Picasso Controversy

Picasso on display again

It looks like the Picasso print at the Edinburgh airport in Scotland has been uncovered after it was originally covered up when some complaints from passengers were received. This isn't the first time a Picasso has sent ripples of concern through the viewing public. In fact, his Les Demoiselles d'Avignon painting was met with shock the first time it was presented to his audience.

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

We often think that the first amendment protects artists from censorship, but that's only partly true. The reality is that any privately-owned business can, without any real consequences, refuse to display a piece of art or take down a piece of art if complaints are received by clients. If, however, the business were receiving government assistance or funding, this might not be the case. Any time the government is involved, then first amendment rights are put into play.

In one controversial move more recently, the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery removed a video that was part of an exhibit featuring gay and lesbian art, the first of its kind. As a result, The Museum of Censored Art was created. Taken from their website, their mission is stated as the following:

THE MUSEUM OF CENSORED ART EXISTS TO:

• Restore the art censored by the Smithsonian to the exhibit from which it was removed
• Keep art censored by the Smithsonian visible and accessible to the public
• Hold the Smithsonian accountable for its actions

THE STORY OF CENSORSHIP AT THE SMITHSONIAN

On October 30, 2010, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery opened “Hide/Seek,” the first exhibition of gay and lesbian art ever to appear in a major American museum. While the exhibition caused no complaints from museum visitors, it attracted the attention of anti-gay activists, who falsely portrayed the exhibit as “anti-Christian.”

One work in particular, a 4-minute video criticizing society’s indifference toward AIDS that included 11 seconds of an ant-covered crucifix, drew particular ire from the anti-gay groups.

To appease his critics, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution G. Wayne Clough removed the video less than 24 hours after the initial protest.

We feel that Clough made a wrong and shameful decision to marginalize the work of an already marginalized gay artist from an exhibition whose very theme is marginalization. We are screening “A Fire in My Belly” in the Museum of Censored Art (a trailer we have set up outside the National Portrait Gallery) so visitors to “Hide/Seek” will still be able to see the exhibit in its entirety.

Censorship in art is complicated for many reasons. Even finding a way to agree on how art is defined is difficult, so creating laws around it is a big challenge. More and more, a better understanding of freedom of expression is being revealed with the only constraints being limitations around animal cruelty, offensive creations and hate speech. While some may find these constraints upsetting, most agree that responsible speech is often better than simply expression for the sake of expression or shock only, and when art presentations harm an individual or an animal, few people would agree that this is a good thing, even if it's legally within the rights of the artist. It's a slippery slope though, and nobody wants to hinder art in a way that censors creativity. As laws continue to change and evolve, the way art is presented also changes. It's impossible for any artist to avoid considering how his art will affect others. When it comes to imagination, it's important to be able to push the envelope without blatantly antagonizing viewers. In this way, an artist can be expressive but still have his message heard. Fortunately, very few people think that the Picasso in the airport in Scotland was truly offensive, so it will remain uncovered for all to see.