This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 10 January 2015, At: 03:08

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Art Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcaj20

Robert Mapplethorpe
Judith Tannenbaum
Published online: 07 May 2014.

To cite this article: Judith Tannenbaum (1991) Robert Mapplethorpe, Art Journal, 50:4, 71-76, DOI:
10.1080/00043249.1991.10791482

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00043249.1991.10791482

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in
any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Robert Mapplethorpe
1//C !)hi/oc!c!phio ,,~1/()/:,.

JUDITH TANNENBAUM

I
t has Ill't'n mon' than two veal's since tilt' ('ontrovers\ prol('ssional audiellt't·. Ithlt'ad, I was acutt,lv aware of the
surrounding the I{obert \Iappldhorpe exhibilion arost'. underlving legal principlt's. moral issw's, and political ram-
Organized 1)\ tlw Institutt' ofConlt'mporan Art (lC:\) in ifications as tilt' drama dt'wloped. In mv rol(, as chid' spokes-
Philadelphia in J9HH. what started out as a "normal" exhibi- ,wrson f()J' ICA, mv prioritit,s wen' to uphold tilt' institution",.;
tion turned into sonwthing quite difl('rent-a nalional caust' inh'grit\ and idt'ntitv in tilt' fitn' of serious snutill\ and
ct;lt"bre. tht, inlJll'tus I(ir intense t'ongn'ssional debate about possiblt, financial losses and 10 evaluah' IHJ\\ our situation
j(·dt·ral funding of the arh. and. ullimalt'h. tlw I(wus of an n,lated to tilt' most basic values and tt'llt'h of Anlt'rican
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 03:08 10 January 2015

olNTnitv trial in Cincinnati. dt'mo(' ra('\.

71
"/{olll'rl \lappldhoqll': TIlt' Ih-fed \Ionlt'nt"' was de- But how did \Vt' ani\(, at this point'( The worst scenario
signed as a rdrospedive exhibition. t'o\'('ring all aspt'Ch of Wt' might haw anticipated bd(JI'(' tilt' sbow opened was n'-
Ihe pholograplwr",.; career mer a twenlv-vear period. from the ceiving Idters and pholH' calls from disgruntled or offended
btt, IWiOS 10 19HB. just slwrth Ill'J()J'e \Iappldhoqw dit'd of vit'wt'rs. Becaust' of the explicit sexual content of a small
AIDS in \Iarch 19WJ (fit's. I. 2). It was organized as a numlll'r of imagt·s in the show, a notict, with tilt' wording "The
Ir<l\t'ling exhibition, to Iw set'n al fi\'(, otllt'r museums in I{olll'rt Mappletlwqw t'xhibition includes material that ma\
various regions of tilt' countn during the nexl war and a half. Ill' inappropriak li)r childn'li' was placed at tilt' gallt'n en-
after it closed at ICA. I Curated 1)\ IC:\""; dinTlor, Jand tram't' and also appt'awd in tilt' mom ('ontaining \lap-
Kanlon, Ihe exhibition of more than ISO images \vas pn'- pldhorpt:s X, Land J: portliilios. IA I' tel' tilt' controwrs\
senlt'd in Philaddphia wilhout incident land to enthusiastic arost', tilt' wording and placenH'nt of sueh a cautionan stalt'-
nit ical n'sponse! from Decemlwr 19BB through Januarv Illent \vas dderrnillt'd 1)\ each institution. 1Now \H' \H'n' in the
19B9. It subst'(jllt'ntlv travded to tilt' Museum of Conternpo- middlt· of a national political ball Ie, subjt'd 10 public nit i-
ran Art in Chicago, again wilhout gt'lwrating am ulllisual cism, as well as praise, and ('onstant nlt'dia allention.
puillic allt'ntion or raising legal qllt'stions about obscenitv in In J9HB the National Endowment tiJl' tilt' Arh had
n,lation 10 tilt' conlt'nt of tilt' work. awarded ICA a :S:~O.()()() grant under ih nlllSt'um program, to
It was not unlil June 19B9, after the cam't,lIation of tilt' help supporttht· orgallization of tilt' Mappldlwrp(' rdrospec-
t'xhibition 1)\ tilt' Corcoran (;all('l'\ of Art. in \\ashington. tiw and publication of ih ,w('ompall\ing catalogue. The
Il. (: .. just two and one-half week,.; Ill'l(II'(' il was to opt'n there. Corcoran's sudden withdrawal from the exhibition lour land
Ihal ICA was lIIWXpt,(,lt'dh Ihrust into tilt' national spotlight. calH,t'liation of ih ('ontrad with IC'\I was Inadt, in anticipa-
It tllt'n suddenh I)('canlt' a kev plawr in tilt' c(JIlgressional tion of conlrowrsv during Congwss",.; consideralion of a bill
d(·balt' mer \vhat taxpawr,.;' dollars should and should not 1)(' approprialing funds Ii)!' lilt' Nt-::\ during tilt' next fiscal war,
spent on, and tilt' related issw's of ct~nsorship and artistic and was based on that nUlst'um's wish to n'main "ouhide the
fn'('dom. As assistant din'ctor of ICA, I had I)('t'n dirt'dh pol it ical an·n,l."~ IDebatt' OWl' this legislat ion was npeded
imolved in till' publication of the exhibition catalogut" tilt' 10 takt' plan' during tilt' sumnlt'r. \vhen tilt' \lapplt,tlwqw
exe('ution of ('ontradual agn'enwnh with the various institu- exhibition would haw IWt'n on \it'w at the Corcoran.! In
tions participating in tht, tour. and in organizing tilt' exhibi- rdrosped, it is clear that tilt' Corcoran",.; dt'cision backfired
lion 10 traw,l: but I had not \vorked with the artist or I)('t'n and dn'w it into tilt' political realm ralher than keeping it
imohed in till' curatorial seledion of objt'ds to Ill' irwllHkd n'nlowd: it also inlt'nsified the debalt' \vaged both in the
in tilt' show. When tilt' contro\ersv aroSt'. I had aln'a(h nlt'dia and in Congress sllrrounding the NEYs funding of
assunlt'd the job of ading dinTtor, sillt't, Jand Kanlon had projech penTiwd 1)\ sonlt' individuals or organizalions to 1)('
Idt IC:\ lin ,\pril 19B9!to tab' another position. Be('aUH' I inappropriatt' J(,r sllpport.
had uot chosen tilt' artist or the works in tilt' nhibition. I was In late Juh, afler tilt' St'llate had passt'd ih wrsion of
not callt'd on to dd('IHI m\ personal ,It'stllt'lic choic('s as a Illl' appropriations bill. \\ith tilt' elt'wnth-hour inclusion of
curator-although I Iwlit'\(' \bppldhorpt,",.; work is \\Ortl1\ of the so-called IIt,lms anH'IHlnwnt. tilt' contrm('rs\ es('alated
serious cOlhidt'ration 1)\ both tilt' gt'llt'ral public and the t'\'('n furllwr. TIlt' propost,d It~gislation not onh re,stridt'd

