Art censorship

Jake and Dinos Chapman/Jake Chapman/Texts/Art censorship.pdf

Art censorshipJake and Dinos Chapman / text
P. 1
Art censorship Author(s): James Fitzpatrick, Norman Rosenthal and Jake Chapman Source: RSA Journal, Vol. 149, No. 5502 (2002), pp. 53-56 Published by: Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41380441 Accessed: 06-11-2015 23:27 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp 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. Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to RSA Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:27:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Art censorshipJake and Dinos Chapman / text
P. 2
Lectures inthelate1980s,withexhibitions theRDAs wereaskedtotake Itreallystarted bethinking about'region- toruralrecovery weshould Increasingly and Robert ball bytwophotographers, andthecontribution al agricultures' Mapplethorpe theymaketo thelead.Weshouldpickup thisparticular to whichtheNEA contributed oflifewithin the andrunwithit.TheRDAsarenotas yetparticu- AndresSerrano, andthequality competitiveness 's showwasa retrobutthey'vegotsomegood somefunding. oftheUK. diverse Mapplethorpe larlywellequipped, regions work. shot of his life's the havoc that foot and and to Defra then there are institutional And Mapplethorpe spective changes. people, responding but the in has been their and Rural mouth caused rural economies Food for imagesthat photographs, (theDepartmentEnvironment, manycelebrity were ones that dealtwith have created the But is it that rural of fire. seems to be a move, controversy Affairs) they why putting baptism positive a included forallthefootloose butit's responsibility rather thanthemargin, affairs atthecentre industries, yet racialandsexualissues,andhisoeuvre malehomosexual that documented fortheone industry portfolio as was revealedby footand no specificresponsibility too centralised, life,a andthreatening under worldthattomanywasstrange It is whichis screwedtothefloor?Resources Buthavethelessonsbeenlearned? mouth. JesseHelms(a thatinthewakeofthecrisiswe'vehad theEnglandRuralDevelopment Plan,andcer- andimmoral. TheydroveSenator worrying wild. conservative Schememoney, hardcore oneinto tainlythe Rural Enterprise three oneintoanimaldiseases, right-winger) inquiries: the showin we them a When to the RDAs to should be switched lessonstobe learned andthemainpolicyone opened Mapplethorpe give the had after Corcoran and theiregional the chancetopromote andfood.Butdidanyoneduring onfarming Gallery canagricultures Washington, the wouldattract intoruraland celledit,theimageswethought themmoreeffectively food?Orsee a integrate crisisgo without footandmouth The ones that didn't urn out to. most of economies. in Or suffer sort of food controversy regional any shortage shops? werephotographs of themostconcern Yetwefocus, provoked postfootandmouth, tummy upsets? andtheir Eventhough thechildren children. Lowe Itwas Professor andfood.It'sbizarre. onfarming Philip parnarrowly thoseturned outto be the entshadconsented, oftheCentre forRural crisisandnotoneofthethree Director a ruraleconomy Economy tothepeoplewho mostdisturbing ofNewcastle dimen- University is looking attheruraleconomy uponTyne photographs inquiries theshow. visited whether ornotDefra sion.Thisis whyI worry isa cutting-edge Andres Serrano indicates a new sense of direction. Notes and photographer. recognises animageofa fluids' included inNorwich on His'bodily Delivered totheSociety Theunexpected heroesoffootandmouthportfolio urine(in ina vialofthephotographer's crucifix 2002. andthey'renotmuchloved - havebeenthe 11April facta beautiful, rather versions ofthelecturers' magicalimage)thatsetthe agencies(RDAs). The Theseareedited regionaldevelopment Churchon edge. Therewas a congressional texts. central couldn'tcope,andwhenitcame full system known thathe firestorm whenitbecamepublicly these twoexhiwassupporting federal government that mostvigorous bitions. Senator Helms, protecthe attack American led ontheNEA, tor of morals, Art censorship Anda classicmoment of callingforitsabolition. James Norman Rosenthal as a number of Senate debate, august legislators Fitzpatrick, onthemerits oftheart,camewhen wereopining and Jake thatall female Senator Helmsordered Chapman pagesand because hewasabouto staff leavetheSenatefloor Parti