Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T15:14:11.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

American Art Cultural Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Extract

Art inevitably reflects the virtues and vices of the culture that produces it. This article treats of the American cultural crisis as reflected in American art and then discusses the moral and religious implications of this crisis.

Martha Bayles, in her Atlantic Monthly article ‘The Shock Art Fallacy’ (Feb., 1994, p. 20), affirms that “Obscenity as art is everywhere. ... Never before in the history of culture has obscenity been so pervasive.” She calls attention to a Spin magazine jeans advertisement in which a young man brandishes a handgun over the caption “Teaching kids to KILL helps them to deal directly with reality.” In the Whitney Museum Bayles finds a photographic display of penises in one room and a row of video monitors showing “transgressive” sexual practices in another. The compulsion to shock dominates popular music, movies, television, publishing, talk-shows, stand-up comedy, and video games. Whatever the cultural bomb-throwers seem to think, Bayles avers that this does not mean we cannot be shocked. Obscenity, she affirms, is shocking. The Supreme Court defined obscenity as the depiction of “sexual conduct” in a “patently offensive way” lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” This definition, because it focuses exclusively on sex while exempting material possessing “serious artistic value,” is irrelevant to our present situation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The New York Times, in a survey conducted in the summer of 1995, asked what Americans think of American popular culture. In the starkly negative answer the people blamed television as the principal force behind teenage violence and irresponsible sex and, more generally, for its degrading influence on American public standards. More than half of the adults polled could not think of a single positive thing to say about American television, movies or popular music, while nine out of ten had bad things to say about them. They not only objected to sex and violence, but to vulgarity, bias and plain stupidity in the products of the popular cultural industry.

2 Over half believed that movies, television and pop music lyrics contributed “a lot” to teenage violence and sex. The same views were expressed about video games and pop music.

3 Against this popular condemnation of the popular cultural industry, William Pfaff (“Dismay in Desert of the Beaux Arts,” International Herald Tribune, Sept. 7 , 1995) notes a curious alliance of wealth and ideology defends it. Those who profit from providing violent entertainment say it is what the marketplace demands. And they are supported by a civil liberties lobby that denies violence in entertainment has anything to do with how people behave. The latter does this, according to Pfaff, in the name of unlimited freedom of expression in every possible medium, deriving this position from its commitment to the defense of political expression.

4 The American Civil Liberties Union maintains that there is no evidence of a causal connection between television and violence, despite the fact that American business and politicians spend billions of dollars on television because they know that television does influence behavior.

5 Industry says that it gives the public what it wants. It is true that the profits lie in the appeal to what is most base in people. The steady slide of the mass media toward what is most vulgar and demagogic shows the public is implicated in what has happened. Nonetheless, as The Times poll demonstrates, the public is ashamed of itself. It is true that this is hypocrisy. But civilization, certainly the middle-class civilization of the liberal democracies, has always been sustained by the hypocrisy of defending public standards of conduct superior to those that many, or even most, observe in their private lives.

6 The existence of the standard, affirms Pfaff, invites public emulation, exercising an educational and nonnative influence. There is a public desire for high standards in political life. Postwar American presidents have offered either dynamism to reform society, or the maintenance of standards — implicitly, moral and social standards. Today, the appeal of Colin Powell as a possible independent presidential candidate is that he seems to represent a higher standard of public life.

7 Pfaff argues that when public opinion about the standards people want is confronted with a deliberate and cynical political demagogy and with a continuing search by corporations for profit in degrading entertainment — and when these find support from both civil libertarians and believers in the unrestricted marketplace, there has to be a bad outcome. Pfaff concludes that the rage of citizens against the country’s establishment has already provoked violence from one alienated segment of the public, and there is a massive electoral nonparticipation. There is also, as the poll shows, much despair that government or industry will do anything to meet the public’s demands for higher standards. The county’s establishment would do well to heed these serious warnings.