ART JOURNAL
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 03:08 10 January 2015

72

FIG. 1 Robert Mapplethorpe, Self-Portrait, gelatin silver print, 7¥4 x 7¥4 inches. © 1980, Estate of Robert Mapplethorpe.

funding for "obscene or indecent materials":~ but included was in no way at fault for organizing the Mapplethorpe exhibi-
another clause prohibiting ICA and SECCA (the Southeastern tion and using public funds to help support it. Nor was it
Center for Contemporary Art in Winston-Salem, North Caro- wrong for the show to be seen in Washington-at the Wash-
lina) from receiving NEA funds for five years. SECCA was ington Project for the Arts (WPA), the artists' organization
the organization responsible for awarding a subgrant to the and exhibition space that came forward immediately as an
photographer Andres Serrano and for including his now- alternative venue, after the Corcoran's cancellation-during
infamous image, Piss Christ (see p. 91,fig .11), in its Awards the congressional debate over the NEA's reappropriation. It
in the Visual Arts exhibition series. Such a punitive action was ICA's position that if the WPA could meet the necessary
would have been unprecedented-and unconstitutional. contractual requirements, and if the various lenders agreed
ICA had played by the rules and had, in fact, been to the change in venue, the show should be presented in
rewarded by receiving an NEA grant in the museum pro- Washington. To do otherwise would have been an acceptance
gram's highly competitive "special exhibitions" category, yet of the Corcoran's rationale that it was necessary to protect the
it was being singled out for punitive action by Congress, and NEA from controversy and that museums must exist outside
the future of federal funding for the arts in America was the political domain. In contrast to the Corcoran, the Contem-
placed in serious jeopardy. Although ICA found itself in an porary Art Center in Cincinnati (CAC) was not wrong to honor
unenviably defensive position, it was clear that the institution its contractual agreement (and, by implication, its commit-

WINTER 1991
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 03:08 10 January 2015

73

FIG. 2 Robert Mapplethorpe. Self-Portrait. gelatin silver print. 7¥. x 7¥4 Inches. © 1980. Estate of Robert Mapplethorpe.

