I once read an article about Italian artist, Piero Manzoni, (1933-1963) who, in 1961, exhibited a few small cans of his own feces, and labeled each as "Artist's Shit." I found the work to be offensive to my intelligence, imagination, and identity as an artist, because I feel that content, (message or statement) should supersede just having "been first" at doing something. The one thing we probably all agree on, is that each of us can usually immediately see why a particular work of art would be considered offensive to a large number of viewers. The reason, of course, is that there are certain aspects of all our personal lives that we do not want treated or viewed as being unimportant, trivialized, ridiculed, or made public; such as religion, sex, and certain crimes. We know these things exist in everyday life, but we don't prefer to see them showcased in a museum or gallery, since most of us interpret  the function of museums to be a place where society can experience firsthand, works of art produced by competent artists whose talents can educate, inspire, and challenge our imaginations and sense of esthetics, without offending our sensibilities.

We've all seen or read about art exhibitions that have been either shut down, censored, or scathingly reported in the media. One such exhibition, Black Star Press, at the Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis, by artist Kelly Walker, which consisted of mural-sized images of police brutality against African Americans, was denounced by enraged museum staff workers and museum goers who objected vehemently against the subject matter. In response, the museum posted signs: "This gallery contains content that may be difficult for some viewers." Artnetnews.com said the artist and the museum issued an apology.  Society will have to determine if the museum planned on having to post an after-the-fact written apology when they designed the exhibition, and if so, will future apologies be planned for as part of the museum's direction? 

In a case where art becomes offensive over a period of time, in 1981, sculptor Richard Sera was commissioned by the U.S. General Services Administration, (GSA) as part of its "Art-In-Architecture" program, to create one of his steel sculptures for the Federal Plaza, which he did. "Tilted Arc" was 12' tall and 120' long. Months later, employees of two government divisions collected 1300 signatures to have the piece removed; citing the piece "encompassed the people who walk on the plaza in its volume." Proponents of the sculpture stated that removing the sculpture at the request of a few, would infringe on Serra's First Amendment right to free speech and was therefore un-American. A long legal battle ensued. In 1989, the sculpture was removed in pieces and stored indefinitely. Sera's response-"In Europe a lot of money is spent on art and culture. In America, the money is spent on sports and entertainment." Years later, he said: "Art is not democratic. It is not for the people."

by James L. Weaver