Rondell Burge

Pete Marbais

Comp II / Tues, Thurs (1:10)

Argumentative Essay

Nudity: In the Eyes of the Beholder

            With today’s society it is easy to find a subject controversial. Whether it is a minute issue, such as profanity, or something more domineering. One such issue that has raised question is what limitation nudity should have in art. Some believe that it as no place in any public sanctum, where unwilling eyes might catch sight of a provocative image. An example of this took place at the Wichita State fine arts gallery. This gallery, which is open to the public, chose to display an exhibit in which two nude individuals were trying to escape a cube. Every year my high school art class took a trip to view this gallery. This year’s visit happened to be the same time as this exhibit. As any good, lawsuit fearing school district would do, our school required a special form the students’ parents had to sign for them to

witness this piece. Looking up as we walked into the art forum I saw a large black curtain marking off a small corner of the building. We made our way through the folds of curtain coming to a small room with an elevated cube placed in the middle of the room. Cameras, positioned opposite each side of the cube, projected a different image on each side. These images just so happened to show two humans, who were nude, escaping from their environment. As I looked around at the other viewers, I witnessed such expressions as interest, curiosity, even a little pleasure,

Burge 2

but the prevalent attitude seemed to be disgust. This disgust was conceived only from the mere presence of nudity and the biased idea that the human form is vile. The most disheartening aspect of this situation is that these critics are the same that chose to get the permission form signed and slip into the forbidding crevices of the black curtain. Wichita State approached this sensitive situation with tasteful precautions. Simply put; don’t enter the exhibit if you will be offended. Some critics would rather there be an unlimited ban on such pieces of art without exceptions. According to the first amendment this would be a breech of rights. Should we abide by what a few narrow minded people say or follow the constitution of the United States on which every right the American people have is based upon? 

            The censorship of art has been practiced on many occasions, in which an institution has banned a certain work of art or sometimes a whole show that they deemed too promiscuous. In any such act, the censoring parties risk debate on the issue for violating the first amendment. The issue then will be held in a court of law where the court will decide the fate of the censored pieces.  Many courts have actually ignored the bill of rights and let the censorship stand. One such example was in 1973, in Miller v. California, when the Supreme Court actually declared the first amendment did not protect obscene material. The accused was prosecuted for mailing promotions for a book that happened to have nudity in its illustrations. The court set three standards for material to be deemed obscene. The first, as quoted by Kyonzte Hughes, is the “‘average person, applying contemporary community standards,’ finds that it ‘appeals to the prurient

Burge 3

interest.’” The second is “ the work portrays sexual conduct ‘in a patently offensive way’”; and the last being “the work ‘lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific

value.’” (Hughes). These points will prove to be arbitrary and clearly can be taken into too many contexts to be successfully used. A second example of the misuse of censorship can be seen in Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad, held in 1975 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. City officials refused the right of Southeastern to perform a musical that contained nudity. The city claimed the site of the play to be government property and in doing so claimed the right to decide what is to be performed there. Southeastern screamed a violation of rights and in a court decision won the right to perform the controversial musical (Hughes). Universities have also practiced censorship within their borders. One such instance occurred on the campus of the University of South Florida, where a graduate student was denied the right to display his performance-art piece. The piece was meant to explore man’s vulnerability; which showed the student in the nude living in a fiberglass cave for three weeks. Gallery visitors would then observe him on a monitor at the end of a cloth tunnel leading to the cave (Read). The student soon gave in, agreeing to clothe his genitalia for a two-hour period of residing in the cave. Examples such as these, infringe upon the rights stated in the bill of rights, defying one particular one, the first amendment.

               The bill of rights consists of ten amendments each with its own guidelines. These guidelines were set forth to protect the rights of citizens and in turn controlling the amount of power the government holds. The first of these amendments directly effects censorship, outlining that censorship is unconstitutional and should not be practiced. If it

Burge 4

were practiced it would allow the government to be in control of the people, eventually establishing a form of dictatorship. The first Amendment states “ Congress shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The statement upholding the right of free speech is not the only part of the first amendment that involves censorship. Many supporters of the censorship of provocative art do so because of religious beliefs. If a court, as a cause to censor a certain piece of art, used these beliefs, it would be supporting that religion. This is clearly defined in the amendment to be a breech of rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The support of this First Amendment can be found in many important court decisions. In the 1980’s congress passed prohibitions on the government funding of certain art.  The NEA set guidelines on the use of funding; stating “none of the funds…may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which…. may be considered obscene.”  Clearly being unlawful, many artists filed lawsuits against the NEA in accordance with the guidelines. Federal courts soon found the criteria required by the NEA to be unconstitutional, stating the requirement was  “unconstitutionally vague” and that it “violated the First Amendment protection of free speech.”(Freedom of Expression). The First Amendment was also upheld in a New York court, ruling that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani violated the Amendment when he acted against an exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum. The mayor cut city financing and began eviction proceedings in response to a provocative exhibit called “Sensation”. Federal Judge Nina Gershon ruled that Giuliani was violating the First

Burge 5

Amendment in his actions and immediately restored all funding (Campbell). The First Amendment and those that come after are a vital part of upholding the freedom that

people hold for granted. These rights must be able to be expressed freely in order to keep these freedoms a reality.

            Many skeptics do not agree that nudity in art should have a place in our society. Some say that certain groups of our society, such as children, should not see these types of works.  What these individuals don’t mention is that with most instances there is some kind of advanced warning to the exhibited works. This part of the artistic community should not be all together censored, keeping everyone from enjoying the art pieces. The only action needed is to forewarn the public about the nudity present, and then let them decide whether or not to view them. With these precautions there is no need to abolish this classic form of expression. Others might argue that nudity is not art; it is just a cheap thrill that artist use for attention. What they might not know is that the human form has been used in art for hundreds of years. Before recent society the human body was a beautiful aspect of life. Modern artists do not need to change this ageless concept in result of recent perverse perceptions of the naked body.  One unusual objection to nudity did not actually focus on the inappropriate subject matter but the fact that it distracts the viewer from enjoying the piece. This opinion was the result of a play that involved nudity. The critic stated that the performance was not obscene: “I’m suggesting a moratorium on nudity because not only is it distracting, it’s anti-theatrical. It’s the death of artifice.” (Istel). Everything from bad acting, to the guy in the front row with a chronic cough can take away from a theatrical performance. The point is that to someone, the

Burge 6

nudity could be a vital part of being induced into the play. Put in a conclusion to the paragraph.

This argument raises a lot of controversy, which in turn creates the need for compromise. Some guidelines could be put on where nudity should be present; it just does not need to be taken away altogether. One exception to this right of free speech is when the majority of the viewers would be children. Not only are they too young to see these images but also more importantly they do not have the intellect to appreciate the pieces. One just example, involves a certain book in an elementary library. The book had negative views within its pages and was available for all the students (Libraries retain challenged…). In this case, the only audience would be the students themselves, which really can get nothing positive out of the book.

            Censorship needs to be avoided at all costs in order to keep our freedoms. This can happen as long as certain precautions are made when dealing with a controversial topic. Wichita State created a very comfortable environment when exhibiting the nude piece by letting the public decide whether to view the art. Nudity in art is a subject that must be handled with care, but never censored. Violating the First Amendment must never be allowed for fear of further oppression by the government. By no means do we have such oppression, but little by little we will come closer to this control with every right we choose to forfeit.