thumbnail of Studio Talk; Censorship of Art
Transcript
Hide -
My guest this evening is Charles Close, instructor of art at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. We will be discussing with Charles Close the difficulties which he has had with an exhibition out there recently. On the panel this evening, are [Mr. Todd speaks] Lan Todd, producer of arts and drama fea-features for radio [Mr. Bing speaks] and Dennis Bing, painter and instructor at the Massachusetts College of Art here in Boston. Charles Close you recently found yourself, right, in the middle of a controversy How did this whole thing get started? Well, um, I was asked by the art department to, uh, assemble an exhibition of my recent work- work that was completed in the last two years and to, um, hang it in the student union which happens to be our only exhibition space on campus unfortunately, and uh, I found much to my horror and, uh, dismay that, uh I have offended some people, um, by presenting my work. [Host] Who have you
offended? [Close] Well, um, I've been told that the townspeople and, uh, family, uh, of uh students and things have have been complaining. Although the art department I understand has only received two complaints, one from a faculty member and one from an unidentified girl, but apparently they've been hounding the administration. [Host] But this does not get through to the art department. [Close] Well neither the art department nor the student union has gotten much in the way of complaints as far as I know. [Host] Have you seen any of the complaints that have been issued to... [Close] No I have uh, n, uh the complaints to the art department were not in writing and, uh, I have seen nothing else. In fact I've gotten absolutely no written communication from anyone on any aspect of the show. [Host] What are th- what are the nature of the complaints as you understand them? [Close] Well generally they find the work
ranging from either completely smut to mild obscenity or perhaps dealing with things inappropriate for the nature of the exhibition area or uh... [Host] Well what does that mean what is the nature of the exhibition... [Close] Well we have a hallway which is not exactly the ideal space to hang anything, in fact I would say that probably my show is inappropriate for the area but I think any show would be inappropriate for that particular area. [Host] Just- just wondering what you meant by inappropriate? [Close] Well, I don't find anything that I deal with, in the nature of the subject matter at least, something which should arouse any kind of violent emotions from anyone since it's been dealt with for years. I think perhaps, it may be a stylistic consideration, in that other people in the area happen to be dealing with similar subject matter but perhaps don't use paint quite the way I do, and therefore my work seems to read differently to the public, but I think the problem in the area in the Pioneer
Valley out there, in the four-college area, is one of a lack of exposure generally to what's going on. If if these people were to read even Time magazine, which is a rather conservative journal, I'm sure they would find that there are works being done by other people in other areas which certainly are a little more risque. If we want to deal with that sort of thing than mine, I'd feel.... [Host] Would you say that this exhibition of yours, Charles Close, was more pornographic, more - or more of erotica then the show that was held at Sidney Janis' last fall? [Close] You mean the erotic art show there? [Host] Right. [Close] Well no I mean I- I think that that I deal rather openly and maybe frankly with- with nudity. I do have both unclad male and female figures, but I don't deal with any kind of body
contact, or I haven't suggested intercourse, or any kind of perversion. Except perhaps in two drawing studies which are taken directly from "True Romances Magazine" and these include words which are lifted 'Am I the Only Virgin in Our School' and 'I'm 14 and My Mother's Lover Wants Me' and these are lifted directly from these magazines and the images come from that as source material. And these were intended to be a comment on that particular aspect of sex. But otherwise all my figures are single- single figures placed in some kind of interior space and this may be perhaps one of the areas of, uh, problem since one of the interior spaces I have- that I've used has been the bathroom and I've had some people suggest that this may be one of my problems. I think that, uh, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a bathroom, I think it's a great room, it's the only the only room where a
person can come to be alone. It's a one person room, it isn't meant for a family or groups and it offers me a particular kind of interior space that I'm interested in. It has furniture which is meant for one person which is a geometric foil perhaps for the organic figure. All this wonderful pattern that I love, the active tiles and floor tiles and wallpaper. It's not pierced, it doesn't open out of the landscape, the windows are covered, there are mirrors, and all sorts of interesting things to deal with. And that and when I portrayed the figure, its simply walking into the room or standing in the room. I don't have them doing anything active. [Todd] Can I ask a question? [Host] Yes [Todd] On the question of doing something active as an innocent foreigner, I still don't quite understand why erotica shouldn't initially be a vice in itself. [Close] Well I don't happen to feel it is, but since I'm being challenged on
the basis of what I have done, not on what I could potentially do, I would say that I am not at this moment concerned with it. I could foresee a time when I might be, and that I would not care to be challenged either, but I don't think there's anything that can't be dealt with with seriousness and with some, uh, the kind of adult attitude about what's happening and have it be a meaningful statement. [Todd] Surely the idea that nudity and bathrooms are wicked things are rather old fashioned attitude anyway. [Close] Well yes. [Todd] And a very childish one too. [Close] I - I feel that way very definitely, yes. [Todd] It's the sort of thing that went out with the ark, I would have thought, except perhaps in certain areas or perhaps Massachusetts, again speaking as a foreigner. [Close] Well I would tend to agree I suppose. [Todd] Another question that arises, if I might sort of put it to you in connection with this business of the erotic or with even the pornographic with art or
