National Art Education Association

Art of Disturbation: Provocation and Censorship in Art Education

Author(s): David Henley
Source: Art Education, Vol. 50, No. 4, Literacy, Media, and Meaning (Jul., 1997), pp. 39-45
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3193652
Accessed: 24-09-2019 06:04 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3193652?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Art Education

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ART OF DISTURBATION:

PROVOCATION
aCENSORSHIP
in Art Education
I first encountered censorship in
the arts as a seventh-grade art
student when my quirky still lifes
occasionally raised a stir in
drawing class. One memorable work
was a pen-and-ink depicting a friend's
personal items found in her purse.
Included in the drawing were several,
now antiquated, garter clips and a
sanitary napkin. I treated each as a
serious subject, with both elements
cross- hatched in deep chiaroscuro,
which seemed to intensify the content
of the work. Although I received a
commentless 'A' for my efforts, the
drawing was omitted from our year-end
art show. Substituted was a lesser, in
fact, 'B' poster of the Beatles.
My teacher might have considered
this a work of "disturbation." Danto
(1986) coined this term in reference to critique. The work and the memory exhibition. The Art Institute was in a
any art which intends to provoke or
disturb. The term recognizes that it is
in the nature of artists (including those
in the seventh grade) to push the limits art to be the norm. It seemed that
of artistic license beyond social begging for censorship was nothing
acceptability. In retrospect, I've less than necessary if students were to
reflected over my intentions in creating have their work noticed. A notable
this somewhat provocative work. Was example involved a graduate student's
my choice in depicting images of placement of the American flag on the
feminine intimacy the result of floor as an element in a conceptual
unconscious forces representing my installation. In showing this work, the
own burgeoning sexuality? Or was it a Art Institute was criticized by everyone
conscious process, calculated to reap from American Legionnaires who
the attention of my peers? Was it protested by performing patriotic drills
appropriate that my art teacher delete over the work, to patrons who canceled
the work from the school and subscriptions and withheld their
community exhibition despite its support. Regardless of this fallout, the
merits? Art Institute stood by the artist's
freedom of expression.
ART OF DISTURB The issue of artistic intention didn't
These issues, involving artistic enter the fray until this same work was
intention and censorship, were certainly
submitted a second time for the year-
not discussed in our seventh-grade end thesis show and graduation
quietly disappeared until years later, Catch-22,
as for if the school decided to
a professor at the Art Institute of reject the work, it would lose stature in
Chicago, I found provocation in student
the artworld. If it were shown again,

