Murals in federal building spark debate over censorship

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON - A quarrel over public art and political correctness has been simmering for a decade inside - of all places - the Environmental Protection Agency......

The mural that's sparking the most debate depicts Indians brutally scalping and murdering white settlers. All the women are naked, including one who's on all fours as a male Indian stands behind her, seizing her hair.....

Critics also have singled out several other murals, including two by Wichita, Kan., artist Ward Lockwood, as either historically inaccurate or promoting offensive stereotypes. They want them removed.

"It's the basic stereotype of native people as being violent savages," said Richard Regan, a former EPA employee who was among the murals' early opponents. "It reinforces the stereotype for people who may not know that much about native culture."
...
"As a person who believes in art without censorship from the right or left, I don't feel they should take it down," said Kay Wisnia, the art curator for Western history at the Denver Public Library, which held a show of Mechau's work last year. "It's part of the heritage of the country."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15254094.htm

I don't see how the censorship argument is relevant when determining what's appropriate for permanent display in a public space. Perhaps for balance, a mural of US soldiers committing atrocities against American Indians, also a "part of the heritage of the country" should be considered.

[sgxnk]

1. i totally agree

a common misuse of the concept of censorship

illegal censorship, and the one we should be concerned about is when govt. prevents people from, or criminalizes the act of, expressing ideas, etc.

iow, if the govt. told mural guy that he couldn't MAKE this offenseive mural

clearly, exercising discretion over what artwork is publically displayed in a PUBLIC building is another matter entirely

what if the mural depicted bloodthirsty jews eating gentile babies (the classic anti-semitic myth)

or artwork that glorified the nazis

or artwork the glorified the KKK

etc.

[Jim__]

2. Should art be relegated to art galleries?

I agree that from the description of these paintings, they are offensive. However, my understanding from reading the article is that these paintings have been hanging there since the 30s. Can a work of art lose its meaning?

My guess is that the scenes depicted probably have some accuracy. White settlers and Native Americans did fight a genocidal war. The "other side" of these pictures also reflect a reality - the side of US soldiers slaughtering Native American women and children. At the time the paintings were made, my guess is that what is depicted was the common understanding - "Indians" were savages who murdered innocent people. Our understanding of that has changed significantly. However, the "Indians" were slaughtered for their savagery, and the people doing that slaughtering couldn't see their own savagery in the slaughter. I think there is still a message in the paintings, probably a different one than the artist intended. But, I always believe that the artist has no control over the message his art sends. I think we can still learn a lot from these paintings.

But, the paintings are offensive. I think most good art is offensive. Should we ban art from the workplace? Maybe. We could all be protected from uncomfortable thoughts. Anyone choosing to view art could go to an "art place" and see whatever they wanted. We wouldn't be censoring art. We'd just be protecting people from unpleasant thoughts.