literature raising the sexual appetites of an individual. Again I've never quite understood myself what is wrong with that. In fact I would've thought it was much worse to keep them down. [Close] [Laughs] Well I. [Laughs] Again, I probably tend to agree with you I think that this i-idea of arousing prurient interest is certainly up for grabs as can be questioned. But, I, as far as my own work goes, uh, the only reactions I have observed or I've heard people have had of my work, have been anger and sometimes disgust but neither of those could be considered kind of prurient reaction to,uh, to the work. No one seems to be sexually excited about them. It's not that I mean they're too big to take in your bedroom, or uh....[Todd] What sort of anger? [Close] Well I mean people-people think that these are things that shouldn't be dealt with in the first place, should not be shown where they were shown in the second place, and are the product of some kind
of disturbed mind and they-they are very angered at having to see them. [Todd] Well why- why shouldn't they... I mean why should you be angry at the product of a disturbed mind, even allowed to disturb my interest there? Well where does this anger itself come from, where does the anger of the prude or the prurient man come from? [Close] Well I think they have some- some attitude about what should be shown in a sh- in an educational institution. And, uh, my idea of what should be shown probably conflicts. I don't think we need protect our young people. I think our young people are our biggest single hope for the future and I think anyone who kids himself into thinking that the kids of today don't know what's coming off should pull their head out of the sand and take one look around. This is a, uh, it's a turned-on age we live in, in more ways than one. And, um, I find, uh, much more relaxed attitude and, I think.... my own opinion is... a much healthier attitude about sex
right now today on our campus than I than I do in any other area of our population. [Host] Were any of the students complaining about your paintings? [Close] I have not heard a complaint from a single student. Now one would, one could expect that people are going to come up to me and say 'oh, gee I think it's a shame your show came down I really love this stuff' but the person who wouldn't like it is not liable to come up and say 'Gee I'm glad they took it down because it was rotten, filthy stuff.' [Host] How long was the show up before it was taken down? [Close] It went up on the 8th, it came down on Friday the 13th, so I'm not sure whether that's meaningful. [Mixed laughter] The opening was on Sunday the 8th. And it surprised me that that this reaction came up at all but I was even more surprised in the way it came down. [Host] How long was it originally scheduled for? [Close] Until the 31st of the month. [Host] ..the 31st.
It's fairly swift action isn't it? [Close] Well yes. I wonder why, if it really offended them, it didn't come down earlier or else stay up longer. If it's going to offend somebody it certainly will offend them in five days. The whole question of why it came down, I think, is an interesting one. The university has stated that it came down for three reasons. Those are namely, because of the theft of a work. [Close] One drawing was stolen. It happened to be a woman scrubbing a floor so I don't think anyone took it home to think about it for other reasons. [Host] You think that they were interested primarily in the artistic quality, and that's why... [Close] Well there's been no pattern in the thefts of the past, that is you can't say that the work has been of any single nature. Any rate because of the theft of that one work and because of supposed threats to the safety of other works, people were supposedly going to come in and slash them or something.
And thirdly because of the inappropriateness of the nature of the work. Now, I would say that in terms of the theft, first of all, that in almost every show that we've had in the Student Union at least one work has been stolen if not more, and in one show alone, three works. Now no one has felt obligated to take down a show before for that reason. Although shows have come down early. Secondly... [Host] Other shows have come down early? [Close] Oh yes this is the second of three shows this year to come down early. The first one had a Wesselmann print which showed pubic hair which probably as someone said rubbed the administration the wrong way. [Laugher] [Host] So then this really comes down to a matter of censorship on the part of the university. [Close] Yes all I think that's the only way it can be interpreted. I'd like-- I would like to say though that the-- that and in terms of the- there are three reasons, that first of all there have been other thefts, I don't think that can be really a reason for coming down. Secondly since there has
been, since the university has initiated a policy of student guards for this area. To my knowledge we have not - we have not lost a single piece. Now my one piece was stolen between the time of the opening and the time the guards went on duty. Nothing was taken after the guards came on duty and I doubt whether anybody would come roaring in, knife in hand, and start slashing a painting while the guard was sitting there. So I don't think we have to worry too much about the safety of the works. They didn't worry too much about the safety of the works when they took the paintings down without me being there without my knowledge. And thirdly, as far as the inappropriateness of the work to the area it was being shown in, I think it was perhaps inappropriate but it's the only area we have. All work would be inappropriate, as I have said, and unless we're given some other place to hang the work I think the art department has the obligation to hang that wor- which they think they should hang.