BY DAVID HENLEY

JULY 1997 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
another storm of protest and negative
media exposure would be inevitable.
Furthermore, graduation proceedings
might be disrupted, and parents might
suffer through the media circus despite
having paid dearly for their offspring
to attend this prestigious school of art.
As the administration agonized over
its predicament, the department chairs
were polled as to their position on the
controversy. Almost all voted to show,
arguing that First Amendment Rights
are non-negotiable, even in the
developmental setting of art school.
When it came time to share my opinion,
I drew a collective gasp from my
colleagues by voting not to show the
work. My reasoning expressed on that
occasion has since evolved into a
consideration of censorship as a whole
constellation of issues that requires a
broader use of the term. For the
purposes of this paper, I will use the
term "censor" to include any curatorial
decision to reject a work based upon
non -aesthetic issues such as
community values, politics, or business
considerations. It is with this
redefinition in mind that we apply these
issues to art education.
Figure 1. In response to creating a self-portrait,
this child tried on several identities which
included disturbing sexual content.
rJ0~ .^f^\^\
/ <^ /
(S? ^^ r~~~~~~~~
ART EDUCATION / JULY 1997
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
THE ETHICS OF FREE philosophy remains consistent.
EXPRESSION
The problem of censorship and THE AESTHETIC OF
"DISTURBATION"
related issues can be approached by
first discriminating between two As artists define new territories of
artistic expression, they must realize
different facets of the art experience.
that resistance and possible rejection
Simply stated, I have argued that artists
often confuse the right to create withmay
the be the price of working on the
edge of artistic extremism, particularly
privilege to show. While art educators
must embrace an artist's freedom ofif the work is exposed to mainstream
expression, this freedom extends onlyculture. For instance, when Andres
to the work's right to exist. Should Serrano's
the Piss Christ raised a furor in
Congress, it did so because the work's
art leave the studio and enter the public
domain, it would then be governed funding
by indirectly emanated from
community values rather than public monies; otherwise,
individual freedom. We must conservatives such as Jesse Helms
wouldn't have paid it attention. Recent
acknowledge that the viewing public,
whether they be elementary schoolwork, such as Damien Hirst's
children or NEA officials, must be installation of slaughtered animals
included as equal partners in thedisplayed in flayed cross -section while
aesthetic equation. Each venue must be
floating in glass tanks, raised very little
allowed to reject those works that furor among the public despite its
sickening and exploitational content.
unduly offend the values of its patrons.
In this case, I felt compelled to side However,
with when such a work cannot
the rights of the school, its parent escape public scrutiny, some outside
community, and those students who friction and perhaps interference
becomes inevitable. This occurred
had not received any sensational media
when
attention for their work. I considered it Richard Serra's TiltedArc was
unfair for these groups to be held removed and "censored" from a New
hostage during graduation by one York plaza by the local community.
artist. I argued that, in this case, theThey found the wall of steel a divisive
obstruction that hampered their
rights of the community must prevail
over those of the individual. Despitemovement
my as they did business at the
Javits
politically incorrect position, I Center.
felt somewhat vindicated Censorship may also be at issue in
when the school eventuallythe educational community where
decided not to show the work
educators are ultimately responsible
a second time. My position for
9< censorship in art education,
on student welfare. For instance, I have
encountered professors of film who
which found its identity on routinely choose not to show Leni
that day, has formed an Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will
aesthetic continuum that because the film glorified fascism. It
guides my analysis of art. may be said that art that is socially
/ Whether applied to grade reprehensible is not only morally
school expressions of flawed but aesthetically flawed as well
scatological humor or the (Pariser & Zimmerman, 1990). Here I
selection of professionals
applying for grant money, the
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figure 2. Potentially disturbing themes emerged while
this 9-year-old depicted schoolyard experiences
during recess.

venue or audience to which the art will

be exhibited (Henley, 1995; Smith,
1991). Assessing artistic intention
requires that the art educator astutely
observe each student's art process and,
in doing so, discern the pay-offs of the
art experience: meaning, intention, and
benefits, if any, to be derived from such
a performance (Henley, 1994).
These issues are clearly visible as
early as the pre-schematic stage. Even at
this level, disturbing issues emerge,
though rarely are their intentions
attention driven. Sexuality and
aggression are two drives which might
surface. For instance, during free- art
activity, a 5-year-old girl explored the
body and its sexual differences in a
series of self- representations (Fig. 1 ).
disagree, for I believe that art is relevant the theme is to Mexicans or the evolution of this work, I
Observing
essentially amoral and exists apart from noticed
how fashionable it is to Chicago that the child's artistic intentions
artists.
all other values. At issue here is the were
Clearly, he was not sensitive to self- rewarding. She did them
the
question of choosing an appropriate current climate of concern overwithout
teen the need to solicit attention or
venue. In school settings, the audience suicide as it is linked to the occult.
approvalSelf-
from an audience. The drawing
is captive, unable to freely decide if they was created asan
censorship would have demonstrated an extension of
can handle such a seductive and awareness that the sharing of imaginary
art play and as a form of symbolic
confusing work of art Viewers who are resources constitutes a serious inner speech. The content is unusually
immature may not be able to sort out the intervention which is subject to both precocious, as 5 -year -olds rarely
sordid propaganda from its powerful community standards and by the explore sexuality so blatantly through
formal elements; hence, this work is capacity for students to handle such their art (as opposed to playing doctor),
probably not appropriate as a teaching potentially disturbing material. which might alert the educator to the
resource. It is clear, however, that in art possibility that some form of abuse or
education programs which still value
Indeed, art educators may act exposure has occurred. In this case, it
irresponsibly by choosing notspontaneous,
to censor free art expression, was found that the family was
classroom resources. For instance,
images will surface that reflect raw uninhibited about nudity in the home;
feeling,
during an observational visit to radical thought, or gratuitous
a student hence, the child had an active curiosity
teacher, I found the cooperating teacher
manipulation. It is with these artistic regarding exploration of bodily
intentions in mind that I turn to some
displaying to students his own differences.
sculptures which incorporatedillustrative
the examples. Given the fact that these are not
theme of the Mexican Day of the Dead. mainstream cultural values, it was
CENSORSHIP
Perhaps he did not consider how the AND important to regard the work, while in
INTENTIONALITY
works' manifest content (involving the classroom, as potentially disturbing
devils and corpses, etc.) could be
Considering whether to censor to others. It was not displayed or openly
depends
misconstrued as promoting a cult of upon assessing the quality of
death worship, no matter how the artist's intentions and the artistic
culturally

