Bill of Right in Action

Spring 1997 (13:2)
Updated June 2000

CONTROVERSIES IN THE ARTS

This edition of Bill of Rights in Action focuses various controversies surrounding art—ranging from Nazi Germany's suppression of modern art to modern controversies about the National Endowment of the Arts and popular music lyrics.

U.S. Government: The Battle Over the National Endowment for the Arts

World History: The Suppression of Art in Nazi Germany

U.S. History: Music on Trial: Rock, Rap, and Responsibility

This issue of the Bill of Rights in Action is made possible by a generous grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation.

The Battle Over the National Endowment for the Arts

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has recently been the focus of intense controversy. Founded just over 30 years ago, the NEA is a federal agency that funds art organizations and programs throughout the country. Most of its money goes to fund art museums, symphonies, established theaters, state and local arts organizations, and art education programs. About 4 percent of its budget used to be given in grants to individual artists. Most criticism of the NEA focuses on its funding of individual artists and displays of their works. Critics often cite as particularly outrageous NEA funding for a museum display of Robert Mapplethorpe's graphic photographs of homosexual acts, NEA funding to an arts organization that gave funds for a display of Andres Serrano's sacrilegious photograph of a crucifix, and direct NEA grants to Karen Finley, whose performance art has featured her smearing her nude body with chocolate.

Many Americans are outraged that their tax dollars have helped support work that they consider obscene or sacrilegious. They argue that NEA funding favors an elite group of artists who are alienated from mainstream American culture. They demand that the NEA be eliminated.

Many others, however, argue that the arts, even controversial works of art, are vital to the flourishing of a rich national culture and a free society. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans favor public support of the arts.

History of Art Funding in America

Although other nations in the developed world have long traditions of government funding for the arts, the United States does not. Symphony orchestras, museums, and individual artists have depended for support on donations from corporations and private foundations. Presidents Buchanan (in 1859), Harrison (in 1891), and Theodore Roosevelt (in 1901) tried to establish a national council on the arts. Their proposals failed. The first major government funding of the arts didn't occur until the 1930s during the Great Depression. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) hired thousands of writers, musicians, painters, sculptures, and other artists to work on public art projects. But the WPA was viewed as a relief project—one that provided employment. In 1939, Congress ended the WPA's art projects.

The Development of the NEA

It wasn't until 1964 that the National Endowment for the Arts was conceived as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." Along with a war on poverty, new education programs, and increased care for the elderly, the Great Society would, Johnson proclaimed, provide money and expertise to "encourage the development and growth of the arts throughout the nation." In 1965, Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts. Its mission was to "foster the excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United States."

To judge artistic excellence, diversity, and vitality, the NEA established "peer panels," appointed by the NEA chairperson. According to federal legislation, the approximately 800 members of the different panels must have shown expertise and leadership in the type of art they are reviewing. They must also be diverse geographically, culturally, and in points of view. All decisions of the peer panels are reviewed by the National Council of the Arts, a 26-member committee appointed by the president. The council then recommends grant finalists to the NEA chairperson, who makes the final decision on all grants.

For many years, the NEA had bipartisan support. The Johnson administration, moving deeper and deeper into the Vietnam quagmire, lost interest in building up the NEA. During the Nixon and Ford administrations, however, the NEA's budget grew tenfold. The Carter and Reagan administrations continued supporting the NEA.

From the NEA's founding, there had always been critics. But in 1989, a storm of criticism fell on the NEA in the wake of its support for the works of Mapplethorpe, Serrano, and Finley. Congress responded by passing a law in 1990 requiring that the agency only fund works that meet "general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public." This law was the first content restriction that Congress had ever placed on the NEA.

The NEA chairperson immediately turned down four grant requests that had been recommended for approval. The four artists (one was Finley) sued the NEA, and in 1992, a federal judge ruled that the decency requirement was unconstitutional. In November 1996, an appeals court voted 2–1 to uphold this ruling. The two-judge majority said that the law was vague and would allow the NEA to refuse funding "because of the artist's political or social message or because the art or artist is too controversial." However, an 8–1 Supreme Court majority voted to reverse the decision of the appeals court in the 1998 case of National Endowment for the Arts v. Karen Finley. Sandra Day O'Connor expressed the opinion of the court when she stated that "the First Amendment protects artists' rights to express themselves as indecently and disrespectfullyas they like, but does not compel the Government to fund that speech."