I mean they have, uh, an educational responsibility, they shouldn't have to hang some kind of tasteful, bland, um, uh, decorative, uh, wall hangings that would merely kind of brighten the hallway but you no- that you wouldn't notice were there and I think this is what people have in mind. [Inhale] [Bing] Charles I have in front of me the copy of "The Collegian", the newspaper from the campus in Massachusetts and it's, uh, some very interesting photographs here Titian versus Close, Michelangelo versus Close, etc. Showing the unclad female and male bodies etc. I think the reason for this is that it's showing that has been a time honored custom, one that has been very much accepted. Now is it a matter of style in your work that you think has caused the problem here I mean do they feel that your work is blatant or what? [Close] Well I'll what I have a hard time speaking for what they feel, speaking for them- speak- speaking for their feelings because I can't
on any level I understand their feelings. I can only conjecture that perhaps the fact that the paint is a little more loosely applied than than Titian spread it on, or that I have a Triumph T-shirt, uh, on - on a male figure and Michelangelo's David is perhaps a little more classically por- portrayed but I think it does come down to -to at least to a certain extent to a stylistic difference in handling. [Bing] Possibly a time lapse in our understanding, or their understanding in what they're willing and able to accept? [Close] Well, I think it's a- I think it's just a problem of exposure and I don't mean that, uh, in the way of uncovering figures, but of the exposure of the people who are the viewers. These, these people have apparently no idea what's happening in art. I don't think that in any way my show- well I think my show is in many respects a rather tame show. I-
I don't find it. I hope that it's exciting on some levels but not on the levels that they want me to, or that they suggest that it is. It's a little difficult to talk always about "they". But I'm forced to do that because no one will commit themselves. No one-no one will commit himself, no one will-will give me his name- his name to use. The administration has communicated to me and to the department but never in writing. And, um, I get suggestions as to why the show came down, but I haven't received a letter or anything. [Todd] Lately I've experienced, or, uh, the latest experience I have of, uh, so called erotic art show being closed down was in Toronto, in Canada. When the police moved in and of course the police, as we all know, are the arbiters of taste both in literature and art. [Mixed Laughter] But, uh, one can sort of, almost understand this sort of, type of oafishness. But what I cannot understand is how a
so-called intelligent university... [Close] Well this so-called intelligent University or fraternity apparently, and I am not absolutely positive on this, but I've been told that the police were the ones who actually physically took it down. [Host] The campus police? [Close] Yes this was, it was taken down after the university student union closed at 11 o'clock on Thursday and I have been told it was somewhere in the nature of 3:30 a.m. Friday morning when the campus was dark and uh, no one was around, that The campus police came in and took down my paintings. I was very upset about that as a matter of fact... [Host] That is still University action as opposed to government action. [Close] Yes, right, but there is one thing though, see, um, I, uh, some of my works can be handled only in a certain way and when I had the works trucked from Northampton to
Amherst, I went with the movers and instructed them as to how to handle them, and when these works were taken down and stored, I of course was not there. I had no knowledge of the fact that they were being taken down and for a day and a half I had no idea where they were. I asked many people. I got many strange answers. I never did find out until the last minute in just a few minutes before they were again to be trucked to my studio where they in fact were. [Bing] So, they left you feeling that the work was confiscated, just taken down. [Close] Well I... it was you know I like to think that's what it was. [Bing] What connection does the University Union have with the university in the sense of exhibition? [Close] one of the reasons why I think the students were incensed, and I think rightly so, by the action of the university, uh, is that, uh they have the feeling that they're being protected by some mother university.
Now the student union where the exhibition was held is a student supported building. The staff and facilities are supported through a student tax and they have stated to me that they feel is the student union, not the administration's union, not the faculty union, not the Boy Scouts of America union and other organizations that have conventions there. It's their union and and they feel they have the right to say what should be there and what shouldn't. And the actual hanging of the shows is in collaboration between the art department and the student union officials. And the administration, when it does step in and make some decisions as to what is appropriate and what isn't, is in essence going over the heads of both the art department and the student union and infringing upon the rights of the student body. [Host] What rights does the administrative have... [Close] Well, see this this is a very, uh, very difficult thing for me to talk about because I have obligations to many areas of
the university and to the, uh, state as a whole. I am a painter, but I'm also a teacher. I'm a faculty member in the art department. I'm a staff member of the university and I'm a public servant of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I have obligations to all these areas. Now I understand fully the university's position. I think I do. They have many problems. They are the big mediators, the go-betweens, between the actual day to day problems of giving an education or helping a student become educated, and the purse strings of the administration of the legislature. Now one of the things that they did not want to do was obviously to offend the legislature. Now it so happens that at the 25th of this month the legislature is going to tour the University of Massachusetts campus. Now if they were to become offended by something that's on exhibition in plain view in the student union, there is at least the possibility that there might be a cutback in the allocation of funds
