N.Y.U. Practices Safe Censorship
NYU practiced safe censorship this past October when they denied a student's desire to film explicit sex acts in front of an NYU class. Now to be clear : Blandus is against porn. This would be porn. But even beyond that, I think the girl's defense of "artistic freedom" is a little off base.
Paula Carmicino claims that she wanted to contrast "animalistic" sex acts with more mundane activities. From the NYT article:
"She planned to intersperse 30-second clips of passionate sex with scenes of the couple engaged in more mundane activities, like watching television and reading a newspaper.
Simulating the sex would have defeated her purpose, she said. "That's censoring the sex part. My thing is how we censor ourselves during the day when we're not having sex."
The problem with her artistic method is multi-fold:
(1) She was using actors, not "real people."
(2) No one has sex in front of a class full of students - any "animalistic" behavior would not be authentic, but should be believed to be contrived.
(3) Few people, especially actors, behave "normally" when they are on camera. The mundane self-censorship would have as much to do with camera presence as with everyday life.
I am not against "art." But if you are going to claim that you are trying to depict two facets of "real life" you can't contrive a method that flaws your intention. If you are really creating "art" and not just trying to shock or sensationalize then you should be able communicate no matter your limitations. Ms. Carmicino could have accomplished her stated goals much better by following the university's guidelines, but instead chose to claim a non-existent victimhood. Christianity supports human expression through art, but Christians should demand at least some level of common sense from art's practicioners.
Posted by Blandus at December 4, 2003 11:33 PM