Photographic Censorship - What They Are Afraid of Showing Us?

Photographic Censorship:

What They are Afraid of Showing us?

One highly debated topic is one of the most difficult question for many people to answer. What is art? When several people were questioned they gave responses like, "Something that pleases my senses," or "something that makes me think." Art is one of those genres that is open to people's own personal interpretation, but at the same time there needs to be a way in which to define. The definition that will be used will be the one of Jussim, to be an artist one does not need to create a piece of work with his hands, but rather, he needs expose others to new ideas or a new world that they had never before contemplated(10).

Photography is one of the newest and most important mediums in art today. This is because it is often difficult for people viewing photographs to decipher whether a photograph was quickly snapped while the photographer was walking down the street or if it was a studio shot. This aspect of photography is what allows artist to convey deeper meanings to the viewers through their work and allows the viewers to dig a little deeper to understand a piece of photographic work. However, the fact that it is hard to decipher reality from fiction in photography is what upsets many people especially when it is based upon subjects such as war.

Many people believe that sending photojournalist to wars is not a good idea because by doing so the photographer is putting himself at risk and exposing the public to the harsh realities of war. Without the controversy that surrounds the release of photographs such as the ones released during times of war the public will not learn to look past the controversy of a piece of art and try to understand the meaning of its creation. The main controversy is whether it is necessary for people to be exposed to graphic pictures that are taken during times of war. Many of the photographs that become main stream are those that display the U.S. as the big hero. This is because photographs are often used as propaganda. In efforts to try and sway the public to side with the government's viewpoint photographs and other works of art are often used.

According to Wendy Steiner, if a piece of art does not please the person or people viewing it, then it will cause those unsatisfied of image people to question whether or not the work is truly a piece of art. Once this question surfaces to the publics' eye the issue will be debated (Steiner 31). In doing so, it is highly possible that the work will lose whatever meaning it originally had that made it a piece of art even though a few people did not agree with its label.

In images, I intoned, beauty was the agency that caused visual pleasure in the beholder; and any theory of images that was not grounded in the pleasure of the beholder begged the question of their efficacy and doomed itself into inconsequence (Steiner ?).

This happened when Serrano, a photographer, had a piece titled "Piss Christ" on display. People did not actually have a problem with the work, but rather, it was the title that offended the public.

Serrano claimed that his reason for urinating on the crucifix was to add a yellow to the piece, but by just looking at the photograph, one would not even be able to tell that the crucifix was in a jar of urine until he read the title (Steiner 20). Even though Serrano said that his reason for urinating on the crucifix was to add another color to it, it is pretty obvious that there is a deeper meaning to his work even though he did not state it. On the other hand, there are artist like Mapplethorpe that are not afraid to admit that there is something controversial about his art work. Mapplethorpe photographed himself and other models in homo erotic posses and put the photographs on display. In doing so he forced a homophobic society to begin addressing the issue. Not to say that Mapplethorpe is a better artist than Serrano, but rather, that Mapplethorpe was more willing to put his own reputation on the line in order to defend his art. By willingly doing so Mapplethorpe made his work more powerful, while Serrano's work is simply a crucifix in a jar of piss.

When one picks U.S. History book, they will see photographs of all of the different wars that the U.S. Was involved in. Everything is pretty much the same up until you get to Vietnam. One may see pictures of U.S. Troops saving prisoners from the concentration camps if it is a photograph from world war two. But when it came to Vietnam there was a different perspective being expressed. During the Vietnam War many controversial photos were made public in the newspapers and on the nightly news. One famous photograph was of a monk that set himself on fire. He set himself on fire in order to protest the war. When Americans saw this picture and the others of innocent children that had been burned by napalm that perfect moment began to unfold. People protested the war asking the U.S. government the questions that ran through their heads every day as they looked at these photographs. Why are we fighting in this war? Why are our sons, brothers, fathers, and friends dying?

Wendy Steiner believes that by having the media and the public focus on controversial art a perfect moment is being created. People begin to go to museums more; they begin to ask themselves what they consider to be art, and what is appropriate for public display. By creating this atmosphere the artists and politicians force the everyday people to become aware of topics that have too often been ignored, in this case war. Instead of judging art simply by its content or technical aspects, art should be judged as a whole. When looking at a photograph one should not just pay attention to the contrast, lighting, and composition, he should also look as what the picture is of and why. This process of understanding a photograph will become a new form of aesthetic experience (Travis 73).

When controversial topics such as war are being publicized in photography the government tends to get involved in censoring what is actually released to the public. When it comes to war, the government wants only to expose certain aspects of war. The President does not want the public to see bloody children searching for family members or innocent people dying. The government wants the public to see the good of war. The victories, the enemy being captured, and soldiers helping the native people, this is what they want to see. Photojournalist capture both sides, what the government wants people to believe is occurring and what is actually occurring. So, when viewing a war photograph, do not turn away because of the blood and gore, look closer to get a feeling of what was happening when that photographer snapped that picture (Price 75).

Unlike