ment to Mapplethorpe's work) to present the exhibition in its photographs. We did not want to play into the hands of the
complete form. This it did despite threats of legal action to conservative groups who believe they must protect the Ameri-
shut down the museum or seize some of the photographs; can people from material they deem unwholesome. In con-
local law-enforcement agents deemed them inappropriate to trast, it was our position that the museum-going public is
be viewed by the citizens of Cincinnati, although they had smart enough and discriminating enough to decide what it
been seen already by several hundred thousand citizens in wants to see, and that no one was involuntarily being put in
Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Hartford, and the position of looking at images that might make him or her
Berkeley. uncomfortable.
To delete works or to isolate particular images in re- The experience of viewing an exhibition of photographs
sponse to political pressure would have been an act of censor- in a museum space is not the same as inadvertently encoun-
ship on our part. The intention of the exhibition was to tering an artwork in a public space. As a contemporary art
represent the artist as fully as possible; it was our respon- museum, our job is to expose the public to recent work with
sibility to be true to the spirit of the work and to ensure that it which it may be unfamiliar, not to limit or shield people from
be shown in a secure and dignified manner. Altering the new experiences. The ultimate acquittal in court of the
show would have seemed like an admission of guilt-that Contemporary Arts Center and its director, Dennis Barrie, in
there was something wrong with exhibiting Mapplethorpe's October 1990 vindicates the institutions that believed the

ART JOURNAL
 exhihition should contilllw to Iw seen hI' tlw Anwrican puh- of tilt' work to Iw prt'st~nted. hut ralher on tilt' fi'ar hI' some
lic. It also underscores that the l\Iappll'lhoqw show could still nH'mllt'rs of tilt' ('ouncilthat their approval of mort' than one
receive gowl"IInwnt funding under existing NEA guidelines. grant to ICA might Iw p('ITeiwd as an act of defiance toward
Iwcause the work does have artistic nwrit. The prosecution Congress ..-, I{ecognizing the precipitoustlt'ss and injusticc of
was unslH'('essful in attempting to pit ('ommunitv standards its action. tilt' ('ouncil I'<'('onsidcred Ihe two ICA grants at its
against the First Anwndment right to ff'('edom of t'xpression. Ilt'xt nH'cting in August and unanimouslv vokd to I'<'\'f~rse its
In this case. a jury of eight-lilur men and {illlr wonwu from previous d('cision and approw Ihe projects.
the suhurhs of CitH'innati. who had little or no inlef'('st in art It was at this sanlt' August meeting. hOl\ever. that the
or art mus('ums-Iwlined the museum proft'ssiouals who ('olllH'i1 refused to l'<'c(llIsider the rejection of grants to filtll'
testifi(,d that Mappll'lhoqw\ photographs do indeed have Iwrforman('t' artists-Kan'lI Finl('v. Hollv Hugllt's. John
artistic value. even if their content is explicith st'Xual. The Fleck. and Tim i\Iiller-wllOse works explore sexual land
deeision was perhaps eH'n more rt'markahlt, Iweaust' the oftt'n specificallv honHlsexual) alld political issues. The
st'ven photographs eonsidered In the j un (fi H' IH'f'(' images coullci I also st'nt hack fi w collahorat i It' I II ler- Arts grants fiJI"
from iVIapplethorp(:s X Port!(I!io. two were portraits of chil- reconsiderat ion III new pe('r parH·ls Iwcaust' of possih/e con-
dren) had Iweu takt'n out of the ('ontext of the exhihition as a flicts of inkl'<'st on the pant'! thaI had appr()\(·d the grants.
whole and ('onsidered individuallv. Again. artists and sponsoring organizations. whose work had
The hill that was finallv passed hI Iwth tilt' House and lwen deenH'd except ional In a panel of n perienced proff.s-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 03:08 10 January 2015