for new buildings, for instance the fine arts building, more or-or something else. Now the last thing that I want to do is to offend these people and cause the university to lose money. I think that the university's position has done nothing to appease any single group. For instance the conservative viewer would wonder why it stayed up that long in the first place. [Bing] Or why it was hung. [Close] Or why it was hung, who gave authority, and what the hell is going on over there at that university in the first place. The liberal viewer will wonder why it came down. So having left it up for as long as they did, I don't think they're in a position to really appease anyone. [Bing] Is this the same type of censorship applied to the library in ?Mandalay?. [Close] I am not exactly sure of all the facts in the library case, I've heard many rumors but I really don't have enough information to make a statement like that. [Todd] In terms of flesh and blood, who are the ladies and gentlemen who make up the legislature
and therefore largely through material dictates- dictate our consciences? [Close] You mean.. uh... [Todd] Who are the legislature, you say that the legislature might -might not fund... [Close] Well these are, these are the elected representatives of the Commonwealth. [Todd] And how are they elected? [Close] By the, uh, the individual constituents. [Todd] And what, uh, what manner of person is elected, in other words are they art experts, or... [Close] Well I would tend to think that they probably are not. [Todd] Therefore how are they competent to pass matters of judgment not only in the art area but in the literary areas which Arthur is referring to? [Close] They're probably not at all and I think also neither would the administration be in a position to make effective judgment as to what should or should not be hung. [Todd] But more so, presumably. [Close] Well perhaps, although I think that the policy of the art department has been a good one. The art department
selects exhibitions, has faith in the person who is going to be exhibited ?Dennis Spen? was exhibited there last summer. Was there any attempt made on the part of anyone to convince you as to what or what should not be shown? After they chose you? [Bing] No, now this was during the summer, Charles, and I think there were fewer people around [laughter] may have something to do with it. I don't know if my work, in some respect, would be considered controversial, I doubt that it would. In fairness to the conversation now, however, there was considerable to do about where it was to be hung. I didn't want my show hung in that particular hallway or corridor where your show is now. I wanted it in a separate room... [Close] It's not there now [laughs]. [Bing] Right. [Host] Would it not in fact be a great tragedy to have someone from the legislature, the great and general
court, walk in and be so offended that he would fight very hard to make sure that the entire budget of the university be reduced? [Close] Well... [Host] Actually for- for a state that ranks 50th in terms [Close] right...[Host] of the amount of money spent on its various higher education. [Close] Yes. Right. I think though that that is a fear which is in the minds of our administrators which may be to a certain extent unfounded. I think... [Host] Charles, excuse me, they had enough trouble last year with a cartoon which appeared in the campus newspaper to suggest ... [Close] That was in "Yahoo" which is a -that's a campus humor magazine which uses a different organ. [Host] Nevertheless any fear I think would be well founded after that controversy.
[Close] Well I suppose, I think the university made a little better stand on that than it did on this particular issue. I- I do want to be fair to the university and to the administration. I wish perhaps I had a little more respect for their own staff because I do feel that I have been insulted on one hand and that if they don't have faith in me, a member of the staff, that no one will. [Host] As I understand it, a great many of the objections to your show actually came from faculty members. [Close] Well I don't know whether there were a great many or not. I have seen no evidence that there were, and are in fact a great many, but I assume that, uh, that they have some basis for their decision, but even if they did we get into the broader issue of, of uh, censorship, as whether or not even if there were a sizable body of people who were offended, whether or not they have the right, or whether or not they have the obligation to the
students. I don't think that there is anything which, uh, well one other thing which I think is important is that I think there's a lag between what can be dealt with in the written word and what can- and what can be dealt with in visual terms. For instance Playboy magazine now can use any four letter word they want can discuss intercourse as openly and as freely as they can, as they want. Can discuss discuss perversions but they can't show anyone doing anything else than kissing and they can't, of course show pubic hair. Why is this happening? What's wrong with-with the nude body? What's wrong with pubic hair? Why can't we deal with these things? [Other] With the same type of information that you find in literature. [Close] Right, for instance the state of Massachusetts or the Supreme Court in Massachusetts just passed on on uh "Naked Lunch." If you you can imagine someone doing illustrations for "Naked Lunch" you know he'd be locked up in 10 minutes. Uh...The
book though can be sold to anyone who can reach the counter with their, uh, 65 cents. [Other] It's an interesting thought for some. [laughter] [laughter continues] Charles you describe some of your works to me as being in part at least three dimensional, and uh, for example one of the figures may be painted as a flat form, an illusion, of a person, uh, in part, and in other parts would be built out in the third dimension, now I wonder if this could be in a way a supplement or extend let's say a vision and to be more suggestive, you see, and therefore maybe offend more people. in comparison to the written word. [Close] Well, I can- I have no male organs or pubic areas or breasts built in third dimension [laugher] I have hands, and faces and things like this in three dimension. I am interested in, an interesting kind of relationship between the illusion to