displaysomeoftheseimages.Thusthechastity, find andrectitude ofAmerican womanhood In thelastdecadeof the20thcentury theUS ment officials or outrageousunacceptable. morality 4the in these vil as The second factor to note terms of arts fundwere known images. preserved against experienced something popularly tradition of Foralmosta decadethere wereannualbattles culture wars'. Itwasa timewhenfederal involve- ingintheUS is thelackofa strong fundforthearts.Federalsupport for intheCongress overeliminating thefederal mentin,andfunding for,thearts- andwithit federal patronage - came theartswasonlyseriously initiated in1965,with ingprogramme forthearts.Therewereattempts freedom of creativity andexpression fundonly underextreme fromtheconservative thecreation oftheNationalEndowment forthe toensurethathefederal pressure government in andfrom thereli- Arts(NEA). Its budgetwas pitifully small(its 'decent'art- a self-evidently idioticstandard wingoftheRepublican party itwasprompted watermarkin the late 1980s was only a nation as heterogeneous as theUS, wherewhat giousright. Although byoutrage highintheTennessee atparticular works ofart,itwasa broader institu- $170m), butitwasanimmensely successful minister feder- is decentfora Baptist tional to the role the artist and artists' al an art hill is matter thanin the of to of venanother challenge programme, leading explosion country quite freedom tofollow their muse. uesinthelastthird inSanFrancisco. ofthecentury. minds ofthegaycommunity It'simportant forthesakeoforientation tonote Theseefforts at abolition weresupported by twothings.First,theUS constitution a potent thereligious whichfound broadly Some ofthepeople,someofthetime right, political freedom ofspeechagainst interferenceSo howdidartscensorship arise?It's issuetorallyconservative constituencies. Indeed, guarantees questions - federal, officials stateorlocal. important tounderstand thathisbattle hadnoth- therewas immense inthe bygovernment fundraising potential Artists havenoconstitutional tosupport or ingtodo withaesthetics. itwasa social, issue of scourging thefederalgovernment of Rather, right but if the an In NEA does establish and clash. immoral art. the of all the class,religious, this, subsidy, government political ideological process artsfunding itcan'tcensorordis- Thebasicissuewaswhether should wasfundamentally restructured, programme, publicfunds losingmuchof criminate artistic on thebasisof theviewpoint of the be spenton worksofartthatsomepeoplefind itsability toaffect Notonly development. ifa right butCongress evenifthegovernment is subsidising them. offensive. ofvetois wasitsfunding cutinhalf, alsoelimartist, Quiteobviously, In administering a government artists. one giventoevery viewinsucha heterogeneous soci- inatedopportunities to fundindividual programme, can makedecisionson artistic thuscutting willend Grants wouldonlygotoinstitutions, qualityanddis- etyas theUS's, anyfederal programme criminate between denominator testfor outa significant oftheartistic typesofwork- so onecould upwiththelowestcommon portion community. and In inthemidstofall this not It's hard to that addition literature,publicsupport. appropriately sponsor poetry imagine anything inevitably, - funding butonecan'tsimply themselves thatgovern- won'toffend someone. saynotoworks controversy applications RSAJournal 3|62002 53 This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:27:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Art censorshipJake and Dinos Chapman / text
P. 3
Lectures becamesignificantly moreconservative. official Part II paradigmatic exampleofa government therewas a majorcongressional denying toa museum becausehewasper- Wetakeourfreesociety fartoomuchforgranted. Eventually funding voteonwhether theNEAshouldbeabolished. A sonally offended We assumethateverybody's allowedto speak bya specific pieceofart. ferocious withstates, The museumpromptly tooktheMayorto their write ensued, whatever lobbying campaign mind, choose,depictas they citiesandcounties downonthesideofthe court. Thefederal court heldthathe theyseefit.Butthere arepowerful socialmores coming emphatically artsagencyandrecognising theimmense Thejudgesaid'No whichconstrict actionin different impor- Mayor'sactionwasunlawful. partsofour tanceoffederal fortheartstotheeco- federal constitutional issueismoregravethanthe