How "Sensation" Became a Scandal - censorship of art exhibit

Art in America, Jan, 2000 by Steven C. Dubin

Just one update of the Sept. 16 story surfaced in a major New York paper between its first publication in the Daily News and the mayor's news conference of Sept. 22. On Sept. 21, the New York Post ran an article with this fiery headline: "Is this Art? Butchered Animals, a Dung-Smeared Virgin Mary and Giant Genitalia Spark Outrage at the Brooklyn Museum." It sounds like a promo for a 1950s horror flick. But who precisely was expressing outrage at this juncture? Three people whom the Post had called for comment: Donohue, Roger Kimball (managing editor of the conservative journal New Criterion) and a spokesperson for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) who was obviously responding to questions about Damien Hirst's work in "Sensation."

Though we must acquit Donohue and Giuliani of creating this issue, once the story broke they exploited it and tried to turn it to their advantage. Donohue rallied his membership to a holy war; Giuliani attempted to extract as much political mileage from it as he could. The battle rapidly expanded and intensified before moving from the front page to the courtroom.

A Pseudo-Event and Its Repercussions

Who were the winners and who were the losers in the Brooklyn Museum struggle? Frankly, it is difficult to say at this point. The Catholic League received even more public notice than it had during any of its previous campaigns. Donohue considers it a victory, because his group seized public attention and created a major debate. Yet at the same time, the rhetoric, methods and goals of the Catholic League were exposed to a vast, more skeptical audience.

If Rudy Giuliani hoped to amass additional public support for himself, he may not have been successful. Early poll results seemed to indicate backing for his actions and heightened approval ratings among Catholics. Still, nearly two-thirds of the respondents did not feel religious groups should be granted prior approval of museum exhibitions that might prove offensive. About a month after the story broke, a Daily News poll showed that city residents disapproved of the mayor's handling of this incident two to one and repudiated his decision to cut funding to the museum; roughly the same percentage of Catholics opposed the mayor's actions. The long-term effects for Giuliani may not be evident until the 2000 senatorial race begins to unfold.

The public may have quickly grasped the absurdity of the mayor's claim to be the final arbiter of which works can and cannot be displayed at city-funded institutions, if it were pushed to its logical conclusion. City government would likely collapse under the weight of scrutinizing the presentations of every cultural venue in the city, lest something "objectionable" slip by. And New York City, known throughout the world for its many cultural attractions, would become a laughingstock for those unable to figure out what all this tumult was about.

Art dealer Gavin Brown is unsure about the long-term effects for Ofili. Brown observes, "For a moment, he was the most famous artist in the world. I would turn on the radio in the morning and people were saying `Chris Ofili this, Chris Ofili that.' The popular opinion is that it [the controversy] can have only a good effect. I'm not entirely convinced that's true. But I don't think that it will be detrimental in the end." For his part, Ofili stayed above the fray, expressing bewilderment about the conflict between the Brooklyn Museum and the mayor's office. Unlike other young artists who have used public controversies to launch themselves into celebrity orbit, he declined to become an art star.