November 7, 2011
BGSU FIRELANDS – Artistic Expression or Obscenity?
Posted by Alissa Widman under Discussions | Tags: art, BGSU, Firelands, First Amendment, Little Gallery, Miller v. California, obscene, Supreme Court |[8] Comments
The Little Gallery at BGSU Firelands.
1. SITUATION
Bowling Green State University’s Firelands campus made national news a few years ago concerning an instance of artistic censorship.
James Parlin, a University student, constructed a sculpture called “The Middle School Science Teacher Makes a Decision He’ll Live to Regret” that was placed in Firelands’ Little Gallery. The sculpture depicted a female middle school student performing oral sex on a standing male middle school science teacher. Both sculptures were fully clothed and no body parts were exposed. The sculpture was removed from the gallery by Firelands’ former dean because it was considered inappropriate for children and families who visited the gallery.
(For those who wish to view the sculpture, an image is available HERE.)
The censorship situation garnered much attention from critics online. The National Coalition Against Censorship was outraged at the decision and issued a statement addressing what it called a violation of First Amendment rights and academic and artistic freedom.
One blogger met with Parlin and talked to him about the situation. You can read the blog post HERE.
Parlin said the University could have handled the situation more professionally by putting up a warning sign so people could choose if they wanted to view his sculpture. He said “The Middle School Science Teacher Makes a Decision He’ll Live to Regret” is a “moralistic piece about the freedom of will, compulsion and decision making,” and is based on someone who lost a job, family and freedom because of a bad decision that led to disaster — his goal wasn’t to create controversy or offend anyone with an obscene piece of artwork.
2. LEGAL BACKGROUND
According to legal precedents set in 1973 by the Supreme Court case MILLER VS. CALIFORNIA, obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment.
Material is defined as obscene based on three criteria:
- The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex
- The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
- The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
The question that must be answered to assess this situation is if “The Middle School Science Teacher Makes a Decision He’ll Live to Regret” is obscene material.
3. QUESTIONS
How does the test described in Miller v. California apply to this situation?
Do you think the former Firelands dean made the right decision in removing “The Middle School Science Teacher Makes a Decision He’ll Live to Regret” from the Little Gallery? Why or why not?
What solutions do you think the deans could have used instead of completely removing James Parlin’s piece from the Little Gallery?
8 thoughts on “BGSU FIRELANDS – Artistic Expression or Obscenity?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 7th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
1. On the first part of the Miller test, I would say the sculpture did not apply to the prurient interest. The sculpture is supposed to be shocking (maybe even repulsive), not arousing. For the second part of the test I would say the work is offensive (considering it is showing statutory r*pe) however, since both figures in the sculpture were clothed I would say it is not as bad as it could have been. On the third part of the test I would say it defeats the miller test as not being obscene. The sculpture had an artistic meaning behind it, which would give it artistic value.
2. I do think the dean could have made a better decision (especially in a college environment where artistic expression is supposed to be not only tolerated but encouraged). I don’t imagine there are a plethora of parents taking their kids to the Firelands Little Gallery. The gallery should be serving the student artists first and foremost.
3. I think (like the artist suggested) the dean could have put up a sign that warned parents with children (or anyone else who is easily offended) that there were graphic images in the art studio.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Based upon the miller vs California this art piece depicts an offensive work. However I think it is art and it isn’t prurient interest.
From the University’s perspective I think they acted appropriately. They have an image to protect and do not condon what te art piece was perdicting.
A soluion would be provide a warning to those who attend the gallery and tell where the piece is.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:01 am
I think his work was borderline racy but it had a artisic and societal meaning behind it. It might have went over the average persons ideals on pruient values because every person does not think of pedophilia on a regular basis but it evens out because it could have been a stance against it or a framed example of what happens in everyday life.It does however depict something that society does not accept and is blatantly offensive to our laws. Overall they should have moved it or put a sign saying for a mature audience.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:39 am
I believe based on the Miller test the art is obsence material. It is very offfensive the male is an adult and the girl is a young student. That’s categorize as apart of r*ape. Although art is a form of expression the art was inappropriate even if they both were fully clothed.
I think the university could of made a sign saying warning art maybe offensive if they decided to keep that art. But if I was the dean of the university I would not have such obsence art like Parline’s up on any location on campus. I believe universities have reputations to maintain and an sculpture of statutory r*pe is obsence.
November 11th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Very interesting scenario; thanks for posting this!
November 13th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
I do not feel that the work satisfies all three parts of the miller test. It would most likely satisfy the first two, but definitely now the third. In my opinion, it has artistic and other values.
I see the merit in his decision. I’m sure he did not expect all of the controversy that followed his decision. He was probably just trying to remove something that he thought would cause trouble. With that being said, and in my opinion the work passing the miller test, he should not have removed it.
As already mentioned, there could have been some sort of warning attached to the piece.
November 13th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I believe the piece would have made it through the Miller Test. While the first two parts might fit the piece, the third does not. The sculpture makes a statement, one that the artist himself told the blogger. It has some artist value in it, as well as a little bit of a social or political statement behind it.
The Dean was trying to avoid a problem, but working in a college setting he should have sought a different solution instead of simply removing it.
The solution stated in the text would be a great idea. Have signs posted outside the room or somewhere before the piece to warn people about it, especially if they have children.
November 18th, 2011 at 11:19 am
It seems that everyone is basically in agreement that the piece would pass the Miller test simply because of the fact that the piece has some sort of societal/artistic value even though it is shocking and possibly offensive. Because there is a societal impact, such as raising awareness of an issue in society, it would most likely pass the test.
I think the location of the art exhibit plays an important role on the presentation of the art piece, which is what the dean took into account when he made the decision to remove the piece. If the exhibit is in a location where children and families are likely to view the artwork, it might be difficult for the dean to allow the art student to show the piece. I think he made the quickest decision, but maybe not the most logical decision. A simple sign that warns viewers of content-sensitive material would maintain free speech, but also protect influential audiences.