home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- û NATION, Page 50Keeping Cincinnati Clean
-
-
- A museum director is tried on obscenity charges
-
-
- The most famous definition of pornography is still the
- eyeball test once offered by Supreme Court Justice Potter
- Stewart: "I know it when I see it." A grand jury in Hamilton
- County, Ohio, figured they knew what they were seeing in
- Cincinnati's Contemporary Arts Center last April. Citing
- pictures that were part of a retrospective of photographer
- Robert Mapplethorpe's work, they brought criminal charges
- against the museum and its director, Dennis Barrie, for
- pandering obscenity.
-
- Barrie's trial, which began last week, is shaping up as a
- landmark: the first time an American museum director has faced
- criminal charges because of work that he chose to display. The
- case has unnerved museum directors, who have long assumed that
- their right to show whatever artworks they selected is covered
- by First Amendment guarantees of free expression. With a battle
- over funding for the National Endowment for the Arts expected to
- begin in Congress this week -- a fight that was set off by
- Mapplethorpe's pictures -- the art world is feeling besieged.
- "The police coming in our door has opened the door of all
- museums," says Barrie.
-
- Cincinnati has made a name for itself as a porn-busting
- town: Censornati. There is not a single X-rated theater, topless
- bar or massage parlor inside the city limits. That is small
- comfort to museum directors elsewhere, who fear they could be
- next. Some plan to testify as expert witnesses, hoping to
- persuade the jury that pictures may resemble porn but also
- affect the viewer in the more complex manner of art. "These
- photographs are not meant to titillate," says Arnold Lehman,
- president of the Association of Art Museum Directors. "They
- don't have that vacuous anonymity that pornography is so much
- about."
-
- The seven photographs in question do have some of
- pornography's rawness and occasional power to shock. In one
- picture a man urinates into another man's mouth. In another a
- man's fist and forearm is seen inserted into a man's rectum. Two
- images -- a nude boy on a chair and a little girl whose dress
- is raised in a way that exposes her genitals -- led to charges
- of illegal use of a minor, though the mothers of the children
- gave Mapplethorpe permission to take the photographs and the
- center to display them. "Where would you draw the line?" asks
- Monty Lobb, president of Citizens for Community Values, a local
- group that first drew the show to the sheriff's attention. "Will
- next year's photographs depict bestiality or necrophilia?"
-
- The current Supreme Court definition of obscenity requires
- that a "reasonable person," applying "contemporary community
- standards," would find that the work appeals to the prurient
- interest, depicts patently offensive sexual behavior and lacks
- serious artistic value. Last month Judge F. David Albanese, a
- former assistant county prosecutor, made the defense job more
- difficult by ruling that the jury need only see the seven
- pictures at issue. Defense attorneys had argued that the Supreme
- Court requirement to consider the work "as a whole" meant that
- the jury should see all of the pictures from the Mapplethorpe
- show, most of them floral still lifes, portraits and male nudes.
-
- Prosecutors may well get a jury to agree that some of the
- pictures by Mapplethorpe, who died of AIDS last year, could
- offend people in Sodom, much less Cincinnati. The more complex
- question is whether such pictures can move people in other ways.
- The future of American art may depend on how the jury answers
- that one.
-
-
- By Richard Lacayo. Reported by Barbara Dolan/Cincinnati.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-