Hmmmm... This is an interesting one.

Photographer Larry Fink's exhibit at Lehigh University has sparked some challenging discussions and predictable, immediate disapproval.

The photos in his clearly anti-Conservative show lookalikes of famous political figures--including President Bush--in flashy and morally surreal settings. The artist's own commentary includes phrases such as "fundamentalist neoconservative conspiracy."

And, protests have already begun. It's likely to become Mapplethorpe, Revisited.

The pictures are certainly parody. And, in my opinion, they are clearly art. But, what I'm concerned about is the focus of the ensuing debate:

What may get lost here is the venue question. I think that I'm in agreement with the argument that this exhibit belonged in an art gallery, not in the building that houses the Poli Sci department... which should remain an open and unbiased forum to distinguish education from indoctrination.

But then again... does the exhibit imply endorsement of the artist's politics? Are we taking ourselves so seriously that we have to provide "equal time" (or at least equal space) to all views of an issue, rather than display art that shines the light--albeit literally and very harsh in this case--on just one opinion?

I guess that, this morning, I'm asking myself if maybe the Poli Sci department is exactly the venue for this kind of controversy, because it will spark the kind of discussion best held in an academic setting, where people can learn from the debate.

I mean, how would I feel if the display was a timeline of political cartoons from the newspapers? And, what about the Poli Sci section of the college library... Don't we include books by both Michael Savage and Al Franken, et al, so that all voices are heard? Is it okay to include scathing and satirical books because they're (literally) less "in your face" than 4' x 4' photos?

But... is this kind of art/display polarizing enough that, in a college setting, no productive discussion will be possible? Does this kind of debate belong in a salon, instead... or... where?

I'm not sure.

My focus is not so much on the message in the photos, as this: What is the correct venue for scathing messages (particularly political and religious) that are presented as art...? And, is any venue fair game when it sparks healthy discussion? Or, on topics such as this, is "healthy discussion" as much an oxymoron as "constructive criticism"?

I mean, particularly with the ongoing political campaigns, is anyone likely to change his or her mind about the issues or the political parties? I think that most people have already made up their minds that it's either Bush all the way, or--as NPR keeps calling the other side, "Anyone but Bush."

Again, I'm not interested in debating election issues or candidates.

What I am interested in exploring is what venue is appropriate when art includes a message that will clearly offend and antagonize a significant segment of the population. And, is there any merit in that? Will this exhibit--and the related debate--result in anything positive?

I don't know; did we learn anything from the Mapplethorpe debate...? Did that result in a more open forum for art-with-a-message, or did it result in less arts funding and more censorship?

My own opinions are starting to take shape. But, I still don't know what the best answers are.

back to today's diary