communities, on bothsidesoftheAtlantic. It's funding nomic health oftheir communities. Thevotemade effort officials tocensorworks of onething totalkabouttheartworlds ofsophistibygovernment clearthatheNEAwouldcontinue tofundworks expression andtothreaten thevitality ofa major catedLondonandsophisticated NewYork,but ofart,notwithstanding thefactthatsomepeople cultural institution as punishment forfailing to peopleinthecountry andinother ofsociety parts findsomeofthat work offensive. abidebygovernmental decisions oforthodoxy.' areperhaps notso involved might withthelanguage of But theintensedebateovertheindividual Thiscase,thisdecision, willstand as thestrongest contemporary And art,whichis veryparticular. worksofarthascontinued, andwillgo on.This foundation to thenthere's thewholeissueofpolitical correctagainstanygovernment attempts wasmostdramatically illustrated inthe punishinstitutions fordisplaying artthatis dis- ness,which alsoimposes enormous constraints on recently SaatchiCollectionexhibition at theBrooklyn tasteful toparticular officials. critics andviewers ofart.Someofthese artists, government MuseumofArt.Norman Rosenthal's Sensation So whatare thelessonslearnedfromthis restraints areproper andsomearenot.Wehaveto show in Londonwas a spectacular culture war?First, never for success, decade-long and eachcaseisdifferent. ourselves, censorship judge theattention of theDirectorof the works. Onewayoranother, ina society ofinstant Theexhibition Sensation wasa bitofaneyeattracting wantedto communication, Museum,whodesperately Brooklyn was mounted in peoplearegoingtoseecontrover-openerforme.Theexhibition increasethemuseum's TheBrooklyn sialworks- andindeedwillwantto see them threedifferent cities:London,BerlinandNew visibility. Museum hasa long,distinguished andthe simplybecausesomeonetellsthemtheycan't. York.Therewereall theseworksofart;people history, collection of museum inthe Second,censorship sells.Lookat thepricesof wereinterested inthem; second-largest any theywerestimulated by US - butit'sonthewrong sideoftheEastRiver, Mapplethorpe's before andafter the them;theywentto see them;theytalkedabout photographs andit takesa hotitemto getManhattanites to contretemps; attheoutset, hislargephotographsthem. inBerlin And,ofcourse,attheexhibition crosstherivertoBrooklyn. HencetheSensation weresellingforaround Senator nobody batted aneyelid- norwouldtheyhadit $3,000,butafter show.It wasadvertised inthemostprovocative Helmsattacked himandhebecamethecentre of beenheldinFrance orItalyorHolland- incomfashion atthemuseum: withwhathappened inLondonand displayads everywhere controversy, theyweregoingfor$30,000.Third, pletecontrast 'Healthwarning: Thecontents ofthisexhi- standards ofuniversal oracceptability ina NewYork. saying decency bitionmaycause shock,vomiting, likethat oftheUS aresimply confusion, society meaningless. and If suffer from the entire reflects thepolitical Makingthenews panic,euphoria, anxiety. you Fourth, controversy ora nervous disorder orpalpi- powerofthereligious in the US. highbloodpressure between art right Although Hereonehastomakea distinction tationsyoushouldconsultyourdoctorbefore theyultimately lostintheirspecific to and and the thatis ina attempts pornography, pornography The museumwanted destroy theNEA,thisfight overfunding andcapitalised viewingtheexhibition.' cutting- senseencouraged, upon,byall attention andcontroversy anditgotplenty ofboth. edgeartists willcontinue, inpartbecausetheUS is sections ofthepress- notonlytheNewsofthe Mostoftheseimagesareprobably Ontheonehandit Worldandthepagethrees, butthemoregeneral quitefamil- reallya schizophrenic society. - DamienHirst'sliced hasa longtradition iartoBritish audiences ofPuritanism, andontheother scandal-mongering vis-à-vis thevisualarts,by twopiecesbyJakeandDinosChapman, a great tradition animals; offreespeech. Thoseareorthogo- artsreporters whotry toimpute scaneverywhere, whichwerewidelyadmired, one a verytough nalandrunintoeachother. dalwhere noneexists, inaneffort toinvent news Whatwillthecontroversial areasbe in the (usuallyinthesummer). pieceafter Goya;DeaddadbyRonMueck;Jenny ThefussoverMarcus Saville'sBrobdingnagian MarcQuinn's future? ofheterosexual conduct aiegoing woman; to Harvey's of intheLondon Images painting MyraHindley fromhisownfrozen be hardtoattack, head,whichwas