Obscenity -- We've Heard Politicians Define What Is Acceptable In Art; Now Hear From Those Who Create Or Present The Works

The Victorians spent their leisure hours taking the naughty portions out of Shakespeare, putting garments on nude statues, even draping pianos so their legs wouldn't show.

And now the freewheeling 1990s are about to enter the history books as the decade when arts censorship has become a hot issue again. Nobody has made headlines by putting fig leaves on Greek statuary yet, but Congress and the National Endowment for the Arts have been the centers of a firestorm of controversy about obscenity in photography, rap music and performance art.

Thus far there have been two famous acquittals (Cincinnati's director of the Contemporary Art Center, for a presentation of Robert Mapplethorpe photos, and 2 Live Crew, for a nightclub performance) and one famous conviction (a Florida record-store owner, for selling 2 Live Crew's ``As Nasty As They Wanna Be,'' which was ruled obscene).

Although Congress, which recently extended the NEA's life by another year, has recently halted a move led by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., to impose anti-obscenity pledges on recipients of NEA grants (a similar pledge now required has been the subject of three federal lawsuits challenging its constitutionality), Helms and his supporters have promised to continue their fight against obscene art.

These issues are central to the battle over Helms' Senate seat, which will be decided in Tuesday's election; arts supporters nationwide have contributed to the campaign of his opponent, Harvey Gantt. These issues also are likely to occupy the thoughts of not only artists and arts advocates, but also our judicial system, well into the Nervous Nineties.

One thing seems clear from the course of recent congressional debate and legal action: Obscenity in the arts has a vast array of definitions. On the one hand you have Helms fighting to make the depiction of nude genitalia illegal; on the other hand you have Michelangelo's ``David.''

What is obscene art? How do you define it? Should it be censored?

And who, if anyone, should decide those questions?

Following are thoughts on the subject from members of the arts community in the Seattle area:

------------------------------------------------------------

Rick Rankin

Alice B. Theatre

founding artistic director

The only obscenity in the theater is work presented without conviction. Acting, writing and directing without passion is a travesty, and an insult to us all.

``Obscenity is like a mirage in the desert; it changes quickly and constantly depending on the viewer's position and the heat of the day. Calling something obscene is a value judgment and not a truth. We just put the label `obscene' like a fig leaf over any image of the human experience we're too frightened to look at.

``As far as deciding what's legal, well, it's all down to who's in power, isn't it? When Puritans are in power, images of people enjoying sex are obscene. If children ran society they'd probably declare Washington Week in Review `obscene.' That's the Human Comedy.

Kay Greathouse

Frye Art Museum

director

It (obscenity) is a revolution in art. It is contemptuous of educating tastes and refining the esthetic sensibility of the citizenry. Its goal is to outrage and trash the idea of an esthetic sensibility. It is sometimes done to shock for publicity-hungry pseudo-artists. Pornography evokes lust for homosexual and heterosexual engage-

ments.

``It happens when two human figures are shown with express sexual engagements or when - such as Mapplethorpe - it uses the human figure in obnoxious ways.

``The taxpayers who are supporting the National Endowment for the Arts should decide (what is obscene). And through Senator Helms this is the first time that the public has been told that the taxpayers are paying for all this.

``I don't think it's too hard to set standards for good art. Obscene art is something that should not be seen in public art galleries. If they want to show it in certain bars that's just fine. People go there because they want to see that.

Sir Mix-a-Lot

Rapper

Obscenity to me is whatever offends me. But what offends me I can't say would offend others. I'm not about to write a law saying what bothers me and Jesse Helms should be written in stone, because you can't dictate morality. I find `Total Recall,' where Arnold Schwarzenegger stabs a guy in the eyeball, a lot more offensive than 2 Live Crew.

``I could lie and sit here like a macho man and say the controversy doesn't affect me. But obviously I have to take a few things into consideration before I write a song. A

lot of the major record stores, like Tower, may be yanking out any album that could contain what they call explicit lyrics. That doesn't make me a sellout, but, hell, you gotta pay the bills.

``I believe a pure rapper can rap whether he's cussin' or not. But a lot of people tend to disagree. They think it makes you more raw and more true if you cuss a lot. But I try to be me through and through. I may not stop swearing altogether - I know I won't - but you have to look at what you're saying before you say it. But I'm not going to write a song to satisfy Jesse Helms.

Tom Robbins

Author

I think if the primary values of a work of art are aesthetic - that is, that its importance lies in its formal values rather than its content - then it cannot be obscene, no matter what its content.

``Conversely, if the primary value is something other than aesthetic, then it frequently can be obscene, even if the content is not sexual in nature. For example, I've seen art in which the primary purpose was political, rather than aesthetic, and the result was in my opinion obscene - even though I agreed with the political sentiment expressed.

``But as long as you keep your religious, political, sexual, spiritual and intellectual concerns secondary to the advancement of the form it-

self, then it can never be obscene, in my opinion.

``To me obscenity is simply vulgar, and doesn't necessarily arouse prurient interest, although I'm not bothered by something that does arouse prurient interest.

``In the art world - which, of course, is different from the community at large - these things should always be decided by those who have given the most of themselves to art in terms of their time, their energy, their lives. Such as peer-review panels. Whether a person's work is considered aesthetically successful enough

to be included in a exhibition should be up to these persons.

