"Spiritual America": Censorship at Yale, and Now London?

Ominously, officers of London's Obscene Publications Unit of the Metropolitan Police forced the withdrawal of a naked image of actress Brooke Shields aged 10 (see truncated reproductions) from the newly opened "Pop Life" exhibition at the Tate Modern, one of the most respected museums in the world. This, after having received warnings from Scotland Yard (Sherlock Holmes would be turning over in his grave if he knew it had come to this). Perhaps even more bizarre and frightening, the Tate's catalog for the exhibition was withdrawn from sale.

The work that was removed, entitled "Spiritual America," by American artist Richard Prince happens to be one of the iconic images of contemporary art. Certainly not for the perceived salaciousness of the imagery, but far more deeply for what it portends in terms of one American master's visceral commentary on varied undertones of the American experience. The significance of the work is such that the major retrospective of the artist's work at the Guggenheim Museum in New York (2007-2008) and at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis (2008) was subtitled "Richard Prince: Spirtual America." The image was displayed at both venues without the slightest modicum of incident.

To understand the bathos of Prince's art let me quote excerpts from a review of the artist's retrospective by Roberta Smith of the New York Times, "Pilfering a Culture Out of Joint," Sept. 28, 2007:

Richard Prince has heard America singing, and it is not in tune. The paradoxically beautiful, seamless 30 year survey of his work at the Guggenheim catches many of our inharmonious country's discontents and refracts them back to us. The central message of this array of about 160 photographs, drawings, paintings and sculpture, most of which incorporate images cribbed from popular culture is that we won't be getting along any time soon. But in Mr. Prince's view, little of life's cacophony is real except the parts deep inside of us that are hardest to reach.

...He has said that his goal is "a virtuoso real," something beyond real and patently fake. But his art is inherently corrosive; ... His work disturbs, amuses and then splinters in the mind. It unsettles assumptions about art, originality and value, class and sexual difference and creativity.

The work in the Guggenheim exhibition subtitled "Spiritual America" defines the nation's culture as a series of weird, isolated subcultures-from modernist abstraction to stand-up comedy to pulp fiction cover art-and gives them equal dignity.

So, in London, at the behest of Scotland Yard the work "Spiritual America" was ordered removed from the Tate Modern's exhibition. This, an artwork that was shown in exhibitions celebrated in New York and Minneapolis and shown in countless other venues before and since. Can the removal simply be attributed to the professional vigilance of the London police's Obscene Publications Unit? The work of overzealous monitors of public morality? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. Or perhaps something far more sinister, a willful censorship, striking at the very heart of artistic creativity and ultimately at our basic freedoms of expression.

How coincidental that the Tate imbroglio should have taken place barely more than a month after the brouhaha stirred by the Yale University Press's bowdlerization of Jytte Klausen's book, "The Cartoons That Shook The World," to be published in November, after having excised the now infamous Danish cartoons as well as Gustave Dore's illustration of Mohammed for Canto 28 of Dante's "Inferno."

Yale chose to "edit' Klausen's book after consulting "two dozen authorities including diplomats and experts on Islam" ( a study that Yale has refused to make public). The opinions of the likes of the only Muslim member of the House of Lords, Baroness Kishwer Falker, who enthusiastically endorsed the book, apparently went unheeded. (For a full and a depressingly eye-opening reportage on this issue please read Roger Kimball's "Villain or Fall Guy? Yale and the case of the Missing Cartoons.")

The pointed question arises, why banishment in London, and why not in New York or Minneapolis or myriad other locales? Is it because the London that once was, is no longer the London of today. That it is a city whose constituency and fabric has altered dramatically in recent times. A city that has had as its mayor and has been formed in part by one Ken Livingstone, whose ideology would be well suited to what Kimball terms "pre-emptive capitulation" that forfeit the prerogatives of truth for the dubious satisfactions of multicultural self-righteousness. Where draconian aspects of Shariah law filter through, purposely losing sight that living in a modern, secular democracy there is always plenty of offense to go around. That is what has happened to Yale. If now London, where next?

