ARTS ISSUE PROMPTS A NEW EXHIBIT POLICY

An artist whose works were withdrawn from an exhibit at Gallery 100 calls it censorship; gallery officials say they simply removed artworks patrons would find offensive.

Two drawings of three pieces submitted by artist T.M. Hughes were removed from the exhibit by members of the Arts Council executive committee before the show opened Sunday. The third piece is a photograph.

The issue has prompted officials with the Southeast Missouri Council on the Arts, which operates the gallery, to consider a written policy concerning standards.

The exhibit is from The Drawing Group, an association of 12 local artists. The exhibit deals with nude figures primarily. The drawings in question involved depictions of a pre-adolescent girl.

"The directors of the gallery felt it necessary to censor two pieces from the exhibition," Hughes said. "I understand that these might rub some people wrong, morally," Hughes said. "I intended to illustrate feelings pertaining to the modern American family, the degeneration of the family."

Hughes said both drawings have been published in Journey, a literary journal published on the Southeast Missouri State University campus. One of the works has been displayed at another exhibition.

"I am not Robert Maplethorpe," Hughes said. "Censorship has no place in the fine-art community. Allowing the public to view only art that is deemed appropriate by a limited committee of censors is unhealthy for the public gallery and promotes the stagnation of the arts of the entire community it serves."

Hughes said patrons of the gallery should be told that some pieces have been removed from the exhibits because of content.

"The normal person does not know there are pieces which are not being shown," said Hughes.

A similar issue arose during last month's photography exhibit. Two photographs were not chosen for that show because of their content.

Ann Swanson, chairman of the board of directors, said, "For several of our shows we have received materials we felt would upset people, distress them, particularly if they brought their children.

"We don't have a policy in writing yet," Swanson said. "But we have been discussing guidelines.

"The board of directors felt nude children are not a good thing to exhibit," she said. "We would also be concerned about works that would be denigrating to women or religious or racial groups, or exceedingly violent works."

She said a specific policy would be discussed this summer.

"This is no reflection on the quality of the work," Swanson said.

Swanson said because the gallery is supported in part by tax dollars, it must be responsive to needs of the community. She said the rest of the association's funding comes from individuals in the community. "Obviously, if we antagonize our public, we will suffer financially."

"I can understand his disappointment in not having his works exhibited," Swanson said. "I hope he can understand our position."

Beverly Strohmeyer, executive director of the arts council, said: "The arts council reserves the right to reject works. We don't feel that it is censorship. We are not telling the artist he cannot do the work he did. We feel as a community arts council we have the right to exhibit what we feel is appropriate for our community.

"We are not advocating censorship by any means," Strohmeyer said. "But our gallery needs to reflect the community standards."

Strohmeyer said a community arts gallery has different standards than a university or private gallery. "I feel they would probably have a more liberal policy set for the university."

Members of the Drawing Group hung the pieces on April 29. On May 1 the three-member executive committee of the arts council's 12-member board of directors viewed the works and decided the two pieces were inappropriate.

Members of the Drawing Group met prior to the show to select the pieces they wanted to exhibit.

Artist Nanci Joplin said members had a difference of opinion about whether to hang Hughes' pieces.

"It was hung with the show and the arts council decided they didn't want it in the show," Joplin said.

"I didn't get any strong feelings one way or another from them. I wasn't offended by them at all, but I could see how some people would be, those with a conservative opinion on art."

Joplin said, "I thought it was good the gallery allowed us to have all the nudes in it that they did. Other artists have also said they were pleased with the show."

"There's mixed feelings within the group," said artist Grant Lund. "But I think you could say all of us have some reluctance to use censorship; at the same time we can understand how some people might have concerns."

Artist Wayne McDowell said: "We had to limit the amount of work we could show. We picked what everybody thought was the best. I don't think we picked his drawings to begin with."

McDowell said the decision was based on the quality of the works, not the content.

"Artistically, I didn't agree with them," he said. "It has nothing to do with what they are. Artistically, I thought he had better stuff.

"I don't think the pictures say what he thinks they should say. And they are not up to par with the show."

But McDowell said he was concerned that the pieces were pulled for reasons other than the quality of the artwork.

"If they are censoring purely from the point that we don't want to see this and don't think everyone should either, I don't think anyone else has a right to judge everyone else's morals," McDowell said.