``Ultimately, of course, the only person who can make the decision about a particular work is the individual. Once the work is displayed, then whether or not it's obscene is up to herself or himself to decide. The community, the church and the government should have nothing to say about it - especially the government.

Kent Stowell

Pacific Northwest Ballet

co-artistic director

hat we're faced with here is that by its nature, politics requires a definition and explanation. It's a polarizing process. However, the nature of art is to not have definitions. We cannot define obscenity because we can't define art.

``The point is, everybody in our society has his or her own definition of what freedom or obscenity is. To me, a rifle is a lot more obscene than Mapplethorpe photos. What are the values of a people that supports the National Rifle Association, yet won't sup-port freedom in the arts, in everything?

Peter Donnelly

Corporate Council

for the Arts director

I must say, frankly, that I don't know how to define obscenity, and I'm not sure I'd know it if I saw it. What I do know is that standards seem to change, depending on time and place, for all such judgments. Look at what might have been judged unconstitutional during the McCarthy era: It certainly wouldn't be judged the same way today. The only sensible way for our country to define obscenity is to let the courts decide - just as they always have decid-ed, way before Jesse Helms ever entered the picture.''

Janice Findley

Filmmaker

As much as I would like to wave a magic wand and make racist, sexist, homophobic and mindlessly violent films disappear, somehow I can't bring myself to define anything as `obscene.' It's too frightening for me to think of some person or persons out there having the power to randomly decide what film someone can or cannot make or show. Renoir's `Rules of the Game' and Chaplin's `Limelight' are just two examples of films that are now critically acclaimed, but were suppressed and unavailable for years. Creative, artistic vision should be encouraged, not censored.

``We don't, but we do need a ratings system. The ratings system we have reflects our society's endless fascination with violence and death and our general uncomfortable feelings about sex. It would be more advantageous to communicate objectively to the public the difference between adult and children's fare and to indicate which are the more violent or sexually explicit films, for those who might want to avoid them.

``I don't want anyone deciding for me what film I can make or what film I can watch. Each of us may have personal, political or religious convictions dictating to us that a certain type of film should be destroyed or never shown. But once a right is taken away, once someone has the power to censor, it is very difficult to get that right back or to control who wields that power.

Ed Birdwell

Seattle Symphony

managing director

Yes, there is such a thing as obscene art. I would define it as `that which is offensive to me.' But no one is forcing me to partake of it.

``If you consider something obscene, you should vote with your pocketbook: I'm not going to buy the album by 2 Live Crew, for instance. But it doesn't bother me that it's out there, that it's available. Our society is about choice, not about censorship.

``If there's a photo exhibition that is known to contain photos that might offend you, you can choose not to go. If there's a movie that's known to be explicit, you can choose. No one is buying up boxes of 2 Live Crew albums and forcing them on schoolchildren.

``What bothers me the most is the idea that Congress should be legislating what is obscene and whether artists have to sign pledges of questionable constitutionality. Who are these guys to decide? - People like Donald Lukens (the Ohio congressman who resigned his seat after two allegations of sexual misconduct, from engaging in sex with a minor to fondling a White House elevator operator)?

Larry Reid

Center on Contemporary Art

program director

In the field of experimental, contemporary art, I've never seen anything that would qualify as being obscene. I've worked with many of the artists that have been targeted recently by the political right wing, and I haven't seen anything that even approaches what I would consider to be obscenity or pornography.

``I suppose it's possible for just about anything to be obscene. Gestures can be obscene. . . . It's possible that a lot of people attacking art as obscene have never been exposed to hardcore pornography, so they may not be able to put it into context. There's a definite distinction between art and pornography. . . . If consenting adults choose to expose themselves to pornography, they're well within their rights, I would think. It's a free country, or so we're led to believe.

``It has to be an individual decision. I think if individuals are concerned about content that they may find offensive, they should just avoid such situations and not expose themselves to it. I don't stand on the sidewalk outside of COCA and drag people in. They make a conscious decision to see the art that we have on display.

``If there is any graphic material being presented, we have large signs. With some of the more adventurous performances and presentations we've restricted attendance to those over 18. Most of the art institutions that I'm aware of are very responsible on that level, in terms of disclosing what it is that they're doing. . . . Just be-cause there's a naked body doesn't make it obscene.''

Kid Sensation

Rapper

In my opinion, what is considered to be obscene varies from individual to individual. It should be left up to the consumer whether or not something is obscene.

``Being from the streets makes me less apt to being offended by obscene lyrics or even labeling them obscene. Sometimes artists venture further into explicit lyrics that I choose, but I believe in freedom of speech. One thing I'm sure of is that you won't reach hard-headed teenagers with `Just Say No' or `Gangs Are Bad.' You gotta slap 'em in the face with a dose of reality.

``Some artists use explicit lyrics to make a point sink in and some use explicit lyrics to glorify gangs, drugs, sex, violence, etc., but if consumers are swayed into deviance by music, then the problem lies with them, not the artist.

``I can watch the violence in `Robo Cop,' listen to NWA or 2 Live Crew and interpret them as forms of entertainment rather than guidelines for life.

``I see no difference between Madonna's `Hanky Panky,' Bell Biv Devoe's `Do Me' and 2 Live Crew's `Me So Horny.' They all refer explicitly to sex.

``I guess Ice T hit the nail on the head for rappers when he said, ``Freedom of speech . . . Just watch what you say.