Senat(' in Octoher 1989 f'('llI'esented a ('ompromise from the sionals in the field. 1\('1'<' penalized. Although the perlill'm-
originalll('lms am('l1Ilmt'nt and the harsh punitiw m('asun's an('(' arlists h,ld piait'd hI' II\(' rult's. Ihe N L\ was changing
74 earlier proposed fill' hoth lCA and SECCA. That I('gislation. til(' rules in midstn'alll. If there were legitimalt' qllt'stions of
('nacted to appropriate funds fill' hoth the NEA and the improprietv. tilt' ('Ollllt'il or the NEA chairman should hav('
National Endowment fill' the Humanit ies (N EIII in 1990. invalidakd all lilt' grants awarded hI' that particular pant'!
hOllt'ver. did includ(' a clause I'('quiring that Congress he and constiluted an entirelv new parlt'1. But it is hlatantlv
notified of am grants f'('eonlllwnded f(lI' funding to ICA or unfair to disallow grants to a select few Iwcause of tilt' mer('
SECCA. I No one eould halt' predieted just six months IwfiJl'(' possihilitv of conflict of interest (f(1I' which the NEA and not
that we would now Iw grateful/ill' what amounlt'd to heing the artists \\Oldd ha\t·lwen to hlan\(' I. The ('ouncil st'('nlt'd to
placed on prohation. and that. similarly. the arts ('omtmuJitv Iw rt'slH)JJding to fi'ars about lIork that deals direetlv with
would a('t'ept an ohscenitv c1aus(' of anv kind. )(,t tllt'St' suhj(,(,t mattt'r that SOtllt' self-proclainlt'd arbiters of AtlWl"i-
('om promises repf'('s('nted a victorv of sorts. giv('n tilt' mof'(' can moralit\' consider inapproprialt' fiJI' art.
extf'('nlt' Senate hill that might haw Iwen adopt('d. No matttT hOIl itlllwrli'ct the peer-re\'ie\\ s\'stt'm ma\'
Despite heing {(,ITed to liw under this prohationary 1)('. il is l~ll' mort' dangerous 10 lab~ Ihe t'l'ilieal decision-
cloud. ICA now looked fill'ward in 1990 to refiwusing its making pro('ess allay from profi'ssional peers and shift it
('llt'rgies on mounting t'xhihitions and planning upcoming inslt'ad to the political an'na. Fell peoplt, question that
projects. as well as to raising suhstantial funds IH'('('Ssarv to seient ists and medical cI inicians-not ('ongresspeople and
COlllplt'le tilt' capital campaign fiJI' a new mUst'um huilding. s(~nators-shouldevalnat(' 1\ hich projects IIi II gt'l funded hI'
For six months. most of I<:A\ stall had Iw('n ('onsunwd bv tilt' National Institult's of Heallh and other go\,ernm('nl-
activities relakd to the i\Iappll'lhoqw ('ontroversv: pf'('paring supporlt'd agt'nci('s ilJ\oht·d in n'st'arch in their particular
written malt'rials and stalenlt'nts fill' various ('onstitllt'llt'ies: disciplillt's. Tlwre are no guarante('s that everv experilJlent a
rt'sponding to the press and media: participating in local and grant funds willlw productive. and it is difficnlt to delt'rmine
national advocacv efli)rts to support the NEA and ('nsuf'(~ its which will ('OlJle up with a ('lnT for ('(IIICel'. Tilt, situalion of
futuf'(': and consulting with advisorv-board nlt'mlwrs and experitl]('ntal contelJlporan art is no dint'rent. It is. there-
Uniwrsitv of Pennsvlvania officials ahout our particular legal fim'. nlJ\\ise to jeopardize ('\enthing the NEA has achieved
and political situation. and delt'rmining what slralt'gv lo in its t\\('nlv-fi\('-war hislorv hI' (l\erreat'ling to t'l'ilicism
/ililow. The n('('essitv fiJI' our small staff. all'<'adv strt'lcllt'd to and changing the basic principles under whieh the agen('v
its limits. to spend so nlllt'h time on these eflill·ts meanl that has operated. TI](' NEA"s reluctance or inahilitv to stand up
considerahlt, ell('rgv was diverled from normal dailv respon- fill' its wrv n~al aclJieven]('nts as an advoeate fiJI' experin]('nta-
sihilities and long-rang(' planning. It was a relief to get hack tion and cultmal diversitv in Ihe arls has Iwen a notable
to bnsillt,ss as usuaL bUI Ihe I'<'spik was relatively brief. litiling. lnskad. il has responded delt'nsiwh. intt'rnalizing
Tht· dark cloud of pUllishnlt'lIt suddelliv appeared tilt' t'l'iticism generated hv the Ht'wrt'nd Donald Wildmon of
agaill ill Mal' 1990. wllt'll the National Coullt'i1/i.r the Arts. the AIJl('rican ~~lInilv Association. S('nator Jesse HellJls. and
which advises Ihe chairman of the NEA. \olt'd to rejt~ct other t'ons('naliw litt'lions. Most disturbing is that it now
grants /(ll' two upcoming ICA shows that had heell recom- prematurel\' rejeets grants in an eflilrt to precensor the pro-
mended fill' funding hI' the peer-review panel. This action was grams it will support-and then finds itself in Ihe emhar-
hased neither 011 the merits of the proposals nor on Ihe contenl rassing position of having 10 reverse itself.

WINTER 1991
 The greatest danger to the future of the NEA now rests interest or merelv out of curiositv.
, ,

vithin the NEA itself. It was through its own administrative When considering the iSSIW of audience in relation to
lrocedures, established after the compromise legislation how an institution n>sponds to external pressure, the first
lassed in October 1989, that the NEA chose to require all questions must Iw: Who is exerting that pressure and is it
;rant recipients to sign a pledge stating that thev would not justified'( In the Mapplethorpe case, it became dear that it
Ise the funds to support '"obscene" work. The NEH, which was flol the general public who demanded that the show be
vas subject to the same legislation, chose not to add such a closed down or edited. Nor was it the publ ic who questioned
:Iause. After the pledge was adopted, a number of artists and the legitimacy of spending tax dollars on a controversial
,rganizations refused to sign NEA grant awards and instead vt'nture. In marked contrast, once the controversy arose,
iled blerallawsuits, claiming that the pledge violates First attendance grew substantially every time the exhibition
\mendment free-speech guarantees. Although the National moved to a new citv. In lilct, in Cincinnati more than eighty
:ouncil voted to remove the pledge, and the report issued in thousand people saw the show, Ii)!, which the CAC added a
;eptember 1990 by an independent commission (appointed surcharge of fiJllr dollars per ticket. Further, the museum
Jy the President and leaders of Congress) to evaluate the more than doubled its membership. The content of the show
~EA made a similar recommendation, the chairman of the was not questioned bv the citizens of Cincinnati as a result of
~EA still refused. Moreover, a memo circulated in August any direct contact with particular photographs: rather, the
1990 by Randy McAusland, acting deputy director of the court action was instigated through political and financial
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 03:08 10 January 2015

~EA, outlined a number of procedural changes that may pressure exerted by a local organization called the Citizens
lave far-reaching effects on how the NEA defines and carries f()!' Community Values, in advance of the opening of the
lUt its mission. Among its numerous provisions, the memo exhibition at the CAe. 75
'ecommended instituting prescreening panels, requiring ad- Similarly, in Washington there were no incidents of
litional support material in applications and increased re- public protest, despite the enormous media attention and
Jorting requirements, limiting the number of grants to organ- brouhaha that preceded the opening of the exhibition at the
zations, and increasing the size of grants. This last could Washington Project fill' the Arts. It was the WPA's belief that
nean the elimination of funding fiJI' fellowships to individual because of the issues raised about the NEA in regard to the
lrtists as well as decreased support to smaller, younger Mapplethoqw exhibition, it was even more important that the
Jrganizations, since they are more likely to be perceived as public (and the politicians) in Washington have the oppor-
00 experimentaL and therefore potential troublemakers, tunity to see the works firsthand and not rely on reproductions
han are large museums, orchestras, and other well- and hearsay. The president of the WPA's board of directors
~stablished institutions. Administrative measures mav be stated, '"We li'd it's essential to maintain and preserve a
Idopted by the NEA under the pretext of creating greater climate that encourages individual and institutional artistic
'accountability," but in reality they reflect the influence of a freedom of expression in our city. Artists and their work must
watchdog mentality that can effect significant changes in how be strongly supported in tilt' face of any attempts towards
the NEA functions and whom it serves. Unfill,tunately, it mav censorship, either direct or subtle."('
be even harder to fight against internalized administrative But what would we have done if the public had aligned
procedures than it is to fight the battle fiJI" freedom of expres- itself with the censors, demanding that the exhibition be
sion in the courts and the public forum. dosed down, instead of damoring to get in the museums'
The Mapplethorpe controversy also raised the question doors'( Even if there had been pressure from the public
of how a museum defines its audience, and what mav be seen audience, I believe the Mapplethorpe exhibition would have
as the responsibility of the curator and the museum to that remained on view and intact. Museums must not compromise
audience. In the past (befill'e the NEA was l(lUnd(~d), when their ethical and aesthetic positions in response to public
the museum-going public was considerably smaller and the pressure, but they also cannot and should not ignore tlwir
audience Ii)!, contemporary-art exhibitions in particular was constituents. Faced with heated controversies and confronta-
limited, curators may have operated on the assumption that tions, it may 1)(' most appropriate (ill' museums to increase
they were addressing a well-informed, educated, homoge- their educational programming-inviting speakers with di-
neous audience only, and that the larger, more culturally vergent viewpoints to address the issues in the hope of
diverse public, lacking specialized training in art or art developing audit'w'e understanding lill' the museum's role
history, had no interest in what they did. Or, if they operated and position.
on the premise that they had a broad public audience, its Because leA is part of the University of Pennsylvania,
opinions and responses did not much matter. It is clear from the established principles of academic freedom wen' invoked
the public response and media coverage over the past two at univt'rsity-Ievel discussions throughout the controversy.
years that museum prolessionals can no longer function under Our values as a museum ran parallel to those of the univer-
thest' outdated assumptions. A large, heterogeneous audi- sity, and we enjoyed the full support of the academic
ence attends art exhibitions, either as a result of genuine community-including President Sheldon Hackney, who be-

ART JOURNAL
 carne a vocal advocate of artistic frecdom; the provost Ito tions in an efliwtto avoid controversy: Artists and art institu-
whom the director of leA l'!'ports): the uuiwrsitv's gelwral tions now find themselws undt'r constant scrutill\-from
('olll1sel: and the director of ft.dera I relat ions Ii. e .. the un iwr- within as well as from outside their own ranks-having to
sity's liaison in Washington). I)espil<' the risk of punitive deft'lul their rqllitat ions and their eligibility to recei\{, public
actions that could also have had a negatiw impact on funding funds. The cUlTent ddlalt' about censorship and public fund-
{(ll' other university-related activities. we alwavs ft.lt it was ing (il!' the arts has f(m'ed us to rt't'xamine our vaiLws and
most important to act upon and prott'l't the fundamental principles-as institutions and as indiyiduals. Without a
principle of free expression-fill' {il<'ultv. students. artists. strong NEA. individual artists. artists' organizations. and art
and institutions-that is at the core of a university and must museums will have to serw as their own adyoeales and
not be compromised. innease their activisll1 in the public arena. If we trul\
In his plenary address at the Wolf Trap Conft'rem'e on 1)I,Iiew in fn'edolll of expression. if we (t,e! that the arts
Academic Fn't'dom and Artistic Expression. I'residt'nt should Ill' lalued in our socidv. then we lllust oppose any
Hacknev stalt'd: efl(ll·ts that abridge that fn'edom or limit the public's aceess to
all I()rms of artistic expression. -
I was mohilized 11\ Ihe Ihreal o/Ihe lIelms amendmelll 1101 so
:\olt'~
milch In mvjilfldllessjiw Ihe IC4 ill parliclilar. orjiw al'l alld I. \ diff~Tt'1l1 ... how 01 \1appll'lhoqlt'":-. work had h."'1\ pn·:-",'nll·d approximately six
Ihe Ihealer ill gelleral. bill In mv perceplioll Ihal all o/Ihe lIlonth:- "i1r1i,,1' al tilt' \\'hitrH'\ \lll."""Utll of·\IIl"I"it'an :\rl ill \c\,,,' )illl. That t·,hibition
\\a~ Ilot dt'~i!!rlt'd 10 'rd\t·L lIordid it w('t·in· hllld iII!! fromllw .\alional EndowIJwllt for
argllmenls Iwillg lIulIlej(Jr plillillg hlilldnl 011 Ihe SfA co1i1d Ih,-\,.I"
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 03:08 10 January 2015

