serai

It seems some photomanip artists have closed their sites over the hoohah yesterday. What a sad day.

Maybe not for the reasons everyone is thinking, though.

I'm sorry that these artists feel obliged to give in to paranoia and feeling responsible for something they didn't do. It's their work, and they can do what they want with it, but how does self-censorship help the situation? If it's not photomanips, then it'll be something else. Rude fans will always find some way to embarrass their idols - that isn't going to change. Neither will the phenomenon of people stumbling across or being presented with imagery that discomfits them. The only thing that's going to change is that fans will no longer see the artwork. And little by little, fandom will become more cramped and timid and less likely to circulate the things we enjoy. It's hardly necessary to have prudish watchdogs slavering to pin us to the wall when we'll so eagerly do it ourselves.

If it were my artwork in question, I'd have put a great big banner on my site giving everyone hell about things like yesterday, then stayed defiantly open. But then, I've never been one to allow the thoughtless actions of others to dictate what I do with what's mine. Thinking that I must stop creating because some ninny used my creation to hurt someone else would not result in less hurt. It would only result in less creation. I think of all the times famous books or songs or such have been used to persecute people - does that mean we should destroy all those works, or lock them behind doors where only The Approved can see them?

Fear is no justification for strangling the creative process. Ben Franklin had the right of it - Freedom requires risk. Let me repeat that.

FREEDOM REQUIRES RISK.

This isn't just a matter of some girls being thoughtless. It started with that, but by brunt of all this hoohah, it has turned into an issue of censorship, self-censorship being the worst and most insidious kind, because by its turnings freedom is cut off at the knees in a way that it never is when stifled by an external force. Rolling over and giving up is vastly different from being forced to capitulate.

Why? Because it sets a Bad Example. Art is something that thrives not only on creativity, but also on defiance and a strong sense of self. There are artists whose work offends me every damn time I see it. I can't believe some of the things that hang on gallery walls these days. Would I ever insist it be taken down? Of course not. Would I admire or praise those artists, or give them sympathetic pats on the back, if they pulled their canvases from display just because somebody might be offended?

OF COURSE NOT.

In such a circumstance, my thought would be, "Well, I guess their art wasn't important to them. They must not be true artists. If they were, they wouldn't let such things dictate their actions."

I have enormous sympathy for artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano when their art is attacked and vilified, pulled off walls and censored, because those actions are forced on them, and because they don't take such actions as reasons to stop creating. I do not have sympathy for artists who take such actions on themselves. I feel sorry that they're going through a crisis, but bowing one's head and murmuring "oh, dear, somebody got hurt seeing my stuff, I'm gonna disappear now" cuts my sympathy right off, and makes me think, "Well, I guess their art wasn't important to them." Certainly not important enough that they'd take a situation like this as an opportunity to get stronger and grow as artists, rather than just rolling over and dying.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin