The value of an artistic production lies within the perception of the viewer. We each bring our personal history, biases and opinions into our accepting or rejecting a piece of work. Most artists can live with this. When accepted, an artist will easily find venues and financial support for his/her work. If not accepted, exposure could be limited. So much of the artist’s future hangs in the balance of political, social, and financial agendas.
True, galleries have always ‘juried’ submitted work, and that right probably should not be disputed. There are always other galleries that will provide a bridge over the social, cultural mores of a given community. But what if the jury is influenced by anti or pro religious adherents or politics, so much so that it loses objectivity and impacts the decisions made by mainstream venues, leading to censorship? Will artists stifle their expressive creativity to secure their places (and their grants) in the art world?
Do we really want them to?
Touchy subject, no doubt. Perhaps the decision to accept or reject a piece should be left up to individual communities, not institutions. Maybe it should be left up to the patrons who purchase art. Maybe pieces that are considered too ‘whatever’ for the political climate, or moral leanings of the majority group, should be placed in rooms marked with an X, as opposed to being thrown out altogether. Admittedly, NAG might not venture into such rooms.
Also, NAG wouldn’t place a guard at the door to keep others out. Perception is personal.
For more on this subject, search Google for Art and Censorship.
{ 0 comments }