also be mw/{' wilh reK!Lrd 10 Ihe lllli I '!'rSilv as a whole. llsi IIg as 2. I'n':-':-' n·I'·ibt· i.. . :-.lWd !I\ lIlt' <:OI"('orali LalllT\ of Art. .lUIit' U. (t)Ht).
:L "\0111' oftlw fund . . . atllhorizt·d to Ill' dpproprialt'd pursuant 10 this Ad may Iw lI~t,d
76 leveraKe Ihe ,/i'deral ./illallcial aid proP'WIlS alld research 10 prollloll'. c1i . . . . . t·lllillatt·. or prOdllt'('-11 o!lSt·t·/It· or illdc('t·lllmatt·riaL..... jrwiudilll-! hut
.Ilipporl on which lllliversili"s have COI/U' 10 depelld.lrlhe let Jllll lifllitt·d to depil"liolb of ~adorna:-'tJ("hi:-.rn. horllo-t·rotit'i:-.m. Ilw exploitation of
childwJI or indi\ idllill:-. 1'IIf!ill!:t'd ill :-.t·\ at'l:-.: or 21 material whi('h dellip·att>s tilt'
coliid be excllul{'dfromfederal,lllpporljiJr Ira IIsgT't'ssi IIg SOI/Ii'-
ohWt'h or Iwlit·f~ of tht· adllt'n'nls of a particular rclif!ioll or 1I0n-rt'lif!ion: or 31
on,,\ 1I0lioll 0/ whal is obscelle. cOlild nol olht'l' parl,l {!r Ihe rnalt'rial which dt·ni!-!T'l!t·:-.. dehd:-.t·",. or 1"I·\iks a fwrsoll. f!rollp. or ('Ia:-.:-. of t'itizt'n~ on
(II. H. 2~KX. as
/lflil'ersilr be held ho,llaK!' 10 C{)/lgress~1 1I0lioll 01'11'1/111 sholild ,lit' ha:-.is of ratT. nt't·c!. SI·X. htilldic·ap. a!!(·. or natiollal orif!irt
pa:-:.:-.t·d 11\ till' ~t·rlillt· 011 .lilly 2b. JlmqJ.
be ,Ieen alUl heard 011 a lllliversit\, CWllpll.I:~ 1-. l' nell'r Iiollst' ,\IIlt'lldllH'1l1 \0. 1.-)210 till' 19H9 Con/i'rellf'(' Ht'l)ort Oil Iht' Appropria-
llll,,-' Ihlljiw fhl' IJI'IJ(lrfl1WII! t{,IU' 'fltl'r/or (11/(1 HI·/oln/·tflf·fU·/f·.,. "\O(U' of Iht' fllnd~
ICA's affiliation with the University of 1't'l1nsYhania alJlhorizt'c1 to Ill' approprialed /Cl!' dlt' \atiollal ElldO\\lIlt'nl tor tilt' :\rls or lilt' \alional
ElldOWflH'llt I'llI'll\(' 1IlIlIlallilit':-' lllay lit' ItSI'd 10 pnllllolt·, di . . . . . t·minalt·. or produce
probahly gave us greater nedibility. both locally and nati(lII-
rnatt·rial:-. \"hich in tilt' ,iwll!llIent of lilt' \alional Elldo\\llu'lll lC)r tht· :\rls or the
ally, during the controversy than we would have elljowd if Wt' \alional I-:ndO\\IfH'1J1 Ill!' tilt' 1llJlIlaflitit's lIla\ lit· l·on:-.idt·red o!l:-.tTm·. incilltlilll-! but
were an independent organization-although lllall\ of our 1I0t Iilllili't1lo dqliC'\ 101l~ of sadornaso("h ism. hO/ilo-t'rot ici";lll. tlll' :-'l',\lal t'xploil<-ltiorJ of
childrl'n. or indi\ idual:-. t·lIl!al!l·d ill :-.,.\. ads and which. \\Ilt'li takl'tI a . . . a wholt·. do not
colleagues and constituents in the art ('ommunitv and mu- !lil\(' ~t'l"iOllS litt·rary. arli"ilil'. political or . . . (·il'tltific \'ahlt':·lrwllult·d in Huusl' :\mend-
selllll world mav still be unaware of our direct ('onl1t,(,tion to IIIt'tlt \jo. I1-J 10 llw lInN bill was the :-'Iipulation ··That !lot 11':-':-' than thirty day..; prior to
thl' a\\-anl of allY dinTt p'ant III the :-iolll!Jt·a.. . krn (~entf'r till· (:olllt'rnporary Art
the university. (~ECL'\I ill \\'ilislolI-~,dt·m. \01',11 Carolina. or fcn·the I n:-.tituIl' ofCOIlh'lllporary ,Arl
The legislators who drafted the original statute autho- at tlH' l 'niyt'l".. . it\ ofl'l"III1~\Iv'lIlia. tht' \ational Endowr!wllt Ic/r thc Arts shall "iubmitlo
Iht· (:orllrnitlt,(,s on Approprial i~ 111:-' of ll\l' 11011.. . '· drHI ~I'Tlalt· a 110t ifit'aliun of ils intt'nt 10
rizing the estahlishment of the NEA and NEll in 19(1;)
makt' :-'ll("h an award: That said notification shall delint'alt' tilt' purposl'''i of Ih,· award
recognized that the issue of freedom of expression could 1)(' which i:-. propo.. . ed to Ill' madt' <IIHI lilt' . . . ,l('('ifi(· crill'ria IIS(,eI hy Iht· EndO\\Ilwnt to
jlbtih s(·I('('tioll of :-.aid award" 11'1. 101 ~ 1211-
called into question when f(~den!1 tax dollars WI'l'!' allocated
;"). Kim \1a.. . tt'r:-.. "\jE,-\ :\dYi"it,r... . l\.ilI2 Cranl:-.. I>t·li·r lH:' H;l.,hifl{!fon /'o.';!. \la~'I,L
for the arts. and they attacked the issue Iwad-on: \1)1)0. HI. (). TIlt' n·jt·C'\t·d )!ranl:-. wen' /Cll· all alillual serif'S of :-.mall solo t·,lJibilions.
tidt·d ,·lll\t·.. . li)!atioll~ ..· Ihat had !Wt'lI fUlldt·d con:-.i:-.tt·ntly h~ tht' \1-::\ ..;illt"(· ib
It is Ihe inlenl o/Ihe commillee Ihal in Ihe admillislralion or illl"t'!ll ion ill IlHU: alld a I'd ro:-.pt·(·1 i\(' t',1t ihit iOIl of t lit' work of \' ija (:t·!llIiIlS. all arli:.;1
11(':-.1 known for Ilwlil"1l1tlll.'" painlill,!.!;s. drawill./!s. and prints of tilt' lWt·all. sky. and
Ihis acllhere be gil-en Ihe/ii/lest allellliolllo/reer/OIIl o/arlistic
t·arth. withonl any ii\t'lltifiahk :-.t·xllal or political ('olllt·nl. TIlt' Ihird grail!. which Wit:.;
and hlil/Wllislic expression. One o/Ihe arlisl\ and Ihe hli/l/wI- 1I0t qllt·sliorwd. was tell' a tlwrnatic I!nnlp t'xhihition (it!t·d ··Inlt'l"iwtion:-..·· f(H'llsillj;! Oil
1"1'('('111 i"ollahor,ltiofls Iwl\\('el\ the \isual ;11lt! pn/cII·mill)! arl:-..
isl\ Kreal I'allies to socit'll' is the mirror o/selrexwllinalioll
(). Jalllt'~ Fitzpatrick. a pal'l lit'!" in tilt' law finn :\l"I1old and Porter. a:-'lluo\t'd ill a pr{'~s
which Iher raise so thai socil't)' CWI hecol/U' (J/('(/re 0/ ils rt'lt·a:-.(' i~~llt'd hy tilt' \\'a:-.hill)!totl Pro,it'('1 tc,,' tilt' Arh . .Iww I.). )l)g<).
shorlcomingl as well as il.l slrellglhs.1\ ~. ~Iwldotl ILll'kllt'~. "Thl' \F:\ lilldt'l",\tlack: t{t·:-.istinf! tilt' Big (:hill.·· :\r-adt'nU'
LJllh'~:\II~II . . . 1 P)()()l: 1,)-,1(1. The jt)t)() \\011' Trap Cordi'n'Tll'c on :\cadt'mit" Freedom
and-\rlislic F'pn'ssiofl. Ilf'ld in \·iplllJa. \'irginia. fmlll April2910 :\lay L }t)9(). wa:.;
leA was f(llInded at the University. of Pennsvi vania in 1963 as
,
sponsored hy Ilw AlIltTii"iln :\ . . . :-.ocialion of l 'ni\n:-.ily Profi·:-.:-.or:-.. tilt' :\.......;twialion of
a f(Jrlllll ftl!' the presentation and documentation of innoyatiw (;O\t'!"ni Il)! Hoard:.; of lni \('rsil it's and (:ollq.,:c:-.. tilt' Anlt'ri('an (:OIIlWi I on Educalion.

