Cynthia Freeland's "Why Some Art Should Be Censored" Lecture

Cynthia Freeland presented a convincing argument in her lecture for why some art should be censored. For an art scholar, this seems to be an interesting position to set up. However, Freeland sets up her argument by showing the ways that we already censor art. She demonstrates that art is not banning or blowing up art, but includes, and is not limited to, rating systems on video games, movies, v-chips, and other age restrictions. From this platform, Freeland goes on to say that some art should be censored due to its ethical production.

Freeland makes a distinction between ethical production and depiction. Art that is unethically produced involves the destruction or mutilation of the subject in the art, such as the fish in the blenders. While art on the other hand, often depicts acts of moral savagery, as in the case of Goya. Rather than promoting such actions, it makes a call to action against such moral depravity. Similar to Freeland setting up her argument by showing that we already censor art, she immediately lends support to case by demonstrating the most extreme cases of offensive and art that is produced unethically. The mere progression of the topics clearly illustrates this: child sexuality, animal cruelty, treatment of human corpses, religious sensitivity, and public spaces. The artwork of Mapplethorpe and Sally Mann show graphic and disturbing representations of children's genitals. This is immediately shocking to the artists. In the case of Sally Mann, the artwork is of her children, and therefore is considered a form of consent. However, this does not represent ethically produced art. In fact it is an extreme case. In the work of Mapplethorpe, parents had to sign for their children to be used in such graphic displays. However, Mann is the legitimate authority over these children as her mother. Children have no rights and are subject to the will of the parents. Thus, when the parent violates moral law, they have no voice of discontent or will. They are ultimately forced to accept this or "consent". Forcing children to consent constitutes a crime. To allow art to be produced allows this form of art to be created, through such detestable aims. Likewise, this can be more clearly seen in the case of animal cruelty. For example, at one Danish art show live fish were put into blenders and minced to their death. The artwork itself damages life. By the creation of the art, it facilitates the destruction of life. Yet, there is a distinction to be made with art that depicts behavior. In the case of the treatment of corpses, for example, Ashley Hope paints actual murdered victims. While graphic and disturbing, her attention to detail, ultimately humanizes the artists. Unlike, the case of one artist who entered a morgue and photographed the dead. This action in itself constitutes a breach of the law first and foremost, but also violates the corpses of the dead, both the consent of the deceased and their loved ones. By the time, Freeland reaches the end of public art, where normal racist tensions would have been controversial by a depiction of a Hispanic in "Vaquero", the audience has gone through a turbulent ride. This clearly seems lest offensive, and the implications of immorally produced art becomes clear.

Freeland's use of rhetoric ultimately creates a successful argument. She begins by attempting to change our view of censorship as immoral and repressive. With such rhetorical appeal, she begins to show shocking and disturbing images. The audience begins to side with her for the elimination of such extreme cases.