Art, Censorship, and Martkets; S. Yates

Firstof all, let us distinguishbetweenaesthetic considerationsand economicones. Whether cer tainworksof art are "obscene"belongsto the for mer;theissueofwhethertheyshouldbesubsidized by the governmentbelongsto the latter.I wish to dealonlywitheconomicconsiderationshere. Now if the basis of the art world'scensorship chargeis the Helmsbill itself,which refusesgov ernment money to artists and exhibits deemed "obscene,"then it seemsthe chargemustfail, for it rests on a crucialunexaminedpremise:that the governmenthasan obligationto subsidizethe arts. If thispremiseis false,then refusalby Congressto fundcertainexhibitsis not censorship.Censorship would occur only if the exhibits were forcibly StevenYatesearneda Ph.D. in philosophyfrom the Uni versityof Georgiain 1987. He has sincetaughtphiloso phy at Clemson Universityand Auburn Universityand was awardeda researchfellowship by the Institute for Humane Studiesat GeorgeMason University.He willbe joining thefaculty at Wofford Collegeearlythisyear.

closed down-and that has nowhere happened. Comparisons some in the art community have made between this incident and the Salman Rushdieaffairare grosslyexaggerated.But these remarks notwithstanding,the censorshipcharge refusesto go away.A publiclyfundedWashington, D.C., museum canceled a scheduled showingof the Mapplethorpeexhibitand this suggeststhat it mightyet havesomebasis.Let us find out. The same people who find the Mapplethorpe and Serrano exhibitsoffensive-and Helms cer tainlyseemsamongthem-rarely findanythingof fensivein the ideathat governmentmaygo on sub sidizingartwhichnoonehasdeemed"obscene."In short, both Helms and his criticsin the art world share the view that Federal dollarsshouldbe ex propriatedfrom citizensto supportthe arts-they justdisagreeon whatshouldbe subsidized. It is here that a more subtleform of censorship enters the picture,for the kinds of art and artists enjoyingcontinued support inevitablywould be those with "official"politicalapproval.If Federal dollars support certain artists and exhibits,then these artists and exhibitswill gain an advantage they would not have had in an open market, the samewaythat government-subsidizedautomobile manufacturers will gain advantages they would not havehad otherwise.The advantages,it is clear in these latter cases, are unmerited, for if one's companyis proppedup by the governmentat tax payerexpense,one can go on producingan inferi or, unneeded,or irrelevantproductanddelayhav ing to answerto market forces indefinitely.Does thissituationhavea parallelin the art world?

Now I will not deny that many people find the Mapplethorpeand Serranoexhibitsoffensive.But 107 noticethat once we challengeboth the art world's and Helms' hidden premisethat at least some art deservesgovernmentsupport, this aestheticissue is entirelybesidethe point;forin a freesocietynei ther individualsnor institutionshave the right to impose artistic tastes on others, and no one is forcedto subsidizeany kind of art againsthis will. Instead,free individualspatronizethose art forms theyfind interesting,pleasing,or provocative,and steer clear of those they find offensive,uncalled for, or simplyboring. The onlysatisfactorysolutiontothe problemof censorshipin the arts,therefore,is for the govern ment to get out of the art businessaltogether,and allowpeople actingunder free market conditions to supportthe kindsofart theywant.Thusindivid uals wishingto support "non-offensive"art may do so;likewiseforsupportersofthe Mapplethorpe and Serrano kind of exhibit.Artists of the latter persuasionwill have no groundsfor claimingcen sorship; for without government interference, a censorshipsituationcannot arise.

Of course,there may be legitimategroundsfor questioning the nihilistic impulses that seem to motivatemuchmodem art.Art, at itsmostsocially significant,mirrors a culture'sworld view. It may be that extremelyavant-gardeforms of art have a significancethat easychargesof "obscenity"only obscure.Perhaps,too, they have a grassrootssup port that conservativesfear. These are all side is sues; but notice that proper exploration of them can beginonlywhenwe allowmarketforcesto de cidejustwhatkindof art reallyhaspublicsupport, and from whom. D 108 Beyond Eminent Domain by Lee Ownby ,'I want your land!" Ifyour neighbor made this statement and you did not want to sell,that would be the end of it, unless he fielded an army against you and took it by force. But, if he persuaded City Hall to take it for him, there is little that could be done to stop him. Whittle Communications, an innovative pub lishing and marketing firm located in Knoxville, Tennessee, has enjoyed a rather spectacular rise to the forefront of the business community. Under the dynamic leadership of its founder, Chris Whit tie, it has targeted certain specialty markets, and has successfully developed a variety of media to deliver its advertising to them. In 1987,Dr. William Fox, Associate Director of the University of Ten nessee's Center for Business and Economic Research, released a study which indicated that Whittle Communications has experienced a 25 percent annual growth rate and projected that Whittle would contribute $125 million to Knoxville's income by 1997.