dimension and actual dimension, because as you move around a piece that deals with both of these, there is a greater amount of change which takes place in the actual three dimensional form than takes place in the illusion and the two dimensional form. And I build pieces in the kind of strange perspective so that in one- from one position the piece seems to be extending further than it does from the other direction. But these are all kinds of aesthetic considerations which I take into account and actually what I consider is what I'm making as I'm dealing with it. Unfortunately no one has talked to me about my paintings. No one has criticized my paintings. [Other] I was trying to do that right now. [Close] This is- this - this is an interesting idea, you know you are the first person who really, from the press at least or from over the air, or whatever of the many interviews and things that I've had, who- who has felt
obligated to talk about the work. I don't mind defending my work, in fact I relish the opportunity to defend my work on the things I consider important. I just don't feel that I have to defend the nature of the subject matter. [Other] What I'd like to mention one other thing Charles, I mention a third the, uh, third dimensional aspect of quality of your work, also the fact that you're using Plexiglas painted, which you know lets through light and this is a rather exotic material.. no seriously... [Close] Yes. [Other] ...and in combination with the, you know that the nature of your subject matter I think that this could add to the total illusion. It's interesting to me in other words, back to the original question of why your show was taken down, and I'm trying to try to somehow analyze the nature of it and why. [Close] Well, I think that perhaps the use of three dimensional vacuum-formed pieces and Plexiglas areas and the added depth and the
illusion to depth that perhaps I have stubbed my toe on something which could be considered a little more close to life than a regular, than in the normal two dimensional painted surface. It's pretty easy to think of everything within a rectangle that's got a gold-leaf frame around it as being like some, you know, like artist's window to beauty or something like that, and this is his statement as a- as a- as a painter. But the minute you start building three dimensional sinks and hang them on the wall it does recall for people a real sink. I'm interested in that. [Other] You can reach out an touch it, yeah sure. [Close] They feel that they can turn the faucet and they can probably reach out and touch a person's stomach or whatever, I suppose, but I don't see where this should offend anyone, I think that that they should recall also beautiful experiences. They should recall for them some of the some of the pleasant sensual experiences that they've had. [Todd] You are admitting then, from,
again from the from the point of view of people who are in favor of censorship, you're you are admitting in fact that there is a sensual aim in your painting. [Close] Well I'm very interested in the sensual aspect of the sensual potential of a work. I don't think that uh-- that I dwell on that, I think that just the activity of the pattern in the wallpaper and the the kinds of forms that I use are trying to arrive at a very kind of sensual organic form for a figure. But as it - as far as it being necessarily more or less erotic, I don't think that that the dimension or that the illusion necessarily will contribute to that. It may perhaps present up to them more of a mirror to themselves and they may not be able to accept that. It may reflect a little bit more on their experience or may recall more experience
because of the, uh, of the use of three dimensional form but that anything that they were to read in would be part of, I think, more part of their own mental process. I have-- I have been told by a member the, by a, uh, administrative officer on campus that they have found quote "phalluses" in my wallpaper. Well I think that if if they have to rely on this kind of, uh, shall we say, um, [Other] That's really their problem and not yours is it? [Close] Well I would think so. [Laughter] I didn't intend for them to be there, I can still not find them even when they're pointed out to me and I would prefer real experiences rather than to have to look for that sort of thing in a painting. [Laughter] Right. [Todd] On the subject of censorship itself is there,
or has there ever been, one tends to think of the people who are censoring, all of a lot of blockheads. What I'm trying to find out is there any where in art censorship generally, is there any decent argument, persuasive argument, advanced for it? Or does anybody know of an intelligent censor, in other words, who is sincere in his work? [Noise] [Close] It's quiet, the quiet is telling you know it's... [Other] Dennis Bing. [Bing] I'll attempt to answer that. Mr. Close was hired by the University of Massachusetts art department, and I'm sure all in good faith. I mean there are some very good people there and uh they knew of course of his work, they obviously accepted him as an artist. His teaching is based on his own artistry and his ideals and his thoughts are all based on this, and the combination of this and himself as a person,
so it has to be in a sense a total acceptance at least tentatively. [Host] But this... [Bing] So why can't they just have an exhibition you would then have to follow through and just have an exhibition of his work being uncensored then. [Host] Does this give anyone the right to disturb the conscience of anyone? The fact that a person is hired by -by a faculty does this give any faculty member the right to do anything he wants? [Bing] It should, basically yes. [Host] A Faculty member at any public institution is able to do whatever he wants? [Bing] I won't try to answer that... [Close] Well, the trustees, printed in the special issue of The Collegian, there is a definition by the trustees of faculty freedom and it does come down, I suppose, to that as an issue as to what I have in the way of academic freedom.