Following the uproar over these artists, more people in public life started to question the NEA. In the 1992 Republican primary, Patrick Buchanan attacked President Bush for supporting the NEA. After the 1994 congressional elections, the new Republican majorities in both houses slashed the NEA's budget 40 percent—from $170 million to $99 million. Its budget constitutes about a tenth of 1 percent of the federal budget. Jane Alexander, the then head of the NEA, stopped all grants to individual artists.

The Clinton administration supported increased NEA funding. It's persistent requests won the support of congress in April, 2000. The $50.2 million increase of the NEA's budget for 2001 will fund "Challenge America," a plan to connect art organizations more closely with families and communities, concentrating on underserved areas. "Challenge America" will draw the National Endowment for the Arts into a close partnership with the Department of Education and provide for more extensive arts programming in schools. However, voices in Congress continue to call for an end to the NEA.

Pros and Cons of the NEA

Many NEA opponents don't think taxpayers should fund outrageous art. Critics like Patrick Buchanan and Senator Jesse Helms contend that taxpayers unwillingly subsidize obscene and blasphemous art, forced upon them by an out-of-touch cultural elite.

Gene Veith, a Wisconsin arts administrator, agrees that elitism is a problem. He writes that "artists no longer have to create works that appeal to the public. They have to create works that appeal to the grants makers." This problem, he contends, "is multiplied in its effect when state governments, corporations, and even private buyers...defer to the same [NEA] peer-review panels."

The problem of how to recognize quality art has troubled many. Stephen Weil, of Washington's Smithsonian Institution has written: "Few issues, in fact, have so deeply or bitterly divided the art world...as has this question of quality. Is there really any such thing, its detractors ask, or is it simply an exclusionary devise, an instrument of cultural repression...?"

According to Jeff Jacoby, columnist for The Boston Globe: "The NEA consistently rewards novelty over quality. Its grant recipients are often distinguished by...intolerance toward traditional standards and art forms. Artistry, beauty, and craftsmanship are rejected in favor of radical politics, victim chic and anger." In short, these critics repeat the objection that public arts funding favors a small, elite group of artists and connoisseurs.

NEA supporters believe the critics distort the NEA's record. On the NEA's 30th anniversary, Senator Claiborne Pell (D-Rhode Island), one of its original sponsors, said that the NEA:

provides critical assistance for. . .music, theater, literature, dance, design arts, and folk arts around the country. This year, in my own state of Rhode Island, the Endowment provided funds to renovate painting and sculpture facilities in the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design, supported an after-school arts education program for minority neighborhood youth in the fourth and fifth grades, and funded the Trinity Repertory Theater, one of the nation's premier theaters. In other areas, the NEA funded a Music in our Schools program in Providence and aided a folk arts apprenticeship program. Without this funding. . .many of these programs would simply not exist.

NEA supporters further point out that only a handful of the more than 100,000 NEA grants have proven controversial. Robert Hughes, art columnist for Time magazine, says: "You don't kill the endowment over that, any more than you abolish the U.S. Navy because of Tailhook" [a Navy scandal].

NEA supporters maintain that the NEA should not shy away from controversial pieces of art. They explain that many great new works of art have provoked controversy. In 1913, a Parisian audience rioted at the premiere of Igor Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring." When Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam Memorial was announced in 1981, many veterans groups expressed outrage over a work that they believed insulted those who died. Today, both of these works are widely recognized as powerful works of art.

NEA supporters claim that our nation's culture is enriched by serious art work, some of which will never enjoy support by the marketplace.

In contrast, some NEA opponents apply a "survival of the fittest" philosophy to the arts. If an arts program can only survive on government money, they contend, perhaps it shouldn't exist at all. If artists have something of value to offer society, they argue, then people will buy their paintings, books, or recordings, or go to the theater to view their plays and movies.

Opponents point out that, without the NEA, the arts will not die in America. "In fact," insists The Globe's Jacoby, "the NEA-is-indispensable argument is worse than preposterous. It is deeply insulting to the nation's real arts benefactors: the individuals, corporations, and foundations that contributed nearly $9.5 billion last year to sustain the arts and humanities. In 1994, private giving to the arts dwarfed the NEA budget by a ratio of 57 to 1."

NEA supporters recognize that killing the NEA will not kill the arts. But, they maintain, it will deal a severe blow to many communities that cannot support museums, theaters, symphonies, and arts education. They realize that corporations and foundations do most of the giving. (They put the ratio at 12–1). However, they also assert that critics fail to understand that many of these organizations would not be as generous without NEA matching grants—money that must be matched by other donors. NEA money, they state, serves to prime the pump. For every dollar it gives, many more private dollars follow.

In fact, they claim that the NEA's small investment in arts pays huge dividends. They cite studies showing that each year the non-profit arts sector generates billions of dollars for the economy, creates more than a million jobs, and pays back any federal subsidies by returning billions of dollars in taxes. In addition, federally funded arts projects help rejuvenate business districts and lure tourists and shoppers to cultural centers.

Much of the argument between the two sides boils down to one question: Is it proper for government to subsidize the arts? Many NEA opponents argue that support for the arts is not the business of government. Jacoby of The Globe asserts: "In America, the state is expected to keep out of the marketplace of ideas. If it is wrong for government to censor a work of art, it is just as wrong for government to subsidize one." But NEA supporters ask: If this is so, where would you draw the line? Should we close the Smithsonian? Should we sell the Vietnam Memorial? Could no government—local, state, or federal—give any money to a museum? NEA supporters say that supporting the arts is a necessary and proper function of government.

For Discussion

1. How do arts get funding in the United States?
2. Do you think the arts contribute to American society? Why or why not?
3. Do you think the NEA should be involved in funding the arts in the United States? Why or why not?

A C T I V I T Y

What Should Be Done About the NEA?

In this small-group activity, students role play members of a congressional committee deciding what to do about the NEA.

1. Form small groups.
2. In your group, discuss each of the options for the NEA below.
3. Decide which option (or options) your group believes is best for the NEA. You may develop options of your own. Be prepared to report your decisions and reasons for them to the rest of the class. If your group cannot agree, report back the majority and minority positions.
4. After each group reports, hold a discussion and class vote.

Options for the NEA

1. Abolish it.
2. Remove all content restrictions.
3. Permit it only to fund arts organizations like museums and symphonies—not individual artists.
4. Keep it at its current budget.
5. Increase its budget.

The Suppression of Art in Nazi Germany

In 1937, the government of Nazi Germany held two bizarre art exhibits in Munich. The "Great German Art" exhibition opened in the new House of German Art, which was built to look like a huge Greek temple. This exhibit was launched with a rousing speech by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and a lavish parade with people dressed as Greek gods and goddesses. The exhibit housed what the Nazis proclaimed as the best art in Nazi Germany. They believed this art showed that Third Reich could produce art that rivaled the ancient Greeks.

A few hundred yards away, the Nazis held the second exhibit in a small building. In nine rooms, they crammed nearly 700 paintings and sculptures created by German artists. On the walls, they scrawled words insulting the works. This exhibit housed what they called "Degenerate Art," art that the Nazis believed was harmful and repugnant. Modern, or avant-garde, art filled these rooms. The exhibit was meant to hold modern art up to public ridicule.

The Nazis placed the two exhibits near each other so people could compare them. The Great German Art exhibit showed the kind of art approved of by the Nazi state. The Degenerate Art exhibit showed the kind of art that the Nazi state prohibited. The exhibits were part of an incredible Nazi campaign to put art under control of the state.