JULY 1997 / ART EDUCATION

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I

\
9-.- I

I -.- I
? _ ?

Figure 3. During latency, distur

heavily influenced by media ste

and involved
criticized in the group setting. A livelyth
gratuitous violence.
of discussion ensued as the children ide
different
critiqued, nor explored
Exampleswas of
other fears as itto in
a response se
Instead, the this work. The educator's
child
intention contin contribution
was
freedom of ensured that the discussionstag
schematic
expression would not
experience lapse into
with
themes as silliness
one-to(though
inno nervous
with her laughter was accommodated).
teacher
disturbing who as Because s
moral judgment
droppings nor
the content in this work in p
precipitated a a
provocative
in content.
regression toward
Figure 2. In N
more immature t
expressed the
there was teacher'
ideas and feelings, it no at
was important that
understated the teacher contain these
ways
attention of affects
conv and cla
that sensational
scatological
allow themcontent hum
to surface without allowing
made an issue
done nor
quietly will
them to escalate into over-stimulatedwi
Because the content
Instead, the was somewhat behavior.
critique a
the contentwas
less disturbing than Figure 1 and dealt of
Moving towards per
dawning realism,
with a common issue for young we find that commercial media often
children (as it harks back to toilet
training conflicts, etc.), I allowed it to be

ART EDUCATION / JULY 1997

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ALL NATURAL.
I __
Figure 4. Stressful social relations with the opposite sex led to this exploitational collage by an adolescent young man.
influence disturbed thinking and
behavior. The latency age work in
Figure 3 was elicited as part of a project
in which the children had to tell a story
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
through imagery. One boy chose a
popular media stereotype of "Jason," an
ax murderer of countless shock films.
Among his peers, this 11-year-old
constantly shared his progress with his
friends, distracting them in the process.
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I intervened stating, "unless you can
handle such a disturbing subject, we'll
have to move you to the private picture
comer." Such a relocation involved
allowing the child his freedom to create
so long as it did not disrupt, disturb, or
overstimulate those in his community.
Their rights entitled them to create
without being infringed upon by the
creative process of others.
The private picture corer is
situated away from classmates and
accommodates the art of disturbation
within its own space which, in this case,
was a corer study carrel set up in the
studio. Upon being reminded of this
option, the boy became refocused
because being isolated from peers at
the gang age constituted a terrible
consequence. Controlling himself with
renewed vigor, he worked out his
themes of dismemberment and
figurative action without incident. In
this case, I again allowed the work into
the group critique, so long as the rest of
the class could handle its form and
content. By structuring the group
critique as a critical yet supportive
process, I allowed students the
opportunity to explore themes of
disturbation in a controlled and secure
atmosphere.
FROM ACCOMMODATION TO
TRANSFORMATION
It is not enough that the art educator
choose between either accommodation
or censorship. Our goals must also
include moving the child artist beyond
crude expressions that are indicative of
primitive drives or identification with
media stereotypes. The aesthetic
philosophy proposed requires that raw
expression be transformed into
expression that demonstrates greater
control, subtlety, complexity, and
insight (Henley, 1995). These
attributes are well illustrated by this
JULY 1997 / ART EDUCATION