And in reading that over this was written I think in 1963 or something like that much before they'd ever heard of me. And in reading that over I can find no area of their statement which would be in conflict to what I have done. Now that may be someone else's interpretation might be quite different. I am. I do recall though in terms of this idea of censorship I studied for a while in the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna where ?Igor Sheely? for a period of about two weeks before they kicked him out, and, uh, he is the only person ever in the history of art to have been, in my, as far as I know, to have ever been tried and convicted and punished for the making of pornography as an artist. It's very interesting now that He died in 1913 that this many years after his death that they now have a huge bronze plaque inside the door saying "Egon Schiele studied here",
there seems to be this lag between learning the work of a person and the acceptance by the public and I think we're right that this is been the problem before, it was a problem with Goya and his "Naked Maja", and it's been a problem with a lot of people and it just takes time. The public has had it... [Bing] I don't know that it really is a matter of time, I think that there are a number of Goya's which have not been shown publicly that are in private collections. There are a great many Hokusai prints which are never shown publicly. He supported himself by this non public part of his art the only way he could support himself. But I think that there is a difference between public exhibition and private interests. [Close] Well I'll explain to you if I may, why I , uh, decided to show my work, and why I chose the particular works I chose if you are interested. I would not have watered down the show for anything. I would not have tried to make a more
quote unquote tasteful show for the university. I would either not show or I would show the works which I feel represent me to the best. Now to a certain extent I am in contradiction... [Other] Did you go out of your way to be controversial? [Close] No I did not. I didn't, on the other hand, try overly hard not to be controversial. But I was I chose the works for a couple of reasons. First of all I wanted the strongest representation I could within, um, uh, trying to encompass the idea of the fact that this was to be shown in an educational institution in which I teach. Now I present- I open myself up to the students in many ways and I show them as best I can the clinks in my armor and the fact that I am no god and that I have troubles and I make mistakes too. And I would not have perhaps shown the work that I did in a commercial gallery because it was and to a certain extent inconsistent. It showed
my work in transition, earlier work which is not exactly akin in handling to the later work. But that's, that I feel is alright and perhaps good in an educational institution, they can see how, and perhaps a little better how I think, what my thought process are, on how I how I perhaps have evolved certain kinds of form. I would show say several studies for a work when it would probably, in a commercial gallery, I would not do this, but the studies will give the student an opportunity to see what came first, how I changed it, what came next, how I felt I need to change the form or alter the space, and this I considered to be a service to the university and part of my function as a teacher. [Host] But if in doing this, you, in one way or another, damage the reputation of that institution,
Are you even performing much of a service for the students or for art generally. [Close] Well I would say that the most important thing that I can do as an artist-teacher is to be honest and to to show works which do not deal with, as completely as possible, with that which I'm involved, to me seems to be a disservice. I find nothing, find absolutely nothing pornographic or lewd or smutty in my work. I deal and I'll be honest with you I deal with some things which can be considered to have shock value. Now I don't think it should have shock value. So if, uh, if once a shock wears off, people can look at the work. Perhaps they need to be exposed to these things so they will no
longer have this attitude towards their work will no longer be shocked by it. I remember the shock I had when I first saw -- when I saw my first de Kooning. I wish I could have that again. I don't look at de Kooning in the same way now. It was a beautiful experience to have that and it was a beautiful experience to get beyond it and perhaps lose it. But the first time you see a Jasper Johns flag you know you have feelings in the pit of your stomach about patriotism that makes you make a lot of decisions but to not show the work because it might offend the American Legion or the Daughters of the American Revolution has nothing to do with the work and should in my opinion not be a consideration. [Host] I don't think you are dealing here with the the DAR or the American Legion we're we're dealing with other people on the- on- on campus... [Close] Well it is a public building to a certain extent. And
,uh, and it is open to townspeople and to family. Family of the students. But I don't see why, I don't see that I dealt with anything that shouldn't be dealt with or they should be exposed to. Perhaps it's a misjudgment on my part. [Todd] May I say try to sort of broaden, because it's always sort of difficult to sort of always defend oneself with one's own voice. I think it will be fair to sort of quote The Massachusetts Collegian letter which is from the art department and which lends more than Mr. Close's voice to his own defense. And it runs to this effect. [reading] "Dear President Lederle, the department of faculty at the University of Massachusetts submitted this letter in response to the issue that has arisen over the current exhibition at the Student Union. Let us briefly state the position of artists in general. They view their freedom to
express their ideas as essential to- to continued creativity. Great precedents in history show that the curtailing of freedom has handicapped the educational process. When Art is judged by those unacquainted with its goals, damage may be done to the cultural environment in the university and its community; restraint of free expression destroys the very core of education. We agree that exhibitions in the past or in the future have been and should be selected with the judgment of a committee of one or more of our members whose competence has been authenticated, that this judgment is made on the merits aesthetic, and otherwise of the artist or group of artists exhibiting, and is in no way a form of censorship. We believe as a matter of principle that once this judgment has been made we cannot with integrity, Subsequently refused to hang a show intact. We reiterate- reiterate with the greatest urgency our belief that an exhibition programme is vital as a
part of the whole education process-process and that its loss could be tragic. The Art Department defends the exhibition of Mr. Close on the basis stated above and believes it should not be taken down. Contemporary art is not easily understood by the public and certainly the present public space within the student union is not suitable for showing art. The prevailing discontent demonstrates a compelling need for more appropriate gallery facilities. We reaffirm our complete confidence in Professor Norton's judgement on past exhibitions as well as the current one, department of art faculty," and then a whole lot of completely illegible signatures but I've no doubt they're genuine. [laughter] Was there an answer to that, by the way? [Close] I have not seen one. The answer I suppose was the taking down of the show the next morning. [Other] After the letter had been written. [Close] After the president and the, uh, other key members of the administration