sculpted as areexplicit sexualimagesin Sensation showstands outas anexample ofthis. blood;MarcusHarvey's Thethree areasthatwillcon- Theexhibition wastotakeplacein September, imageofMyraHindley. filmandmagazines. One particular tobecontroversial areimages ofgaysex,be- andwehada pressconference image,though,threwMayor tinue foritinFebruary or GuilianiandtheCatholicestablishment intoa causesociety stillhasnotbroadly that accepted way March,atwhichweshoweda slideofthepaint- portrayals oftheVirgin, in oflife;'kiddie-porn' ofyoung children ing.Just rage- ChrisOfili'sdepiction before theexhibition wasduetoopenthat whichoneofherbreastswasrepresented in sexual which is one areawherethe August, whileholidaying inSpain,I gota rather situations, using withspangles. courts theconstitutionality ofserious lim- hysterical elephant dungdecorated call fromthePresident oftheRoyal recognise itsoncreativity; andfinally, as we've about 'a scandal breakblasphemy, Academy, PhilipDowson, Small-town sheriff seeninregard toworks andOfili. out in the The media had waited all bySerrano ing press.' The Mayorlauncheda full-scale attackon the Insum,themostsensible course istoletpeople thosemonths tomanufacture thisscandalinthe Museum forshowing whathedescribed see artandjudgeforthemselves. A freesociety so-calledsillyseasonabouttheHindley Brooklyn picture. as 'a dung-smeared . The institution or TheRoyalAcademy Virgin' Catholic wasshowing thispainting, League cannotgrantany governmental called it hate-speech tojudgewhatis acceptable which isnotonlyanincredibly againstCatholics.Now, grouptheauthority work of interesting theChurch, oranycritic, hasa free-speechandunacceptable. In a freesociety thatmustbe artbutalsoa highly clearly oneinthesensethat political andthat's a principle itdealswithrealissuesthatoughttohaveconrightosaywhatever theywant,andthesecom- leftoindividual judgement, mentsfellintothecategory of fairdiscussion. wellworth for. cerned theaudience. Italsohasa relationship with fighting Whatmadethedifference wasthatthegovernAmerican on thethemes art,beinga variation ment TheMayorsaidthatunlessthe James dealtwith gotinvolved. Warhol. Fitzpatrick byChuckCloseandAndy museum tookdownthepainting hewouldcutoff SeniorPartner Butthepressgotreallyhysterical. Theydid and Arnold & Porter cityfunding, replaceitsboardofdirectors the (Washington, DC) everything theypossiblycouldto prevent cancelitslease,forcing ittomove- a classic, exhibition of taking place:ringing up members 54 RSAJournal 3|62002 This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:27:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Art censorshipJake and Dinos Chapman / text
P. 4
Lectures theRoyalAcademy togettheanswers of which doesn't inanysensedetract from itsquality. theywant- worldwherewe witnessthepornography edtohearItis a curious form ofcensorship which poverty andadvertising, tosaynothing ofpolitiOfcoursethedebateregarding thenature of arisesfrom thefreepress.Whenthepainting was calpornography suchas wearecurrently witness- censorship into quicklyslips bipolaropposites. mostpeoplelovedit,andrecognised that it ingin theMiddleEast. Is pornography in art Ontheonehandlibertarian shown, humanism treats cenwasgood.Yetthemediamanaged tocreate a scan- absolute orrelative? Shouldwecensor? Artcan- sorship as a fascistic closureuponfreedom and - whichprobably notbe pornographic - butthis freespeech.On theotherhandthestatepolice dal aroundtheexhibition by definition - andaround forcesus toaskwhatartis,whichis verydiffi- defendthemassesfromtheir increased thenumber ofvisitors catapotentially Charles whoisa very controversial Saatchi, figure cult.For me,artis in essencea moralthing; strophic desire,a desirewhichtheymustnot buta greatpatron ofthearts,andwhohasdonea pornography, isnot. fortheir owngood,a tautology which bydefinition, experience dealforthelifeofartinthiscountry. reeksofdespotic The seems tobe great logic. paradox Norman Rosenthal onewhichFoucault in his of recognised analysis His hypothesis Onlyhuman that a Royal Academy sexuality. suggests truly Itis interesting howatthemoment weintheUK is onewhere freewillis ornapermissive society are veryconcerned(rightlyso) aboutchild mented withalloftheaccoutrements oflibertarito Part III an individualism and is of courseabsolutely pornography, yetatthesametimeunwilling think