last vignette involving a 17-year-old
high school boy. His collage, shown in
Figure 4, displays markedly hostile
ideation laced with sexual overtones
that are directed toward women. Here,
fantasies of seduction and enticement
have become confused with sadism and
abuse. He attempts to be humorous
and clever, yet he alludes only to his
sexual insecurity and immaturity. The
resulting image, which inflamed many
female classmates, was quickly
confiscated and relocated to the private
picture comer. Rather than simply
abandon him to artistic isolation,
however, I instituted several critiques
that encouraged this talented young
man to resist wasting his time
outraging his female peers. Instead, I
inquired as to his intentions and asked
him what exactly he was trying to
achieve. He responded that he wished
to explore female seduction and sexual
enticement which he often found to be
nothing more than a "tease." Benignly
supportive, I commented that this
might be an important issue for him.
Yet I also reasoned that his issue might
be more productively explored if he
attempted a "serious" picture. Perhaps
he could contribute to our
understanding of what it is like to be an
adolescent male struggling with social
pressures and urges. However, I
reminded him of his responsibility to
resist using his art as a weapon or form
of abuse and that this acting out would
not be tolerated except in isolation.
With renewed energy, he labored
alone, creating the collage in Figure 5.
The collage's elements were lifted from
images by the artists Mark Sink and
Peter Stenhauser.
While this work is just as explicit, it
now speaks of greater powers of
sublimation. Sensational elements such
ART EDUCATION I JULY 1997
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
While art teachers must embrace an artists
freedom of expression, this freedom extends
only to the work's right to exist.
as nudity are still actively presented, yet
they are handled with greater
responsibility and sophistication rather
than adolescent crudeness. Sexual
content no longer rages unchecked,
but it is now focused, using wry wit and
co-opted art reproductions. These
elements serve to accentuate and also
to disarm the sexual tension and
hostility suggested in the piece; these
are hallmarks indicating that
sublimation has been achieved. The
work was included in a group critique
where it was well received by most of
the female participants. The young man
stated that in psychology class he had
been introduced to the writings of
Freud, particularly the material on
Victorian women and their repressed
sexuality. Translated into this collage,
Freud is embraced by a patient whose
repression has exploded. She now
swoons helplessly upon his lap. The
student depicts Freud comically wiping
his brow, abandoning his high
mindedness for an exclamation. Use of
swirling and splattering washes gives
the composition a dreamy quality.
Freud's role as reluctant lover perhaps
reflects this young man's adolescent
need to master sexually charged
situations, though he does so with
great anxiety. Exploring these themes
in his art, this young artist perhaps
derived insight and empathy that
enhanced his ability to handle his social
pressures. Judging by the artist's
response to the positive critique, he
seemed more invested in this effort
than in his earlier attempts at
exploitation and provocation.
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONCLUSION
We live in disturbing times. A
continued breakdown of the family
unit, poverty, over-indulgent
consumerism, and racial strife are just a
few issues that affect our children. The
ever-present media saturates them with
images of society's ills at such
unprecedented levels that these
become an inevitable force in their art
(Blair, 1996). From the earliest
developmental levels, content that
reflects media-associated violence,
exploitation, and conflict is increasingly
evident as the case studies have
illustrated.
Should contemporary art education
curriculum reflect this trend and
address, or at least accommodate,
images that explore ideas and feelings
concerning degradation in our culture?
This question harks back to the era of
Lowenfeld when art instruction
revolved around energizing and
amplifying a child's sensorial
impressions. However, if the
impressions that we elicit are so
