The Jesse Helms theory of art is an interesting one to say the least. Basically, in as many words, it is anti-homosexual bigotry directed at the socially aware art of Robert Mapplethorpe. Helms would conted that art must be pleasing to the eye while conveying good “moral” (Judeo-Christian) values. That is certainly the motive behind his Franco-esque culture war: a revival of the Judeo-Christian ethic and its reintegration into American society. Very good, also coming from the man who once opposed nationalized civil rights “because it was a state issue.” Stand up moral Christian, and the archetype of the Christian right politician. Thus, much like the other of his movement (*cough* Moral Majority *cough*) he turned to bigotry to cut off and remove any “immoral” influences from the public sphere, and Mr. Helms chose the arts. To Mr. Helms, this and only things of this nature could be considered art:
Yet, why did Helms specifically target Mapplethorpe and his works? Well, for the obvious reasons of their “homoerotic” nature and the sheer “immorality” depicted (insert Leviticus 18:22 here). However, this begs the question, what is it that makes these artworks so blatantly “homoerotic?” Is it because it depicts two homosexual men in “suggestive positions?” Probably. But without context, these artworks are simply photographs; the must be applied to the American society of the 1980s and that of Mapplethorpe’s (gay) community as well.
The 1980s were certainly a turbulent time in American social history, and none more so than in the gay community. The 80s saw the rise of AIDS, a disease that by some cruel twist of fate ravaged the gay community, both through death and the discrimination it caused. The response of American society, spearheaded by the Christian Right, was to ostracize the gays and look down upon them as the harbingers of the new death: AIDS. People, a bout of AIDS-related hysteria, went as far as to look for a “patient zero,” who just happened to be a gay man. They took to calling AIDS Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (not bigoted at all) All of this gave way to a swelling anti-gay movement, although it was built upon utterly ridiculous claims like the aforementioned ones. This manifested itself in the art world, at the hands of Jesse Helms, through the censorship of Mapplethorpe’s works.
While the argument could be made that Mapplethorpe does depict some “taboo” images, his underlying messages are not. In Embrace, he simply shows two men embracing, speaking volumes to the loving relationship and its presence in the gay community, rather than the stereotyped “swinger” culture. Not to mention, it shows that homosexuality does not discriminate, and that all races can be gay. But, mainly, it seeks to showing the mourning at the deaths of so many from AIDS in the gay community, and the rallying point that the rise of AIDS needs to become in order for it to be prevented. It also shows the healing process for this community.
His more “imposing” Mark Stevens seems to be a commentary on the supposed “origin” of AIDS, and the sweeping fear of the instrument of terror: the phallus. Mapplethorpe makes it central to the photograph almost to force the viewer to look at it, and, by extension, confront this agent of death (this interpretation is a complete fabrication). Mapplethorpe merely wished to mediate the tension between the gay community and society, while also invigorating the gay movement with a sense of pride in such a trying time. Thus, with that said, Jesse Helms’ rhetoric can be reduced to hate-mongering, his censorship to blatant bigotry. That simply has no place in the art world, and certainly not the art world in the Land of the Free.