Art in the Weimar Republic

Prior to the Nazi takeover in 1933, German art had exploded into a dizzying array of styles. Although some artists still painted in the realistic style common in the 19th century, many experimented with new forms. They followed the lead of Impressionists and Post-Impressionists who had broken away from realistic-style painting. Cubists structured their paintings along geometrical forms. Expressionists distorted forms to express inner feelings. Dadaists created abstract, fantastic works that mocked everything—even other modern artists.

Berlin was challenging Paris as capital of the art world. Germany attracted such prominent artists as Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee. Art magazines sprouted up everywhere debating the merits of different artists and art forms. The Bauhaus opened. This was a school of modern art and architecture that would become internationally famous. The National Gallery in Berlin opened a wing devoted to modern art, which housed major works by German painters like Max Beckmann as well as foreign artists like Pablo Picasso.

All this was taking place amidst the chaos in German society. Following its defeat in World War I, Germany seemed on the brink of collapse. Its money lost all value. In 1918 at the end of the war, a loaf of bread cost 2 German marks. By the summer of 1923, the price of single loaf of bread had risen to 4 million marks. The people responded with strikes, protests, brawls, assassinations, and open rebellions. Extremist groups plotted to seize power: Communists wanted a Soviet-style state; Nazis wanted a "pure" Germany free of Jews and Communists. The new democratically elected German government, known as the Weimar Republic, seemed unable to control the situation.

The art reflected the period. Some avant-garde artists, like Georg Grosz, took an active political stance, using their work to agitate for change. Most, however, were not overtly political. Some captured the despair of the time—painting prostitutes and other downtrodden in city settings. Others, like social realist Otto Dix, painted about the horrors of the World War.

Because of its themes and styles, avant-garde art provoked controversy. Its abstract forms troubled traditionalists. They called for a return to the realistic art of the early 19th century. Right-wing nationalists thought modern art insulted German values. They looked on paintings showing the horrors of war as mocking German patriotism and militarism.

The shrillest voices belonged to the Nazis. They saw modern art as degenerate and degrading—a product of an intellectual elite who had lost touch with the German people. They thought its "distorted" images and forms showed the artists were mentally ill. Since they blamed almost every problem on the Jews and Communists, they often referred to all the different kinds of modern art as "Jewish" or "Bolshevik" art. A Nazi leader announced: "This alien Syrian-Jewish plant must be pulled out by its roots."

Although the Nazis talked of banning modern art, this was out of the question in a democratic Germany. And, for a time, German democracy grew more stable. The Weimar Republic replaced the old devalued mark with a new sounder currency. Foreign governments helped Germany restructure its debt. As the economy stabilized, memberships in the Communist and Nazi parties dropped.

But in 1929, the worldwide Depression struck Germany hard. Six million people lost their jobs. As conditions grew worse, more and more people favored radical solutions. Many felt their only choice was between the Nazis or the Communists. By the end of 1932, the Nazis were the largest party in Germany. But they didn't hold a majority in the German legislature. After several failed attempts to form governments, German President Paul von Hindenburg named Nazi party leader Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Von Hindenburg and the leaders of big business thought they could control Hitler. They were wrong. Hitler moved quickly to set himself up as dictator.

Nazi "Purification" of the Arts

Hitler saw himself creating a new Germany, pure of outside influences. As part of this task to get rid of "un-German" influences, Hitler started censoring the arts. In May 1933 at universities across Germany, Nazis burned thousands of "un-German" books in huge bonfires. That same spring, they fired all modern artists who held teaching positions and any museum director who admired modern art. Nazis also raided the Bauhaus school and ordered it shut down. In the fall, the Nazi government permanently closed the modern art section of the National Gallery in Berlin.

The responsibility for "cleansing" German culture fell on Joseph Goebbels, the minister for propaganda and popular culture. In November 1933, Goebbels set up separate state bureaucracies, known as chambers, to control film, theater, music, radio, journalism, literature, and the arts. Anyone who wanted to work as an artist had to be approved by the state chamber on the arts. Members of the Gestapo, the Nazi secret police, conducted searches of banned artists' homes to make sure they weren't creating new works. The arts were now part of the Nazi state's vast propaganda machine.

