If they did all that, then they have done all the intellectual homework nec-essary to send Mapplethorpe's pictures over to another city.
He basically ends the essay by stating the the CAC did everything wrong by putting up all of the barriers and should've left the art as it is.
Are there no offenses which an artist can commit, such that it is right to forgo pa-tronizing him with tax money?
He is questioning the opposition by basically saying "Because something is considered art, is it free from breaking community standards?"
The depic-tion of sodomy is primarily a statement, rather than a work of art; and the use of the artist's urine to enshroud the crucifix is primarily an act of abuse.
Buckley Jr. is pegging himself as a art critic who can weigh on what is actually considered art in this line. The whole notion that they are not pieces of art is ridiculous and offensive. The whole point of contemporary art is to question what is art and what is not art!
It is striking that no one is aroused by the damage done to artistic integrity by using in the first instance a camera, in the second, sculpture, in order to make a statement.
His argument seems flawed. He doesn't see criticism from the artistic community because they are not meny artists who believe that censorship is right!
who is specifying that certain kinds of art do not qualify for na-tional patronage.
Essentially, he is saying that some art is fine while some isn't. What creates those boundaries? Seems like a very blurred line on what exactly breaks the obscenity law and what does not.
Let us suppose that an artist painted a synagogue in the shape of a swastika. Would we be obliged to withhold criti-cism of the painting, in deference to the liberties of the artist?
This seems like a very slippery slope argument.
Are we taking the position that any creation executed by an artist is "art" -and that it should be immune from criticism? And second, What kind of criticism is tolerable?
Buckley---while seemingly at first proposing an interesting debate---is completely missing the point. Art IS supposed to spark controversy and get people talking. Artists WANT controversy. The real question surrounds what can be deemed as art vs otherwise.
The former ( which is now in Cincinnati) contains photographs of the kind of thing men do to each other while communicating AIDS (of which Mapplethorpe died). The sec-ond contained a crucifix in a jar of the artist's urine.
The author reduces both of the integrity of the art by stripping them away of their context and making them seem ridiculous.
the kind of thing men do to each other while communicating AIDS (of which Mapplethorpe died).
Very insensitive towards the issue because he knows that his readers will not be offended by any lack of sympathy.
"Artists, Immunity of. $19.95."
Poking at the idea of what art can be censored and what cannot
Anyone with just a little imagination can write the rest of the col-umn.
His tone is very sarcastic
panzer
"German armored vehicle, especially a tank used in World War II" (Webster) He is alluding the protestors against censorship to German war vehicles.
villain
The use of "villain" is facetious. He is poking fun at the fact that he is being called a bad guy for just adhering to the city's obscenity laws.
tt'm. F. Buckley Jr.
Head editor of the National Review---a very conservative news magazine.