Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor, I would like to respond to the letter submitted by John Gordon in the April 20 edition of the St. Norbert Times. As a religious studies and fine art student who respectfully disagrees with several of his points, I felt inclined to respond.

Gordon first advises that the Art discipline should have banned one student's photograph containing a nude penis from display in the senior art show. In contrast, I argue that Art appropriately encouraged the exhibit. Having casually observed the artist's sincere artistic process towards the completion of this final portfolio, it was evident to me that this work was not an impulsive, ephemeral result of a momentary thought. The artwork resulted from years of artistic process and development.

Consequently, I suggest that the work is not immature but is actually courageous. When it becomes comfortable to ignore certain topics, provocative artwork invites us to honestly reflect and converse, inciting a process of growth. Though the criticized artwork did make me uncomfortable, it was anything but immature; when asked to confront our own fears and insecurities, however, it is natural that we all become diffident and defensive. This response is helpful in gaining knowledge and understanding of ourselves and our world.

In addition, the objection focused on the image that contained a penis, although the display was a series of six images and contained nude women and men. Only the male genitalia elicited Gordon's attention, suggesting a qualitative difference in the acceptability of male and female nudity.

Gordon suggests that the photograph should not be exhibited at a Catholic institution. As a religious studies major and art minor, I recognize that much of Catholic art has prophetically challenged social norms and made people uneasy. It pushes the viewer into the ground between comfort and discomfort; rather than making artwork inappropriate, the middle ground is an ideal opportunity for conversation and learning. If St. Norbert College promotes true academic freedom, our Catholic identity should encourage rather than limit the endeavors of a student who authentically pursues her artistic questions. Consequently, I am inclined to wonder if the objections raised are guised as a superior morality and defense of true artistic expression but implicitly promote a personal agenda.

Finally, Gordon's main point objects to the methodology and exercise of authority within the Art discipline. As a fine art and specifically a photography student who has actually experienced the pedagogical methods of different art professors, including Professor John Gordon, I have generally found the discipline's authority ideal in my own artistic growth. I have not been allowed to aimlessly create whatever fleeting thought comes into my mind on any particular week. Instead, the art professors and especially the photography professor encouraged me to think critically about art as a process. Any honest question or idea is worth pursuing as a piece of art or as a constituent leading towards a final piece. When, as most often is the case, a student takes the art process seriously, his or her work is not juvenile. It reveals years of thinking, experimenting, and creating with the guidance and, in my experience, the appropriately exercised authority of the department.

It is my sincere hope that the art discipline, which has been indispensable to my SNC experience, continues to encourage students to take the process of art seriously. When students who are pushed and challenged respond with heartfelt effort, no resulting senior work will be random or insignificant. No work will be a trifling prank or an immature display of unimportant matters. Instead, art will place a central role in the educational experience of all members of the SNC community, and it will certainly continue to be a field that is worth saving.



Rachelle Barina