aboutthedepiction ofchildren. Therewas I couldrecite a listofartworks I believeshould be powerless as a mass. another caseinvolving wherethepolice censored becausethey're not The main problem,then,is approaching Saatchi, bad, aesthetically turned toanexhibition bad.Fromthatpointof censorship as a socialfunction thatmayin a upinresponse featuring becausethey're morally beautiful ofnakedchil- viewI believethereis no intrinsic masochistic sense be both and incredibly photographs relationship perverse productive dren.Whatis wrong withthedepiction ofnaked between aesthetics andmorality. Monochromaticunproductive. contributes to the Censorship children? Whatis wrong withthedepiction ofthe painting isnolessethical thana picture ofdogshit. theatreof living.It cannotever be deposed nakedhumanbeing?Whatis wrongevenwith In a commentary on Venusinfurs, Sacher- becauseitistherepresentation ofthepresence of thedepiction(in a seriousand differentiatedMasochmakesa statement as tothenature ofhis law,yetas a suppressive forceitis complicit with 4 human andfurs arethemeans I theforms ofreleasethatitunconsciously makes way)ofthearoused being?It'salla ques- pleasure:Whips bywhich tionofcontext, a questionofplace,a question terrorise andviaFreud, Masoch'sname available. isgenerous. Inaninfamous myself,' Censorship ofdifferentiation. andnotoriety totheclinicalnotion of statement, Freudclaimstheaimofalllifeisdeath, givesbirth IntheUS,nobody hadheardofMyraHindley, masochism. WhatMasochis saying is thatpleas- andyethe suggests further onthatthecivilised so no-onesought torecreate thatscandal.Butthe ureisa matter offriction, andstimulation as a con- organism wouldseektopunctuate thesequence of CatholicChurchdid so in responseto Chris ceptrequires inorder friction foritsfinal release to itsfatalandinevitable movement withmany little Ofili'sHolyVirgin contract . Whathe'ssuggesting morts isthat if Mary.Ofiliis a cultivated be climactic.The masochistic is, in deaths ,petits andthoughtful andwas brought thecapacity of a bodyto do youtreat lifeas a sequence artist, from zerotozero,you terms, up as a Newtonian RomanCatholic.'WhenI go to theNational work, aidedbythephysical effects offriction and canmakejudgements thatcivilisation is simply andseepaintings oftheVirgin he heat, orgenerally thetheory ofresistance. theforms offriction which occurenroute. Gallery Mary,' 4 Of courseFreudopposesmasochism with says, 1seehowsexuallycharged manyofthem are.Minearesimply a hip-hop variation.' Buthis another that of the literary figure, Marquisde Closedloop causeda ridiculous scandalinNewYork Sade.IntheNewtonian modelsadismimpliesan Theproblem withcensorship is thatitseemsto painting - again,forpoliticalpurposesandinorderto uninhibited a pleasure-seekerbedefined a small number of pleasuresystem, by peopleexerting sellnewspapers. unbound offriction, a superinduc- a privileged viewovera largenumber ofpeople. bytherigours areverymuchbehind whosesituation is notdetermined ofcensorship seemslightly unbelievNewspapers censorship tivesystem by Questions inart.Butthere areother kindsofcensorship inhibition andfuture ofsecondary is thatpeople promise gains able whenoneofthearguments forexample, whomay butby absolutely artists, from theexperience ofseecensorship byother free-moving pleasure.On a havetobedefended feelthreatened new as a new socialscale,themasochistic contract translates or ingcertain forms work, ofculture thatwillcorrupt or by particularly orschoolcomesintobeing.Perhaps becomes whatweknowas thelawsgoverning and pollutethem.Obviously thefollowing generation question themostdifficult exhibition I've beenengaged in determining censorship.Censorshipis our is: howdo censorsgetto see thethingswhich attheRoyalAcademy was1981's ANewSpirit in masochistic socialcontract. areapparently to?A theythemselves impervious So censorship , wherewe showedmanyartistsin the workofartcanonlybe deemedoffensive Painting is,ina permissive culture, byits Londonfortheveryfirstime- artistslike meansbywhichwe terrorise ourselves. It is a audience.A workof artisn'tin and of itself Anselm Kiefer andGeorgBaselitzanda number form ofdramatic over-elaboration If youtakea painting ofsomething bywhichwe offensive. of Germanand Italianartists.At thattime, complexify ourlevelsofstimulation ofintensity. obsceneandyouputitin a clearingina