Censorship in the art world has sparked enormous debate, as it navigates the delicate balance between freedom of expression and cultural sensitivities. Internationally, art has long served as a reflection of human expression and cultural evolution; however, the clash between creative freedom and societal norms often ends in contentious debates and prison challenges. This article analyzes recent cases of art censorship in various forms.
Many have viewed recent museum censorship actions against well-known artists’ works or shows as evidence of political correctness and with complete disregard for the merit of the artworks. [1] [1] Recently, works by 19 th and 20th-century painters were judged by institutions and were taken down from exhibitions.
For instance, the Manchester Art Gallery removed John William Waterhouse´s Hylas and the Nymphs (1896) due to its nudity and portrayal of an erotic Victorian fantasy. However, the Gallery´s purpose for this was to “prompt conversation;” they asked the audience about their opinion on how this artwork should be interpreted. [2] Visitors then read this commentary on notes, which were attached to the place formerly reserved for Waterhouse’s painting. [3]
Additionally, one of the most recent cases of censorship occurred last March 2023. Hope Carrasquilla, a former principal at Tallahassee Classical School in Florida, was fired for presenting Michelangelo’s David in her art class. [4] Several parents complained about the nudity of the sculpture and did not agree with presenting such artwork to their children. As a result, the former Tallahassee principal was forced to resign. Other examples of “controversial” artworks containing nude bodies shown in the Renaissance art class include The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo and Botticelli´s Birth of Venus. [5] According to the case, a letter should have been sent out to the parents detailing what was going to be shown in the classroom. Carrasquilla stated that she assumed the letter went out and didn’t follow up. Even though many parents defined the sculpture as “pornographic” and thus inappropriate, there were others who did not think so. Similarly, Florida´s Department of Education declared that the David sculpture has artistic and historical value. [6]
After the news of this Florida censorship case came out, many were outraged and shocked. In particular, Italian politicians complained about the incident. The country´s deputy premier Matteo Salvini stated in a tweet that “obscuring and erasing history, art, and culture for girls and boys is absolutely crazy and there is nothing correct about it.” [7] The Florence mayor Dario Nardella also took it a step further and invited Carrasquilla to Florence to give her recognition. The Director of the Galleria dell´Accademia Cecilie Hollberg gave the teacher a tour around the gallery, as well, so she could admire and see the sculpture in real life. Hollberg later stated, “To think that David could be pornographic means truly not understanding the contents of the Bible, not understanding Western culture, and not understanding Renaissance art.” [8]
This dismissal raised the question of the depiction of nudity in artwork and whether it has instructional relevance and also demonstrated the implications of censorship in art schooling. [9] This makes us wonder what the limits on censorship are. Most of the classical sculptures that portray topics like history and myths have some sort of nudity. Will this part of history be erased and forgotten?
Nudity in art is not the only theme facing censorship. Another case of censorship of artworks in the educational system occurred at Hamline University, a private liberal arts college in St. Paul. In 2022, a professor was terminated for showing several artworks depicting the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class. [10] The controversial dismissal stemmed from non-secular sensitivities, with opponents arguing that such depictions were blasphemous and offensive. The First Amendment of the American Constitution protects freedom of expression, however, it also recognizes that positive speech might also incite harm or disrupt societal concord. [11]
This case has raised important questions about censorship within the art world and the principle of academic freedom. While using such an image can have pedagogical value in certain courses, displaying an image of Muhammad can be deeply offensive to many individuals for religious reasons. [12] By firing the professor, Hamline University disregarded the mandate from the Higher Learning Commission, which requires accredited institutions to uphold academic freedom. [13] The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) expressed concerns about this incident, they called for the professor’s reinstatement and have filed a formal complaint with Hamline’s accrediting body, citing the college’s failure to support faculty in their pursuit of educational freedom. [14] Many of the supporters of the professor argue that labelling the depiction as Islamophobic is inaccurate and diverts attention from genuine instances of hatred. They contend that the university’s response to the incident, which appears to prioritize appeasing a minority organization over defending academic freedom, has led to significant grievances within the community. This situation underscores the ongoing debate over how to balance academic freedom with sensitivity to religious beliefs and cultural sensitivities, posing a challenge for institutions of higher learning.
This incident prompts us to contemplate a series of important questions within the context of a liberal arts community. Specifically, it raises inquiries regarding the appropriateness of engaging in a comprehensive examination of certain subjects and whether a professor of art history should feel comfortable sharing substantial artworks with students without concerns about potential consequences, such as termination, stemming from objections raised by other students or external parties. Furthermore, it is crucial to mention that many of the artworks that were shown in this situation were created by Muslim artists with the explicit intention of resonating with a Muslim audience. These artistic expressions were born out of a deep sense of admiration and reverence for figures such as Muhammad and the Quran; they were not intended to be provocative or offensive in any way. However, what is notable is the stark contrast between this artistic intent and the characterization of these depictions by certain Hamline administrators; as they have labelled these Islamic portrayals of Muhammad as exhibiting traits of hate, intolerance, and Islamophobia, raising the question of whether this interpretation aligns with the intended message of the artists and the principles of academic freedom that liberal arts institutions hold dear. This juxtaposition of artistic intent and administrative perspective underscores the complexity of navigating sensitive cultural and religious subjects in an educational setting. [15]
All of these cases show us how critical their historical context is when comparing the legality of such censorship. Many artistic endeavours throughout history, especially from the Renaissance period, consist of nudity. Censoring those portions risks erasing an integral part of artwork records. Courts may not forget whether the paintings’ nudity serves a valid creative or instructional reason, and whether or not it qualifies as obscenity beneath the regulation. Additionally, institutions can be pressured to balance cultural sensitivities and the necessity of offering art in its ancient and inventive context.
Censorship inside the art world presents complicated demanding situations, intersecting with First Amendment rights, educational freedom, cultural sensitivity, and historical renovation. In both instances examined, courts ought to examine the quantity to which creative expression aligns with societal norms and values. It is vital to shield the academic cost of artwork, even if it every now and then conflicts with installed norms.
These cases underscore the necessity of open communication between instructional establishments, college students, artists, and groups. The regulation needs to provide a framework that encourages discussion and debate while respecting diverse perspectives. By doing so, we are able to ensure that art, as a reflection of human creativity and cultural evolution, enhances our society without compromising the essential concepts of freedom and respect.
Disclaimer: This and all articles are intended as general information, not legal advice, and offer no substitution for seeking representation.
Esther Neville (Summer 2023 legal intern at the Center for Art Law) is finishing her European Law Bachelor at Maastricht University, with a minor in Art, Law and Policy Making. She wishes to combine her academics with her passion for the arts. She works on the Anti-Money Laundering Study Project at the Center.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek an attorney.