 

 

Comments

[Spiritual Curator]

Please, stick with Bruce Nauman or Ed Ruscha…or Cindy Sherman, or Jeff Koons…when you refer to a contemporary American Master. Richard designs hand bags for Marc Jacobs and takes pre-fabricated hoods, has them buffed by somebody else, and calls them sculptures. He “published” a book of nudes where the entire book of nudes was a previously published work…he is NOT an American Master. Although he is a mildly-interesting collector and a mildly-interesting painter, he is primarily an over-paid plagiarist and copyist.

Finally, since when did being in the Guggenheim and other museums rinse a piece from public scrutiny? Museums get things wrong all the time. This argument is more or less tantamount to saying that all those Corot paintings, years back, that were found to be forgeries, were in fact important pieces of art because they had been exhibited in museums. I’d expound on it, but I just think this is an indefensible position…

Besides, the Guggenheim exhibition took place in 2007….right before the crash.

BTW, just to add a human element. Here’s an interview with Sam Abell. See how you feel after you watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um74DKYlta8

[Spiritual Curator]

And that said, Prince adds zero to that debate. Instead, he blows the print up and sells it for big, big money, and profits from the fame of Brooke Shield’s, her 10-year-old naked body and her mother’s poor judgment (and Gross). Did he add anything by copying it? No. The Brooke Shields photograph's sole value is in the shock of seeing the original Gross image. The only reason Prince zeroed in on the photo is because of his fetishistic sensibilities. Yes, Prince re-framed it (wow!)...but he didn’t add anything visually to the image and he didn’t generate any text when he originally displayed it...sorry....he supplied no commentary (are you really going to argue that adding a frame and placing the image in a dark live-nude-girls context changes the intent of the image? Ummm…I don’t think so.). And in fact, isn’t that why it was included in this pop show? The show is about “big-name” artists using “popular” images to make money and establish and promote their name. The original meaning of the picture hasn’t changed. All that changed was that Richard added his signature. He hasn’t re-contextualized anything. And…it is IMMORAL and should be illegal to promote yourself using photographs of naked children.

[Spiritual Curator]

I'm going to have to do this in sections....

Wow, naked pictures of a ten-year-old girl produced for a Playboy press deserves the same protection as purely imaginary cartoons and drawings? I don’t think so—the photo is offensive…there is a person being directly harmed who is an innocent incapable of defending themselves…the cartoons are free speech.

The issue at hand is whether children can give consent to be photographed naked in a sexual context. A.) This is a photograph, not a painting (how in the world do people try to draw analogies to the naked cherubs in classical paintings…oh, hey I’ll also point out that for artists like Caravaggio, the sexual undertones did refer to elicit behavior he was conducting…) . B.) This piece is of a naked young girl wearing make-up and posing in a tub. Umm…what competent parent says, "I always pose my daughter with lipstick, eye-shadow, and make-up when she's lounging around in a tub nude...I find that it makes the images less provocative and less sexual." Really…what sane person could intelligently argue that the photo has no sexual overtones? Nobody. The Playboy publication this was published in was subtitled, “Surprising and Sensuous Images of Women”. The title, itself was a reference to “what little girls are made of…”

[GrahamInCanada]

When I saw the picture, I did not see anybody lounging around in a tub. In the pose that I did see, it was not an erotic pose, and it is impossible to tell from the photo for sure whether it is a girl or a boy.

Did you really look at the picture before commenting on it?

Of course children cannot consent to be photographed naked in a sexual context. This picture does not depict that, except, of course, to anybody who sees the naked state itself as sexual.

[Spiritual Curator]

She's in a tub. That one is not even up for debate. I know the image--I know Richard's work. I've always found the image repugnant. Check the literature.

Sorry, but your argument is flat. This law is not specifically about your reaction to the photo. The law in question is designed to protect children from people who do see it as sexual and are interested. Apparently that's not you (congratul­ations!...­although your clear willingness to overlook the facts of the photo suggest that you're maybe a little confused...also I'm not sure why you think the image could be construed as being a naked boy in full make-up...or why a naked, oiled-up ten-year-old boy in full makeup would be a remotely normal image, devoid of any sexual subtext...). At any rate, I think most people would agree the photo has multiple trappings that suggest a sexual context (published by Playboy, oil-up body, make-up...). Interestingly enough, the law isn't about them, either, though.