Until November 1934, it appeared that modern art might have a place in this propaganda machine. Some Nazis called on the regime to make good use of modern artists who had Nazi sympathies. They pointed to Hitler's ally Mussolini, who had embraced Futurism, a form of Cubism, for his fascist dictatorship in Italy. Goebbels seemed to support this view. In his house, he displayed several pieces of modern art created by artists with Nazi loyalties.

But at a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in November 1934, Hitler made clear his hatred of avant-garde art. He railed that "the driveling Dadaist, Cubist, and Futuristic 'experience'-mongers would never under any circumstances be allowed any part in our cultural rebirth." The Fuhrer had spoken: All modern art was "un-German." Goebbels quickly got rid of his modern art works.

With modern art dead in Germany, proclaimed the Nazis, a new German art would flower. People waited. Traditional painting and sculpture continued. But nothing new developed. Goebbels warned people not to "get impatient."

After some magazines complained about the emptiness of German art, Goebbels banned art criticism. No one could publish any opinion about art.

Great German Art Exhibit

The Nazis did not allow anyone to doubt that they had created a great new culture. They held small art exhibits throughout Germany with titles such as "Blood and Soil," "Race and Nation," and "Pictures of Family." The exhibits showed works of art created by state-approved artists. The works were done in the state-approved realistic style with state-approved themes: the beautiful German countryside, Greek mythology, healthy German bodies, strong German youth, happy German families, hard-working German farmers, and heroes and heroic death. The art was simple, easy-to-understand, and predictable. It hid the ugly truth of the Nazi regime.

The Nazis also held several small exhibits ridiculing modern art. With titles like "Chamber of Horrors," "Cultural Bolshevism," and "Eternal Jew," these exhibits served to bolster the lie that modern art was a Jewish-Communist concoction totally alien to German art.

These exhibits of "German" and "un-German" art were forerunners to the two large exhibits staged in Munich in 1937—the Great German Art exhibition and the Degenerate Art exhibit. To assemble these exhibits, Goebbels relied heavily on Adolf Ziegler, the head of the state chamber on art.

From more than 16,000 pieces of art submitted, Ziegler and his staff selected about 600 works for the Great German Art exhibition. Hitler personally approved the final selections.

Ziegler organized the exhibit by subject matter. Landscapes, which made up almost half the paintings, were in one section. Portraits of historical figures filled another—and so on. Only one work portrayed a non-German. It was a bust of Hitler's ally Mussolini.

The art was for sale. Hitler wanted all Germans to collect the new art. When someone purchased a work, it was removed and replaced with another. Hitler himself bought many works and donated them to public buildings. Throughout the Nazi era, a high honor for any painting was the label: "Purchased by the Fuhrer."

Degenerate Art Exhibit

For the Degenerate Art exhibit, Ziegler looted more than 5,000 modern works from museums throughout Germany. Air force commander Hermann Goring, who later earned a reputation for looting museums across Europe, took 14 of the pieces for his private collectionðCfour van Goghs, four Munchs, three Marcs, one Gauguin, one Cezanne, and one Signac.

Ziegler selected almost 700 works for the exhibit. He designed the exhibit so it would shock most Germans. By jamming all the works in a small space, he overwhelmed the viewers with stimuli. He covered the walls with large graffiti-like labels insulting the art works. To enrage people that taxpayer dollars had been wasted in buying these pieces, he put the purchase price next to each one. He failed to mention that many of the works had been purchased with the inflated currency of the 1920s. To make it clear that the works were offensive, he made the exhibit open to "adults only." He published a pamphlet that further insulted the art. Someone who visited the exhibit remembered it this way:

Ziegler arranged the art to show how it supposedly offended German values. In the first room, he exhibited works that the Nazis thought offended religion. One of the works was Beckmann's Descent from the Cross, a deeply religious painting. Because its colors and forms weren't realistic, the Nazis claimed it was an attack on religion. Another room featured offenses to morals. On one wall labeled "Degradation of the German Woman" hung pictures of prostitutes and strippers. Another wall, labeled "Deliberate Sabotage of National Defense," include two paintings by Dix—War Cripples and The Trench. They showed suffering German soldiers in World War I, but the exhibit's labels and pamphlet said the paintings mocked the soldiers.