had read it. If I might I think there's a very nice statement in here by John Greenquist who is the president of the student senate, also to President John Lederle, if I may read it please? [reading] "It is appalling that a university supposedly dedicated to the ideals of education must hide its expressive and artistic talents from the eyes of the public. Granted, being a state university, we are subject to the control of the Commonwealth. But does this mean that we should sacrifice the ideals of free expression vital to a university community in order to secure additional money from the Legislature next year? With this money we will build bigger and better buildings, increase student services, and hire additional personnel, but we will continue to keep controversial subjects in the exhibits and in Student Union basements and away from the public view. To perpetuate a university afraid of its shadow is hypocritical. Are we an institution of higher public education with freedom of expression and thought, or are we a place of sterile
instruction where the students must sit and listen and the faculty dare not be controversial? If we cannot accept our responsibility in education then we do not deserve the money we now receive from the legislature." [Todd] You know this rather brings you back to your earlier question, not that free expression, you, you asked Dennis over there what - is the artist to be permitted to do anything, and he couldn't answer it but I think the answer is that if a man is himself in a position of responsibility or however small the position of responsibility, he is his own censor in these matters and when he knows he is going beyond the pale, then, he -- the pale of his own conscience. And if this is what dictates it, not another person's opinion and if he is in this position then he has this or should have this inbuilt responsibility. What how -- how one just defines the responsibility I don't know. And I think this is a very difficult thing for any censor to define what is, uh, what is
good and what is bad or what is evil and what is virtuous. Maybe there is no definition ultimately, I don't know. [Dennis] I don't want to take away from your, your good answer but in a sense this is is what I said, that an art department hires an artist in the first place and asks him to have an exhibition then, as I did there and I'm sure Mr Close did, was to select his own works and show them. I mean I agree with you and I think that's what you did, isn't it, Charles? [Close] As John Roy who was on your show a few weeks ago said to me that day, he said censorship starts at home and that's exactly where it should end, in my opinion. I put my neck on the line to a certain extent by having an exhibition in the first place and I expect to be challenged as far as the aesthetic criterion I exert on myself and I also will, if necessary, defend the subject matter but I think that that is where censorship lies.
[Host] Now that your show's down, Charles, is it true that the exhibition intact will be shown in another place? [Close] It is right now, I'd like to, I'd like to say that that-- that the Arts and Temple gallery in Amherst under the direction of, the very capable direction of Dagmar Reutlinger, who many of your Boston listeners will probably remember from a relation with the, uh, with Harvard University, She is right now -- the show has been up there since, my gosh, I've lost track of time, it's been up for several days, will continue throughout the scheduled run until the thirty-first. She however has also sent a letter to the administration stating that at such time as the university would care to honor a petition that's being sent around to the faculty and also being signed by students
asking for the return of the show to the student union that at such time she would be glad to let the university have it back. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. [Host] Has the faculty council or faculty senate of the university taken a position? [Close] Well, the faculty and senate met a few days ago and I'm not sure what if anything they arrived at, I understand that they came to the conclusion that there should be some kind of committee to review the works to decide whether or not they are appropriate for the exhibition area. [Host] Do they not in fact have a committee already reviewing the works before they go up? [Close] Yes, a departmental committee. [Host] So what they want to do is bring lay people in to make the decision. [Close] I, I guess that's what they have in mind. [Unclear] I find that a ghastly thought. [Other] I hope they don't follow that procedure in medical college.
[Host] Earlier, Charles, of course you made a statement that the subject matter was really not terribly important to you, but can you actually separate the other parts of the work from the subject matter? [Close] Well I think of the subject matter as merely a carrier for the other things that I have to say. Uh, I - [Host] So what are these other things that you have to say? What are the ideas in the, in the painting? [Close] Well I would say generally, you know, I have certain spatial considerations which I happen to be very excited about. I have an attitude about the potential of multiple readings of space. The multiplicity of reading, that is, a kind of purposeful or designed ambiguity where it would appear to be one thing from one direction or you close one eye and something else happens. I did this in the flat surface as best I could, that is, never really nailing down a form in space, giving perhaps a graphic indication with
the line or something as to where it would be, the color perhaps contradicting that, its relationship to an adjacent color again contradicting that. But I found that with the three dimensional form, that, that this can happen more easily and if I'm in the process of trying to explore that even further. Now, um, the kind of situation that I'm dealing with at the moment is a single figure in an interior and I have certain attitudes about that organic form and being imposed upon or placed into a, um, oh, an architectural setting. This has been in the past a bathroom or something like that. But these considerations are for me what's important. I don't deny the fact that I happen to be very excited about the idea of dealing with nudes or with,
or, I have, I'm interested in the moving figure, absolutely something that some of my colleagues are, are working with and I think I handle a little differently. Um, there are lot of ways to, to indicate the fact that action has taken place. Sometimes real action, that is, the fact that the form advances when you walk to the side because it is three dimensional. These are the things which I think about, these are my painterly considerations, I suppose, and the things that I would be willing to talk about and defend. But of, the the viewers or the viewing public. Yeah. Frankly I can't get beyond the subject matter. [Host] Most of us talk generally about censorship. We talk about the right of it and the wrong of it and most of us have never been sincere. What is it like in to be in the position of being one of the things censored?
