Starting today, as part of the Year in Art Effort, every week Washington Project for The Arts and BYT will come together to give you a tidbit of the (some may say surprisingly?) colorful DC Art History. Be ready to be a cocktail party conversation star:
Ever been told you couldn’t do something and it only made you want to do it more? That’s what happened when “The Perfect Moment: Robert Mapplethorpe Photographs” exhibition was canceled at the Corcoran Gallery of Art a month before it was supposed to debut in June 1989.
Mapplethorpe’s collection of photographs included images of homosexuality, sadomasochism, nudity and of children in erotic positions. For the late 80’s, it was a groundbreaking exhibit that pushed the boundaries of social norms, but it also enraged conservative lawmakers in DC. The outraged contigent included congressmen who were in control of the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, which sponsored the Corcoran Gallery of Art.
Corcoran officials said the cancellation of Mapplethorpe's show was because they did not want to jeopardize the NEA’s congressional funding. (excuses!)
DC area artists and supporters were outraged at this uncalled for censorship. So the Washington Project for the Arts banded together along with private contributors and brought the Mapplethorpe exhibition to DC.
Not only was the show phenomenal, but the crowds that poured out of their homes to see it were record breaking. From July 21 – August 13, 1989, 35,000 visitors experienced the show. This is a standing record for the Washington Project for the Arts. All of the visitors had opinions about the show being canceled at the Corcoran and why lawmakers should keep to themselves.
video courtesy of Linda Lewett, ARTtv LLC
The combination of outpouring support for Mapplethorpe’s exhibit and the outrage at the censorship inspired a rally outside of the Corcoran Gallery of Art. The photographs from Mapplethorpe’s show were projected onto the exterior of the Corcoran Gallery of Art, while gay rights activities, civil liberty activist and artists picketed outside the Corcoran.
[caption id="attachment_56705" align="alignnone" width="570" caption="image courtesy of ArtForum"]
[/caption]
Washington Project for the Arts is celebrating it's 35th Birthday this Year. Learn more here: http://www.wpadc.org/
Want more art updates? sign up for our “Year in Art 2010″ newsletter
God loves a cheerful giver.
This series is going to be so good.
What is interesting is that while the NEA was funding the Corcoran on some projects, they weren't on this particular exhibit. It was a touring exhibit and it had run in other areas, sometimes with NEA funding, without any problems. I think it was basically someone at Corcoran freaking out that Jesse Helms was gonna make a big stink over it cause he already had his panties in a wad over Serrano's Piss Christ. I never knew about the subsequent DIY event, so cool! Great article!
The outcry of censorship over this thing is a straw man perpetuated by the WPA for publicity which they've been milking since the event happened. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the art community wanting to have it both ways with being given taxpayer money without any government oversight. Helms wouldn't know good photography if it slapped him in the face, but it is the public which gave the NEA and the federal government the ability to exercise aesthetic judgement in the first place. The WPA exploited the situation for a large turnout of of mostly rubberneckers, Helms exploited the situation to publicly assert his moral beliefs. The only innocent figure in all of it is the photographer himself and the work.
Adult pram wrote: "...it is the public which gave the NEA and the federal government the ability to exercise aesthetic judgement in the first place."
What do you cite to suggest that both the NEA and the federal gov't were charged with exercising "aesthetic judgement"? Do you have anything from legislative language, mission statements, congressional charter(s) or other information that would suggest some dual role for the NEA *and* "the federal government" (which would have included then-Sen. Helms) in exercising aesthetic judgement?
Below is a link to the NEA's founding legislation. I may be missing something, but I see nothing that supports the above assertion. I do see language about works that exhibit skill, merit, are of "substantial national or international artistic and cultural significance," etc., and even more language about freedom of thought and expression, and reflecting every walk of life.
forgot to provide the link:
http://www.nea.gov/about/Legislation/Legislation.pdf
It's scary for me to imagine what art guided by "government oversight" and the "aesthetic judgment" of the federal government looks like.