The exhibit was an overwhelming success. Drawn by the sensationalism, people flocked to the Degenerate Art exhibit. More than three times as many people saw it than the Great German Art exhibit. It traveled from Munich to other German cities. By the time it closed, more than 3 million people had seen it. This is more than have ever seen any exhibit of modern art.

Ziegler and his staff continued rounding up pieces of modern art. By the end of summer 1937, they had confiscated more than 16,000 works from museums and private collections throughout Germany. Goebbels noted in his diary: "We hope at least to make some money off this garbage." Much of it was sold to foreign museums and collectors. In one day, the Fischer Gallery in Switzerland auctioned more than 100 pieces by Picasso, Braque, Chagall, Gauguin , Van Gogh and artists from the Degenerate Art exhibit. The Nazis destroyed what they couldn't sell. On March 20, 1939, they burned about 5,000 works in the courtyard of Berlin's fire station.

Many modern artists fled Germany, among them Grosz, Kandinsky, and Beckmann. Those who stayed either stopped making art or created safe pictures. Dix was one of those who remained. He was imprisoned briefly. Recalling what he did during the Nazi era, Dix said: "I painted landscapes. That was tantamount to emigration."

The Nazis kept tight control on the arts throughout the war. The Great German Art exhibition became an annual event, the last one held in 1944.

At the war's end in 1945, the allies removed Nazi-sponsored art from museums and public buildings. Most of it was crated and shipped to America. By 1986, almost all of it had been returned to Germany, where it has remained in storage. It is tainted as the official art of the Nazi regime, one of the most evil governments in human history.

In 1991, the Degenerate Art exhibit made another appearance. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art somehow managed to find 175 of the almost 700 original works and put them on display. The show proved popular and traveled to Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Berlin.

For Discussion

1. Why do you think the Nazis suppressed modern art?
2. In 1939, the Nazis sold much modern art and destroyed what they couldn't sell. The proceeds from the sales went to the Nazi government. If you were an art dealer in 1939, would you have bought art from the Nazis? Why or why not?
3. What do you think should be done with the official Nazi art currently stored in Germany?
4. Do you think that there are certain types of art that the government should censor? Why or why not?

For Further Reading

Art History: A web site including links to sites about individual artists and art movements ranging from prehistoric times to the present.

A C T I V I T Y

Should Government Ban Offensive Art Work?

Nazi Germany serves as a horrible example of total state control over the arts. The government dictated what artists could and could not create. No government today exercises this kind of control. But most governments, including that of the United States, exercise some controls on art. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government may ban obscene works. There are frequently calls to ban or regulate other art work that people find objectionable. In this activity, you will have a chance to decide whether the state should place controls on some forms of art.

In small groups, discuss whether the government should ban each of the kinds of art listed below. Think of reasons for and against banning each. Then discuss and decide. Be prepared to discuss your decisions and reasons with the whole class.

1. Art works that promote racism
2. Art works with graphic sexual images
3. Art works that hold a religion up to ridicule
4. Art works with graphicly violent images

Music on Trial: Rock, Rap, and Responsibility

In 1988, a Nevada couple claimed that their son committed suicide after listening repeatedly to "Suicide Solution," a heavy-metal song recorded by the band Black Sabbath.

In 1994, Curt Cobain, singer and songwriter for the rock group Nirvana shot himself after a prolonged bout with depression. Many believe that Cobain's suicide was an expression of the hopelessness and alienation that were trademarks of his music.

In 1996, Joe Gallegos, a Colorado youth, died in a shootout with police after he murdered his roommates. Acquaintances speculate that he was obsessed with "Locc 2 da brain," a rap tune in which a street gangster murders his enemies.

Months later, rap star Tupac Shakur was fatally wounded by an unknown assailant in Las Vegas. Shakur's death was the final chapter in a violent personal history that seemed to reflect the credo of guns and gangs featured in his music.