art of the present and recent past, and it remains true to that and tilt' \\olf Trap Foundation,
H. St'nall' Htllort \0.300. :-'llIJlllillt'd Ily :-it'nalnl" (:laihonH' Pc·IL Commith't· nn Labor
mission today. Although showing ('ontemporarv art mav in- and 1Illl1lal1 Ht·SOllrCt·s. to at·t·ornpaIlY ~.I ~B3. Tht' \fE:\ wa . . . t':-.lahli . . . lwd llnder Ihe
volve risk and oflt'n inspires controversv, ICA has no inten- ,~<Jlionill FOlllld"Iioll "" I'lt' :\rh and Jl1l111<1IIi'it·.. . Ad of jtH>.-) (}~ L H9-20<h

tion of ehanging its exhibition policv or procedures because J t III 'I' It '1'.\ '\" I,: '\ IL\ l \1 i.1 as,wciale direclor alld sellior
of the Mappldhorpe eonflagration. cllralor oj'lhe 1/l,~lillile oj'ColllellIporarv 41'1. ('lIil't'l'sit~ oj'
Will recent political events change the way in which 1)t'lIl1s\!mllia. 111'1' rect'lll pmiel'lS inrllule Ihe exhibilioll
llluseUlllS define their roles and responsihilities in tht, future ""llIle/'{/l'IiOlls: Collahoratio/l,1 ill Ihe !'isllal alld I)erji)/'/Ilill{:
so that, consequently, they alter their programs and 01H'n!- :I Us:'

WINTER 1991