The law is concerned with the viewer who sees the image and is specifically aroused by the image BECAUSE it's an image of a young girl in a sexual context. Children can't protect themselves against such people and the prevailing wisdom is that we as a society ought to step in and protect them.

Oh, and if you don't think those people exist...scan the dailies...Elizabeth Smart, etc..., etc... They're out there.

[1will]

I love it. Keep the comments coming guys. I will definately make this one of my "Let's show the independent voters at work what Liberals really believe" columns. You guys are the best voter recruitment tool I've seen.

[GrahamInCanada]

You'll show the independent voters that liberals are not aroused by ten year old bodies, and think anybody who thinks about arousal when looking at ten year old bodies a little much?

[JIzin]

Thats not what the nudity was about. It was about social commentary using art.
You cant deny that as Americans we sexualize children.

[Parsifals]

You've hit upon the growing capitulation of many in Europe, and in the States who fear to insult, and yet, not only insult, but censor.

Is its roots in multiculturalism? I might be that, or just plain fear of retaliation by extremist groups.

Too often bullies win.

[nexxtep54]

Next they will revisit Blue Lagoon and edit out preteen nipples.

[GrahamInCanada]

There's a lot more than pre-teen nipples to edit out. It the howling jackals get their way, not only would this movie be donatiched and bowdlerized, Randal Kleiser would be joining Polanski in jail.

[JEP57]

What this article is ignoring is the fact that what the author refers to as "artistic creativity" is an INAPROPRIATE photo of a naked 10 year old girl, a picture that never should have been taken to begin with. In my opinion, it should have been illegal to take, especially since she was still at the age where she couldn't make a decision on her own to consent to the session. Shots like this don't belong in a gallery to be "enjoyed". The police did the right thing.

[GrahamInCanada]

What is inappropriate about this photograph? Have you even seen the photograph? Except for the makeup and hair, which could have been applied to either a boy or a girl, it is impossible to tell from the photograph whether it is a boy or a girl. It is not a centerfold pose for Playboy, after all.

But there is something missing from this analysis. It is that the police in England were acting under an new, untested law that is pro-ported to criminalize the naked depiction of anyone under the age of consent no matter the reason, specifically, the the defense of artistic merit or scientific merit has been removed.

This law has not actually been tested in Court. By missing this main point, this article fails to show that the well funded museum, is itself loath to test it in court. If even the museums are loath to stand up for artistic merit.

Next, will the medical photo archives of England be donatiched of all images of the human body before age 18, 21, 25?

People who look at naked pictures of human beings and see only depravity and filth really do have a mote in their own eye...

[conservativeisaac]

Come on, Graham, it's a ten year old child. You're right when you say it isn't a centerfold, but it's still a child. One can certainly appreciate the beauty of the human form, but ten is really stretching the limits. You also make a good point about the new law that the article missed, however, a nude photo of a ten year old female for non-scientific purposes, simply for enjoyment, can easily be viewed as inappropriate.

[cupcake65]

Once you give a government the power to do everything, it tends to do everything, whether YOU like it or not. Hence, the Constitution! Those old guys were pretty smart, eh?

[1will]

You don't really believe that banning pics of naked 10 year olds is an unreasonable assault on our liberities do you? I wonder how many child pornographers would start naming their pics if all it took was a cute title to make it legal.

[nexxtep54]

lets all rush out and cover the naked cherubs.

[GrahamInCanada]

Don't project. We can't help what you see when you look at naked ten year olds, but that is your shame, not ours.

[east coast elitist]

You are greatly over-thinking this incident. Law enforcement is a capricious enterprise. There is nothing more to this than the fact that some nitwit complained to the right person (also a nitwit) about the Shields photo. It didn't happen elsewhere but it could have just as easily. The "establishment" has zero idea about philosophical considerations concerning art.

[Wazzat]

By making this a controversy, the British police have guaranteed that MANY more people will end up seeing this (incredibly inoffensive by the way, to anyone except those with amazingly sick minds) image than otherwise. There is something called the internet...