PressEthic

In the late '80s, Andres Serrano displayed a crucifix in a vat of urine and called it art (actually he called it "Piss Christ"), and its exhibtion raised hell from here to Australia. Galleries refused to display it, and the U.S. government bemoaned its own hand in "Piss Christ's" creation: a $15,000 grant to Serrano from the National Endowment for the Arts. Other institutions, like the Whitney here in New York, exhibited Serrano's work despite strong protests.

I have seen this incident compared to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's publication of cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed, and I think those who try to force both issues into the same category are missing some major points.

The Danish cartoons are an expression of pure anti-Semitism. Their racist imagery--a heavy-browed Arab with a bomb on his head or a man with horns jutting from his turban--is remensicent of WW II-era depictions of Jews with green skin and enormous noses. And the cartoons were published in a newspaper, not displayed in a gallery. If there is an argument that the two media are different, a discussion of the places of iconoclasm and respectfulness can follow.

But a new incident, which comes close on the heels of the cartoon issue, brings the debate back from news media into art. A German opera compnay has cancelled a production of a Mozart opera because its staging involved the display of Mohammed's severed head. The article in the L.A. Time says that Jesus and Budda are also ceremoniously decapitated in the show.

A journalist will naturally be concerned with the right to freedom of expression, freedom from censorship. It's the most basic requirement for successful communication. Journalists have a responsibility to protect each others' rights in this regard: to speak out against censorship in their own field and in others. But those who strive to be objective must also stay away from polemics and hate speech.

I believe art like "Piss Christ" or an irreverently interpreted opera is necessary and untouchable. It is meant to be offensive, to hold a mirror to different parts of society, to challenge too-well established ideas of belief and propriety. Newspapers serve a different function. Though they contain art, its dialogue with readers is one of observation that does not so much challenge as clarify existing realities. The Danish cartoons were displayed in the context of irony meant to resemble truth, not flamboyance meant to raise questions about the truth. They are therefore not provocative in a productive way; instead they celebrate mindless sterotypes.

In the spirit of unfortunate generalizations, Europe's bad rap just got a notch worse, but not in terms of propensity for hate speech. This time, it's back to old-fashioned artistic censorship.