[Close] Well it's a very uncomfortable position to be in because first of all I have been attacked personally and I cannot respond personally. My first reaction is of course to fight, you know, to pull out my claws and go at 'em. But I, as I say - [Other] You can't find anyone. [Close] I have a responsibility, I cannot find anyone to fight in the first place. And secondly I have responsibilities to other people and I would like to thank, and I think it's really marvelous, the way the department take, took tihs completely unified stance. Taking risks, I suppose, and Dr. Norton, who is our chairman, who is I think a perfectly marvelous chairman, I can't imagine a better person to work for, has I made his position extremely clear, he will not condone censorship and that's the way it stands. Dr. Naufsinger who's the head of the student union, student affairs Dean of Student Affairs, has made his position quite clear.
Unfortunately the people that I would like to deal directly with have not made this possible. I've had phone conversations and things with nothing. I only regret that some concession was not made, that the possibility for alternative plans could not have come out, the fact that we could have moved the exhibition somewhere else or taken it down for a short while and put it back up again or, or something could more enable the solution for all involved. It's extremely regrettable when any institution takes it upon itself to censure censor and when they do they must I think expect that there will be. Reaction from the student body and from of the faculty members and of course from myself but it's the sign of a guilty conscience every thought to set a sting to Dave remained anonymous and well way strikes me.
I think they're waiting for the thing to die down I know. Same thing with the. I really feel quite sorry for them because they are caught in between their their own faculty asks them to do something and they feel obligations to other areas too. And they must make these decisions. Right or wrong they made the decision and it just remains to be seen what will happen. Legislative media the real veterans of peace. Well again it's one of these the great unnamed you know being attacked and I hate to be in that position. I'm sure we do have the name did not say take the show down the name did not take the show down. I mean there are there are real people and there are real people out there somewhere you know. And I've been in contact with some of them I just can't user names. I can't go can't even quote them because before I can even get to talking to them.
This is made clear that this is you know off the record. It's really quite an unfortunate situation I think. Do you feel that the the officials and the day at the university let's put it that way. I feel that the legislators are not old enough to to look at these are not mature enough to what perhaps they feel with a legislature that legislators should not be put in a position of having to make a stand because they have responsibilities to their constituents that comes full circle again. The senator Herndon didn't fare too well through the Yahoo incident I know and it will but I'm sure they're all interested in maintaining their positions and keeping peace keeping peace the great ones you. Know staying well obviously like to change your ways of being an artist.
Right. Charles I don't have all that. I don't suppose. That you would you would like to go through this type of thing again. I doubt very much for that I would put myself in that position again. Just because the possibility of hurting innocent people. I don't buy that I mean people who are in a position of having to defend me and or feel that they who feel they have to defend me and I think I think that you're going to show the kind of work you choose to make and in the future and continue to do I know let's focus I'm very sorry this happened again I'm very pleased that the work is on exhibit at arts and temple of the prize. I found that the ones and when the words a pornography and things come up and by the way the administration said that I'm the only one who ever used the word pornography which is I'm can assure you not the case when the words pornography come up people's minds go wild and they conjure up. And this is a
natural kind of thing they conjure up the most pornographic or lewd situations they can think of. And I think when they actually see the work they're going and I know for a fact that people come in and say Is this what everybody was upset about. So they will find that the that the work is actually not anything to be upset about. Charles Koch thank you very much for joining me this evening and studio time. Thank you.
Series
Studio Talk
Episode
Censorship of Art
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/15-15p8d7n1
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-15p8d7n1).
Description
Episode Description
In this episode of Studio Talk, Chuck Close, artist and professor at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, and Dennis Bing, painter and instructor at the Massachusetts College of Art, discuss censorship in art. Close, who had recently been embroiled in a controversy related to the removal of his exhibition at his university, weighed in on the issue, and discussed the differences in how art, media, and magazines are censored.
Series Description
Studio Talk is a talk show featuring conversations on a variety of topics related to the visual arts.
Created Date
1967-01-24
Genres
Talk Show
Topics
Fine Arts
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:59:12
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Guest: Close, Chuck, 1940-
Guest: Bing, Dennis
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
Production Unit: Radio
AAPB Contributor Holdings
WGBH
Identifier: 67-0021-01-24-001 (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Generation: Master
Duration: 00:58:54
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Studio Talk; Censorship of Art,” 1967-01-24, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 28, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-15p8d7n1.
MLA: “Studio Talk; Censorship of Art.” 1967-01-24. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 28, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-15p8d7n1>.
APA: Studio Talk; Censorship of Art. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-15p8d7n1