negative in nature, aren't they are liable
to surface as images of disturbation? Is
this a risk art educators are willing to
take in the current climate that
emphasizes academic rigor? Certainly,
if art educators are willing to work with
the art of disturbation, we must depart
from the current preoccupation with
eliciting academically and perceptually
precocious art works from children. It
is often disturbing when provocation
pervades contemporary art.
Nonetheless, it seems equally C
destructive that current cur- r-
riculum models subject chil- i <i -
dren to content and concepts '
that are developmentally in-
appropriate. Perhaps empha- ?
sis upon the academic aspect .
of art serves as a reactionary
response to the days when art
education was dangerously
close to art therapy. To blot
out this possibility, art history, "
art criticism, and studio work t
are presented as academic ex-
ercises with little room for dis-
turbing thoughts or emotions
to surface. Whether this is a|
form of denial on the part of ^
art education, to purge the un-
sanitized content that distur-
bation brings to art, is open to
question. To my mind, post-
modem theory has taught us
that art content which cele-
brates our idiosyncrasies and
struggles has a definite place
beside skill acquisition (Gar-
ber, 1990; Lankford, 1990).
Perhaps the mission of arted- '
ucation will begin to reflect
these struggles in ways that
allow personally relevant content to
surface and yet be enhanced and
tempered by art world influences and
technical skill.
Censorship, as defined in this paper,
can be considered a strategy that
provides structure and guidance to
keep disturbation a self-empowering
element in the art experience (Blair,
1996). Censorship is viewed as a means
of helping the student be empathic and
discern what constitutes appropriate
social behavior. It discourages attention
seeking that is negative in nature while
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:04:41 UTC
L/, stance calls for form and
r .- ,'". content to be tempered, yet
sheltering others from expressions of
hate, gratuitous sex, and violence.
It is not enough to shield
exploitational art from others while the
offending artist remains oppressed and
required to work in isolation.
Interventions must attempt to develop
the artist's maturity and consciousness
beyond mere provocation. Kramer
(personal comunication, 1996) has
referred to artists who are always
"dangling a dead rat" in their art as
being mired in a protracted
developmental arrest; this is a kind of
perpetual adolescence in which
rebelliousness, oppositionality, and
provocation limit their art. The position
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 5. With support and several aes-
thetic criticisms, this same young man
was able to transform disturbing themes
into powerful imagery.
proposed in this paper
regards such qualities as
\ ' ultimately diminishing the
strength of the work. This
' without sacrificing the raw
... energy that drives art into
fresh territories. To direct
and sublimate these
powerful impulses toward
more elevated expressions of
insight, hope, and freshness
of vision is a balance worth
striving for in art education.
David R. Henley isAssociate
Professor in the art therapy
program at Long Island
University, C. W. Post
Campus.
REFERENCES
Blair, L. (1996). Strategies for
dealing with censorship. Art
Education, 49(5), 57-61.
Danto, A. (1986). The
philosophical
disenfranchisement of art. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Garber, E. (1990). Implications of feminist art
criticism for art education. Studies in Art
Education, 32(1), 17-21.
Henley, D. (1994). Five scribbles: An inquiry
into artistic intention and critical empathy.
Journal ofArt and Design Education, 13
(3), 241-251.
Henley, D. (1995). Political corrections in the
artroom: When limits get pushed. Art
Education, 48,(5), 57- 66.
Lankford, E.L. (1990). Artistic freedom: An ar
world paradox. Journal ofAesthetic
Education, 24,(3), 15-28.
Pariser, D., & Zimmerman, E. (1990). Gender
issues in art education. Studies in Art
Education, 32(1), 3-6.
Smith, P. (1991). The scylla of Helms, the
Charybdis of Mapplethorpe: Obscenity
and morality in the art class. Presentation
given at National Art Education
Association Conference, Atlanta, GA.
JULY 1997 / ART EDUCATION