Mapplethorpe and the new obscenity

Afterimage, March-April, 2003 by Dustin Kidd

The term "obscene" means with respect to a project, production, workshop, or program that--

1. the average person, applying contemporary community tandards, would find that such project, production, workshop, or program, when taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

2. such project, production, workshop, or program, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and

3. such project, production, workshop, or program, when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (10)

The word "and" that appears at the end of the second clause is particularly important because it indicates that all three requirements must be met for an object or practice to be deemed obscene. What of the artistic value of the photograph that appeals to the prurient interest by portraying sex in a patently offensive way, but which is also formally exquisite with advanced composition techniques? Do "dirty pictures" have any artistic value? Based on the "and" at the end of the second clause, such a work could not be considered obscene.

In the culture war that erupted over NEA-funded works, including foremost those of Mapplethorpe, these works were implicated in obscenity at both the social and legal levels. Religious groups became incensed that an art museum would exhibit works of this nature, blending the obscene (homosexual acts, S&M) with the sacred (art). And at the same time, legal officials stepped in not only to reevaluate the legality of NEA practices, but also on one occasion to seize some of the photographs and arrest the exhibitors. But in the discussion of his work prior to the controversy, as we have seen, Mapplethorpe was not associated with obscenity. Rather, his photographs were discussed as art, on artistic terms. Not art instead of obscenity, or art as obscenity, but merely as art. As her quotations indicate, Kardon is fully cognizant of--and directly addresses--the material that later came to be discussed in terms of obscenity. But she does not problematize it, or any possible obscene characteristics of Mapplethorpe's wor k. Also, it is worth noting that the exhibit enjoyed record attendance in Philadelphia, and again later in Chicago, and in both venues experienced no controversy whatsoever.

Obscenity only became a problematic in the summer of 1989, as the exhibit moved from Chicago to Washington D.C. There, Senator Jesse Helms was already leading a campaign against the National Endowment for the Arts in reaction to the NEAis funding of Andres Serrano and his photograph Piss Christ (Serrano's photograph depicts a crucifix that is submerged in a vial of urine). Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment was scheduled to appear at the Corcoran Gallery of Art. However, the Corcoran director, Christina Orr-Cahall, realized that one segment of the exhibit, "X Portfolio," might provoke further anti-NEA sentiment in Washington. As mentioned earlier, the NEA had been one of the funders for the exhibit's opening in Philadelphia, but it did not fund the installation of the show at the Corcoran. Orr-Cahall canceled the exhibit in order to avoid controversy, not because of any shared sentiment with Jesse Helms, but rather as a strategic defense against the work of Helms. She was hoping to avoid adding more fuel to the fire of the NEA debates.