Censorship of the Arts in Private Institutions

I was recently asked my position on censorship in the arts and decided to write a series on this major issue. There are several complex levels that affect this issue including public perception, perceived Christian values, personal impressions, creative license, societal decency, personal expression, and financial support for the arts. As a college administrator in the arts it often comes to my attention and even my decision to allow or disallow questionable language, events, scenes, or images. Fortunately, in the traditional music curriculum, censorship rarely rears its ugly head, but at the same time, we as musicians need to be aware of the higher implications of censorship as we continue to progress in quality and creativity. This issue does, however, directly affect visual and theater arts.

How do I (we) make these decisions? Are there specific criteria that help us determine right from wrong or offensive from acceptable? Do we often find ourselves in the Supreme Court decision that says, “I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it.”? It is easy as a Christian to rely on scripture for our definition of cultural morality, but unfortunately scripture does not always give us a recipe for goodness. God has apparently given us a free will to an extent to make our own decisions and determine our daily moral behavior. In reality we have two external documents that give us guidance as we make these decisions—one is the Bible and the other is the law. In many instances, the rules are the same. For example, scripture says do not kill and so does the law. But scripture does not say do not paint nudes. The law does not say do not paint nudes. Yet, as Christians we are uncomfortable in the presence of art that emphasizes nudity. So our decision is based partly on societal norms and partly on our own prescription and definition of right and wrong. This then makes the decision wildly subjective and reliant on assumptions, feelings, and reactions.

Having read several articles on the ratings system in Hollywood, I remain convinced that it is very difficult to apply objective mandates on what is ultimately human reaction. For me, personally, I am generally more offended by violent images than I am relationship themes or language, although I do sometimes find undue emphasis being placed on sexuality in the arts. I also wonder if we have become somewhat desensitized to the use of profanity in films. I do expect always to be offended by profanity in one form or another. On the other hand, as a parent, I enjoy protecting my children from all worldly content whenever possible, but as an academic dean, I want to be true to the discipline of the arts and honor the creative license of the artist. In truth, I have yet to meet someone entirely consistent on this issue. Each of us approaches morality in slightly different ways and each person draws the line in the sand so to speak in a different spot. I would refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system.

As a musical artist myself, I want the rights to interpret music according to my own training, knowledge, and personal expression. Furthermore, as a composer, I enjoy composing music that is in my heart and in my thoughts. It is my opportunity to create without having to answer to anyone or without the typical restrictions imposed by leaders. Writing music is my chance to create that which is within me. An artist should have a right to create the art that exists in his imagination without fear of reprisal. Yet if an artist's rights interfere with another person's right not to experience or see the work, then rights have been violated. In this respect, it is the reaction of other person which determines the objectionable content.

Since there seems to be no clear cut solution to the issue of what is acceptable and what is not, it stands to reasons to look to a council comprised of people seeking truth. If in fact there are difficult decisions to be made, I believe the wisdom of many can often determine objectionable content in a sort of representational way similar to how our government ideally operates (a frightening thought for sure!). According to Emmanuel Kant, the combined opinions of experts in a particular field provide enough evidence to support a particular view. To that end, I am first going to seek scriptural support for any censoring of artistic materials, secondly, look to the law for governance, and finally build consensus through the council of several. It is my goal to create, honor, and support the arts in a wide variety of media, but it is also my goal never to offend anyone as we continue to expound and express the powerful emotions that surround all the arts. Is this too lofty of an expectation? Perhaps, but is it also worth the effort? A resounding yes!