forest artwas beingmade,in British Itis as necessary tousas a culture as a restrictiveit'snotoffensive. It'sonlyoffensive initsconcontemporary either in the US or and there is to the individual Takeaway sumption anditsoffence is determined here, perceptions, peephole voyeur. bythe was no artcomingfromEurope.The Royal thepeephole andthevoyeur isn'tveryhappy. An nature ofthataudience. A marginal closedaudiwasinutter turmoil. Lotsofartists felt exampleofthiswouldbe theclimactic scenein encewilltendnottoattackcensorship because Academy their livelihood threatened film themagistrate watches thethreat is notperceived those familiar with Salò,where bythiswholenewgen- Pasolini's by eration. Ofcourse thisisprobably or maybeeven theterms. Iftheargument forelitismis seento binoculars, goingtohappen thetorture through thatgoesonandchanges operaglassestomakeitmorecultural. Herevers- maintain thecomplexity of artdiscourseit's again.Artis something Valuesarealwaysinflux. es them andstrips deathofitsrealmagnitude. The becausetheysay:4Look,theterms areclosed. constantly. weshouldtalkaboutwhatconstitutes filmwascensored, intotheeconomy of Let'skeepthem closed.' Perhaps entering realpornography rather thanconfusing certain theoppressed itmatured where until itsrecent cliTheproblems occurwhenyoucanhave'public of art with I can't undermactic release. The film attains an access' or'wideaccess',where museums start to aspects pornography. economy, stand at all whythereis suchconfusion, in a attainsa value,becauseit has beenrepressed, havetocompete withother forms ofentertainment RSAJournal 3|62002 55 This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:27:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Art censorshipJake and Dinos Chapman / text
P. 5
Lectures andtheyhavetodo so at thesamelevel.They havetobeabletosuggest thatanyonecancome andseea workofartandnotbethreatened byits terms,whethertheyare imageswhichare sadisticor masochistic, or whether explicitly theyareimageswhicharea pileofbricksora monochromatic canvas.Eitherofthosethings canbe seenas offensive becausetheydetermine a senseofignorance onthepartoftheviewer. So seemsonlytocomeintoplaywhen censorship overtconceptsof innocenceand corruption comeintoconflict. Thereis also thisideathathas comeoutin someof thethingsthathavebeensaid bythe twospeakers- thata workof artis previous thathere isautomatically a idealistic, necessarily universal nature to a workofart,andthatis to andtooffer somemodeloflife,conditions modify of experience, whichare better and nicerand more Problems occur, dialectically interesting. whenyouhaveworksofartthatareby though, their andverypurpose verynature misanthropic. determined nottobenice.Here,theprobThey're lems of censorship becomeslightlyabsurd, becauseall thathappens is thatthatworkofart seekstocausenotions ofidealism toreverberate with panic. One of the funnytermsthatcame from wastheideaofshock, Sensation whichbecamea lowestcommon denominator method fordeterwhether a workofartwasgoodornot. mining Therewasn'tmuchanalysis ofthaterm totraceit backtoFreud's abreactive tothenotion of therapy, convulsion andtrauma. Itseemstomethatoneof themostindicative, themostcentral of concepts is thatitis a theatrical enablement of censorship drama.It simply allowsa threshold tobe transas you gressed.The conceptof transgression, someone like know,is determined by Georges Bataille.He saysthere'something kindofodd abouttherelationship between and Christianity crime whenitssocialandmoral functions extrapolatefrom thefirst, which wastokill crime, biggest theSonofGod.So Christianity hasalways hadthis indealingwithnotions ofcensorslight problem becauseitisinitself a transshipandtransgression It relies on sin. gresséereligion. JakeChapman Artist Notes Delivered totheSociety inLondon on17April 2002. Theseareedited versions ofthelecturers' full texts. Í 3 .8 •S 0 .о .«О 1 I ř i : Above Chris 243.8x1 Ofili, 1995, 82.8cm, HolyVirgin Mary, oil resin, acrylic paint, paint, polyester paper mappinsandelephant collage, dungoncanvas, with twoelephant dungsupports Left: JakeandDinosChapman, Great deedsagainst thedead,1994, mixed media 277x244x152cm, andplinth § 0 -J 1 <§ I s со I ì 1 8 56 RSAJournal 3|62002 This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:27:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions