Design Control Censorship Pt2

The last part of the debate was giving discussion into possible causes to why censorship occurs. How it started, and who possibly even started it. What this second part of the discussion will talk about, is the idea that preemptive censorship can control design even as much as the censoring bodies cause to released matter. The idea that in some respects censorship can aid in delivering the market force required to selling a product more that the actual clever, or not so clever advert itself. In my youth I remember the release of a song by a group called 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood', the songs title was "Relax". The censoring bodies (as we know from the previous post were dominated by religious activists) deemed the lyrics of the song too suggestive and sexually derived, and therefore banned the song to be aired on radio or television. This did a remarkable thing. It made the curiosity of the record buying audience curious. Therefore, the record shot to number one and stayed there for some weeks. Now, it is debatable whether the songs success would have occurred if it hadn't been banned, or not. However, on perusing the lyrics it is hard to find anything that actually could be that offensive to an open-minded individual. So, this does prove that censorship can in fact be a double edged sword that can aid as well as hinder the process of creative affect.

I did mention Toscani's famous Benetton adverts in the previous blog. A very remarkable and if said by some, controversial set of advertising images. What must be questioned here is what people think the aspect to the creative notion works and why, then, do people find these adverts so risque? What one could do is to say that in some respects censorship is out, not to mask harmful content, but to mask truth (in itself a big debate). On researching the debate here and thankfully posted by Panagiotis, there are some images of an advert that was aired once in the UK, by the MTV company. Now, it could be seen evident to the reason why the people at the controlling board decided to pull this set of adverts. However, if you look at the work rationally, there is nothing in fact wrong with the pieces. All they do is tell the truth. What is the issue is that seem to be insensitive. The joke in that irony is that all advertising to some degree is insensitive. Aiming to sell you a product that you don't actually need is the key trick in making advertising work. So, why do some creative pieces get pulled over others. As said before, it is because the governing body is controlled by a group of people who's main motivation to understanding the notion of censorship is primarily driven by morals governed by their religious upbringing or belief.

Here it not right to say that advertising and art should not be held accountable to taste and morality, but instead that the curbing of some forms via a blinkered governing body does in fact stifle creative aspects. I spent some time looking at nudity in art for the first part of the debate. Some very interesting evidence was coming out in what I discovered. Many of the classic renaissance images that held any form of nudity in them were even so restricted by covering the reproductive elements of the shown figures. Even if completely nude, the angle by which these figures were posed had it so that the genitalia was either masked by another figure, and appendage or was turned in such a way that it was hidden. Why was this? Lots of possible reason. Maybe the climate of the day was so that it was not seen acceptable to show nudity thus. However, these images were openly showing all flesh apart from the reproductive elements of the body. Take Venus by Botticelli. Nude as nude could be. However, the vagina is masked. Another possible argument could be the simple fact that the patrons had control over the art and therefore asked for it to be removed. This could only be seen rational if the patrons had cause through moral control. What is known is that many of these image are in fact patronized by the church. Could it be said that the church or strong moral fibered people still have such influence. Maybe so! What is needed as a discussion point here though, is in today's modern society and the openness of so much pre-considered taboo aspects of life, does creative get stifled before it even emerges from the creatives mind. Does the idea that the work could be rejected be a reason to angle the content in a way that is safer, more acceptable.

One area that is still a little open to freedom is the area of fine art. Damien Hurst is a good example of a person willing to take things to the limit of decency. The recently controversial art exhibition in South America by a native artist willing to display a live dog in captivity until its death, was seen as art and not a moral injustice. Funnily, in the same token the artist Shaun Monson, who directed a brilliant 'truth' motivated documentary film "Earthlings" has the stigma of being classed an eco-terrorist due to his efforts to reverse the type of affect that the dog exhibition puts in mind. His film has been censored in many theatres in the US, and will never be allowed to be aired on States TV. All he is doing is telling the truth!

It would be interesting to have some feedback to understanding what goes through a creatives mind when the brief is delivered and the ideas flood in, as the brief allows for some openness in it's interpretation. Does the moral aspects of the actual artist's own lifestyle ever manage the output, or is it more if a case that restrictions are thought due to the overpowering notions that people just may not accept that type of creative angle? I myself, as an educator and creative try to explore and help young minds in seeing creativity as an open aspect form. That, nudity, shocking aspects, seemingly immoral aspects, etc. are not taboo in a creative process. That the open-mind can deliver creative approaches and that the mind also (should) know when that point has been pushed too far. And before people barrage this debate with all the things that I know are obviously wrong, then I am aware that some things just are not acceptable. However, as society develops and our social openness accepts such things as gay marriage and the acceptable state it should be, like heterosexual marriage, and that it is simple a case of understanding that is the divide in many such cases. This is what human's can do on an evolutionary track. Evolve their understanding. Some fifty years ago couples were not allowed to be seen on tv in the same bed. Now, TV shows couple in alternating variations having sex on TV, in full natural nudity. So, with respect to many other aspects of morally unacceptable notions of what should be seen and not seen, time can be a great healer.

For the creatives though, pushing the line of this viewpoint is risky and challenging at the same time, but has greater scope when you are aware that the subject matter could offend. Why is this such a stimulating aspect to a possible creative's idea generation to believe that taking risks is a better aspect to design than playing it safe?