether it be in terms of subject matter or how prints are handled. That is not censorship. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. Or write to the art show director and express your concerns in a polite and reasonable way. Sometimes the director simply hasn't thought to look at the situation from your perspective and may be willing to work with you on a mutually agreeable solution.

Personally I don't have a problem with nudity, male or female. I simply choose not to publicly display my own work in that vein. Perhaps that's a form of self-censorship? I am. however, somewhat troubled by the broad definition that "fantasy" seems to encompass these days. A lovely dragon is fantasy, but so is a woman in bondage. Where does one draw the line? I've had it put to me that my objections to a piece with a woman being reduced to a sexual toy spring from my own prudishness and lack of understanding that this is just as much a fantasy of the artist as the cartoon unicorn I just drew is fantasy for me. (huh?) How do other artists feel about some of the more obvious real stretches of the catch-all term "fantasy" that some shows seem to be indulging in?

In response to the topic of censorship at cons and in general.

"Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder."

First I'd like to applaud [David H] a couple of issues back for stating so eloquently what censorship is about. I found his letter and arguments to be very intelligent. However, as an artist and parent. I must state in regards to art show censorship: DON'T DO ME ANY FAVOURS!

I have no objection to an art show restricting topics from display by defining it beforehand in their rules. One can never be sure when a mundane may slip by security, but as a parent it is MY responsibility to exercise control over my kids participation in a convention, and I can't help being personally offended at others who feel they must make that decision for me. I realize that not all parents may be as diligent and can take advantage of a convention atmosphere to let their kids run amok. Those parents should be sought out and asked to either monitor their kids or not come to the con. My wife and I made the decision NOT to being out kids to AdAstra this year because they are still pretty young, quite independently minded and we would probably have spent our con keeping them out of mischief. In the past, when they were still babes in arms, we would take them everywhere, and conscientiously leave a panel if they started wailing. When they are older, and better able to behave at a con, I will monitor their viewing, but I doubt there will be much to censor. I worry more about the horror genre giving them nightmares than a nude portrait twisting their personal values.

Let's face it. Kids are curious, but they don't respond to adult logic. So just treat a subject in an open and natural way and they will accept it as such. I agree with David - I don't care for homosexual art either. That's why I don't go out of my way to view it. I also don't care much for modern abstracts. However, denying that something exists because I don't like it or because it isn't relative to my lifestyle choices doesn't make it go away. I have homosexual friends, but the sexuality question isn't a part of our friendship. It's irrelevant. If a piece is abusive or violent I will censor it from my kids, and be saddened that such piece will appeal to a portion of the populace. But if it's simply a question of erection(s) or positioning — well, we'll see. I'll try not to be hypocritical in my judgments and I don't consider myself to be especially prudish, but I have my moments. Hey, that's what being a parent is about.

I think that a lot of the censorship issue would go away if those who want to do the censoring would realize that most people are grown-up enough to take care of themselves and not need a minority to dictate what they should or shouldn't be exposed to. Conversely, I think those who delight in deliberately antagonizing society's good taste and sense by trying to shock and outrage don't realize that most people are grown-up enough to see through their publicity stunts and are tired of them.