Art As An Obscenity

Art Crime has become the encircling phrase used by law enforcement and art crime scholars to classify the field of inquiry involving crimes against art and cultural property. According to recent data from the FBI Art Crime Division, the $66 billion global art market is estimated to lose $8 billion annually to art crimes involving theft, looting, fraud, and trafficking— surpassed only by the drug and gun trafficking trades (FBI). Recent studies have confirmed that many insurgent groups and terrorists organizations—ISIS and Al-Qaeda—are funding their wars through the sales and trade of art and cultural objects. (Haken, National Geographic). When you mix art with criminal trafficking and the underworld associations of the black market, a clear picture of trouble fills the canvas.

What is pornography? According to the dictionary pornography means “Obscene writings, drawings, photographs”. Yet, many people disagree with what is consider to be pornography in society today. Susan Brownmiller is a feminist activist who wrote an essay “ Lets Put Pornography Back in the Closet” argues that pornography should be not be protect by the 1st Amendment or be allowed into society. Meanwhile, Susan Jacoby a writer of “ A First Amendment Junkie” disagrees with Brownmiller because she believes that it’s everyone’s right and that society should not be able to censor pornography. Should society let the government censor pornography just because we may not approve this type of act. I agree with both of the writer’s that pornography should

b. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.

Sally Mann’s child photography should not be censored due to other people’s views or distaste for her child photography. She has the right to express her love for her children and herself through the arts. As a mother, she experienced a significant amount of backlash which is a common narrative in current society. By censoring her form of expression of her kids, we are restricting the mother’s right over her children. As a matter of fact, a large negative criticism of Sally Mann’s photos is that many consider her child photography to be obscene when in fact it is not obscene. According to a court case called Miller vs. California, art is only considered obscene if it meets all of the following criteria: 1) the average person finds the art lustful with prurient interest, 2) the art is offensive and displays any sexual conduct that is defined by the state law, and 3) the art lacks artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. Sally Mann’s child photography does not meet the criteria since the average person does not find her work to be salacious, the art displays no sexual conduct or penetration in any form, and her work lacks no artistic value. In fact, her art displayed a significant amount of artistic value due to the controversy and her way of challenging the hegemonic ideals of society. Thus, her work should not be censored because it is not considered obscene in the state law.

Under Miller v. California (1973) in order for material to be found obscene by a court of law, the material must appeal to the prurient interest, as judged against local community standards. The material must also depict or describe sexual conduct (as defined by applicable state law) in a "patently offensive" or "indecent" way and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. These standards apply equally in the context of the Internet as they do in ordinary books and magazines. Where material is found to be obscene, the First Amendment does not apply. This decision

To begin with, there are three types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, libel, and slander. Obscenity is "anything which depraves or corrupts minds open to immoral influence" (Freedom of Speech, 2003). Despite the fact that the definition of obscenity has changed throughout the years, Congress, in general, has reached a consensus in determining that obscenity covers anything that is directed towards or involves youths, including child pornography. For example, in 1949, the Supreme Court upheld, in Rosenberg v. Board of Education of City of New York, that the Board of Education did not have the right to ban schools from carrying books such as Oliver Twist and The

At the end of the hearing on June 21st, 1973, the court ruled that while obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, various states have different regulations for the sale and distribution of certain material. The state of California has regulations and criteria for this form of expression, but it is a lot of steps to go through to get the

“Obscene: so excessive as to be offensive” (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). This is the way the Webster dictionary defines obscene. How do you? Some say obscene is vulgar; others say the best way to describe obscene is through disgust. No matter how it is thought of, obscene material is everywhere in society. Television is becoming more liberal, magazines are less edited, and music is more abrasive. At some point, the public must put its foot down and demand censorship in order to keep decency in the world.

     Today, in the 1990's, citizens in our society are being bombarded with obscene material from every direction. From the hate lyrics of Gun's 'N Roses to the satanic lyrics of Montley Crue and Marilyn Manson to the sexually explicit graphical content of today's movies, the issue is how much society is going to permit and where we, as a society, should we draw the line. The freedom of speech has always been considered a right, but that doesn't mean that you can shout, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The real question is whether such material is harmful or dangerous to our society.

The main issue at hand is whether or nor obscenity is considered speech and if so is it protected speech under the Constitution. I must wager that obscenity is and indeed should be considered speech for the purposes of the Supreme Court in First Amendment matters. As to if it is or should be protected by the constitution is a more difficult question. I believe that a test of reasonableness is sufficient to govern this topic by members of the court. If there is legitimate purpose for material no matter what facilitates its dissemination then there is a compulsory reason for constitutional protection. If not and the main cause of material is to inflict injury on any party including society there is no compelling reason to afford such speech any constitutional protection.

If not, how does the court judge what is considered too obscene to be protected and what is not?

Throughout history, the issue of appropriation in art has become a heated debate on whether it is good or whether it is bad. Appropriation is fundamentally the act of taking something from somewhere else and placing it into a new context. In art, appropriation is seen as using (or taking) someone else's artwork, manipulating it and ultimately changing the whole meaning behind the work. It is seen as a significant issue as many people (including art critics, art historians and art enthusiasts) see appropriation as whilst, others see it as being inappropriate and immoral, and see the growth in appropriation as being a destroyer of art. It is of the opinion that art indeed "feeds off itself" and every artwork, art movement, and art period is

Art is entirely subjective, there is no medium that should be censored because, artist should be able to create with no restrictions, America is not a dictatorship, and families should decide what’s appropriate for their homes.

According to the1973 case of Miller v. California, material is obscene if all three of the following conditions are met:

Art is supposed for expressing feeling and the visualizing the feeling or thoughts of the artists. Censorship is the suppression of content, which is defined as harmful, politically incorrect or sensitive by the authority (cited in Merriam, n.d.). Art and censorship have been connected for a long period of time together. In the recent society, the censorship on artworks is one of the most severe issues when it comes to censorship and the problem happens internationally. Since every individual has the right to define what is acceptable for him/her or not, instead of the government or others, Art should not be censored. The censorship on Art may influence the freedom of Creativity‬ of the artist; the right of the general public to view different topics of artworks and censorship on political Art may affect the human rights and freedom of speech.