Abstract “Censorship of the arts” consists of a brief look into the art industry and how governments are attempting to control what artists release. There are several high profile cases referenced within this paper, one involving AMTRAK and a refused billboard. Also referenced is a situation which involves an artist painting abstract and grotesque pictures involving deformities. Closing out this paper is how art is able to bring people of different backgrounds and cultures together.

Censorship of the Arts Art is present in every aspect of modern life. It is there when we turn on the T.V. and watch our favorite program or see a commercial, when we drive past a billboard, and it’s even there when we make our morning breakfast. Art is a major part of our society, but it has been under attack by censorship since its first conception. Censorship of the arts is unconstitutional, limits creativity, and stifles diversity, but is sometimes needed. Censoring art is unconstitutional because art, at its core, is an expression of oneself or an idea, and in essence the same as a verbal statement. In the case Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK refused to display a billboard ad by Michael Lebron in New York City’s Penn Station. The ad used Coors ad slogan “Right Beer” against it, asking the question “Is it the Right’s Beer Now?” The billboard pictures the usual, happy beer drinkers’ right next to a Nicaraguan village where villagers are being terrified by a can of Coors flying at them like a missile. Mr. Lebron designed this ad due to the Coors family support of right-wing causes, including the Contras in Nicaragua. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Lebron because AMTRAK was partially run by the U.S. Government and subject to adhere to the constitution (“Art on Trial,” 2005). In the previously mentioned example, if the billboard in question had attempted to be placed in a privately owned train station, there would be nothing that could be done. The Constitution only limits government censorship, not private censorship. As in the previous example, art is capable of getting information out there that would otherwise go unnoticed. Limiting creativity is the creator’s worst enemy. In some senses, limiting a topic is like taking away the artists tools. In other cases, it may be welcome and needed to keep some perverse topics/art from being thrust upon the public. Artists like Jenny Saville can take creative freedom beyond what is normally considered acceptable with her works showing grotesque, deformed figures. Another example of going too far would be in Israel when photographs of Palestinians being interrogated were removed from an exhibit. The question there lies on “how far, is too far?” In a free society, that question can only be answered by the artist themselves and if they want to limit their piece, or the person buying or displaying the piece (Harrison, 2002; “Governments, Censorship,” 1989). Diversity is the key reason why free society is so grand and loved. No one’s views or opinions will the same as another’s. In the 50’s there were two major artists present, Pat Boone and Elvis Presley. They were both polar opposites in terms of their performances, lifestyles and personal beliefs, but art brought them together to share a bill at a 1955 sock hop in Cleveland OH.
In another instance involving Pat Boone, he did a tamer version of Ozzy Osbourne’s hit ‘Crazy Train’. Mr. Boone and Mr. Osbourne couldn’t be more different from one another. Pat Boone; a 1950’s musical icon from the sock hop era, and Ozzy Osbourne; a heavy metal shock-rocker, came together on common ground through this one song. Mr. Osbourne liked it so much that it was used for the opening credits in his reality T.V. show “The Osbourne’s” on MTV (“Censorship in arts ‘healthy’,” 2004).
Censorship of the arts can be harmful to a society; keeping ideas from circulating and taking root or dying out. The Constitution only protects free speech when the Government is directly involved. As a free society; with free speech, it is left to the artist or consumer themselves to decide what they deem is appropriate. At the end of the day, art is like T.V, there are plenty of channels to pick from.

References
Art on trial: Censoring artistic expression and the first amendment. (2005). The Thomas Jefferson Center. Retrieved June 26th, 2012, from http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/censor.html

Censorship in arts ‘healthy,’ Boone says. (April 20th, 2004). The Washington Times. Retrieved June 26th, 2012, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/20/20040420-114829-2076r/print/ Governments, censorship and the arts. (August 13th, 1989). The New York Times. Retrieved June 26th, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/13/arts/governments-censorship-and-the-arts.html

Harrison, S. (June 2002). Censorship and controversy in contemporary art.
Proquest. Retrieved June 26th, 2012, from http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/art/overview.php