Six months after Tupac's death, Christopher Wallace, a.k.a. Notorious B.I.G., was gunned down outside a Los Angeles music awards ceremony.

In January, 1997, teen-agers in Vancouver, Canada, rioted in celebration of a concert given by Marilyn Manson, a shock rocker who wears androgynous make-up, Nazi uniforms and fishnet stockings. Manson, who renamed himself after mass-murderer Charles Manson, drinks his own blood and urges fans to "kill everyone and let your god sort them out."

Over the past decade, contemporary popular music has become the focus of intense public scrutiny. Many believe that the lyrics and lifestyles expressed by shock-rockers, heavy-metal, and gangsta rappers promote hopelessness and romanticize gang life, drug use, and violence against women. They argue that the thoughts and feelings expressed in this music pose a menace to society and should be subjected to tighter control.

Others believe that artists and the music they create serve a vital function by reflecting the society we live in. They maintain that rockers and rappers are protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Still others argue that certain categories of speech stand outside the protection of the First Amendment. They point out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material. The court defined obscenity as material that appeals to prurient interest, is patently offensive, and fails to make a significant contribution to literature, the arts, politics, or science.

The controversy surrounding grunge, heavy metal, and gangsta rap is not new. Other music in other times has caused similar reactions.

The 1950s: Rock and Roll Is Here to Stay

During World War II, people moved from the South to work in the defense plants of Los Angeles, Chicago, and the industrial Northeast. They brought their own music with them. This rural folk and blues music formed the roots of rock, country, and rhythm 'n' blues.

In the beginning, only a few small companies recorded blues and country singers. Most of these musicians were not professionals. They often signed away their rights to a song for $5 and $10 apiece. At these rates, a small record company could afford to take a chance on recording an unknown player. These early rock 'n' roll and rhythm 'n' blues recordings allowed the music to grow and change, but they were meant to reach only limited audiences.

By the 1950s, however, teen-agers had begun to tune into radio broadcasts featuring the music of future stars like Carl Perkins, B.B. King, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Fats Domino. As early as 1952, white teen-agers were traveling to black neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles to buy rhythm 'n' blues records from black record stores. The artists and the companies who recorded them began to cash in on a new-found "crossover" popularity in which these specialized artists began to appeal to a broader audience.

Sam Phillips, a small Southern blues record producer, noticed the lure that black music held for white teenagers. "If only I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars," Phillips reportedly claimed. Phillips' quest was not hopeless. A young white singer from Memphis, Tennessee, described his early musical experiences this way:

"We were a religious family, going round together to sing at camp meetings and revivals and I'd take my guitar with us when I could. I also dug the real low-downed Mississippi [blues] singers like Big Bill Broonzy and Big Boy Crudup although they would scold me at home for listening to them. 'Sinful music' the townsfolk in Memphis said it was. Which never bothered me I guess."

The young white singer's name was Elvis Presley. Sam Phillips heard Presley perform and hired a trio of country musicians to back the young singer. With Elvis playing guitar and singing "It's All Right," a blues tune written by black singer Big Boy Crudup, this unassuming group made rock 'n' roll history. By the end of 1956, rock 'n' roll tunes from small record labels like Sam Phillips' accounted for more than one-third of all the Top Ten hits, according to the record industry magazine, Billboard.

The music recorded by these crossover artists stirred up a great deal of controversy. Anxious parents stood on the other side of a generation gap listening to the unfamiliar sound of boogie woogie, electric guitars, and rhythm 'n' blues. The lyrics of these songs were often full of incomprehensible slang and thinly disguised sexual innuendo. The new music created a strong backlash in a population that was not fully prepared for racial equality or changing sexual attitudes.

Alan Freed, a veteran New York disc jockey and pioneer promotor of rock 'n' roll, was forced off the air when his nationally syndicated TV show "Rock 'n' Roll Dance Party" showed black singer Frankie Lymon dancing with a white girl. Richard Berry, author of the rhythm 'n' blues favorite "Louie, Louie," was questioned by FBI agents who responded to public accusations that the song's lyrics were obscene.

Organized religion took a strong stand against rock 'n' roll. Boston's Reverend John P. Carroll claimed that "the suggestive lyrics on rock 'n' roll records are a matter for law enforcement agencies." Chicago's Cardinal Stritch proclaimed that rock 'n' roll dancing and "tribalism...could not be tolerated by Catholic youth."

The 1960s: I Wanna Hold Your Hand

The Beatles landed in New York in February 1964. Originally, the image the English group put forth was non-controversial. This talented quartet of loveable mopheads quickly caught the attention of American youth. The Beatles' first American hit, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," became the fastest-selling record in history.

Within two years, however, the Beatles had become embroiled in some of the major social issues of the day. In 1966, John Lennon claimed that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus" and that Christianity would "vanish and shrink." Radio stations in Birmingham, Alabama, banned the Beatles' music. Other towns followed suit. Bonfires of Beatles records and memorabilia lit up the sky in communities across the nation. The B.B.C., Britain's national broadcasting corporation, refused to play certain Beatles tunes on the grounds that they encouraged drug abuse.

The Beatles were not the only musicians who were criticized for endorsing the counterculture of the 1960s. By 1966, a new breed of American rockers had come to prominence. Artists like Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, the Grateful Dead, and the Jefferson Airplane weren't simply writing new rock 'n' roll. They were providing living models for a new lifestyle. Much of the new music resonated among young music fans and gave expression to their thoughts and feelings about personal freedom, racial equality, the Vietnam War, and experimentation with drugs.

In 1969, half a million young people gathered to hear their favorite bands at Woodstock, New York. By that time, America's faith in its own values had been challenged by the prolonged conflict in Vietnam, the violence at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, and the assassination of several of its most respected leaders. Backed up by an unofficial network of "underground" radio stations that advocated the new hippie and anti-Vietnam war lifestyle, rock music once again seemed to be taking sides in the bitter conflicts that were sweeping mainstream America.

The 1990s: The Beat Goes On

For more than a decade, attempts have been made to put limits on objectionable lyrics in rap, heavy-metal, and grunge rock. During the 1980s, Tipper Gore, the wife of then-Senator Al Gore, spearheaded an attack on violent and obscene lyrics. Her organization, the Parents Music Resource Center, organized a campaign to persuade record companies to place warning labels on some albums.

The recent call for control over controversial song lyrics has garnered support from across America's political spectrum. A television commercial by C. DeLores Tucker and William Bennett begins by saying, "I'm a liberal democrat....And I'm a conservative Republican. But we're both worried about the society our children live in today."

Bennett, the former secretary of education under the Reagan administration, calls for self-regulation by artists and record companies who produce what Bennett calls "filth for profit." C. DeLores Tucker is a civil rights veteran who marched with Martin Luther King . Tucker is concerned that rap music is demeaning to women. Her organization, the National Political Congress of Black Women, advocates banning "the sale of pornographic and misogynistic lyrics...." Although they disagree over many political issues, both Tucker and Bennett see eye to eye on the issue of rock, rap, and obscenity.

Tucker is also critical of shock-rocker Marilyn Manson. She claims that Manson is responsible for "the dirtiest, nastiest porno directed at youth that has ever hit the market." Manson has been jailed for committing sex acts on stage in front of thousands of teen-agers. Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City both passed resolutions banning Manson's concerts.

In response to the controversy surrounding Manson and his shock-rock recordings, teen counselor Lynda Fletcher believes that parents should pay more attention to popular music. She advises parents to "play shock-rock music with their kids and explain why the lyrics are offensive."

Shock rock, heavy-metal, and gangsta rap also has its defenders. Bill Stephney, owner of a Manhattan music production company, argues that rap doesn't cause society's problems, it merely responds to them. As evidence, he points to the recent past when a new rash of problems began to plague black communities all across America. "It is very easy to hear the differences before and after 1985," Stephney maintains. "The messages and images [of rap] go from talking about parties, finding girls, and hanging out, to Uzis, nine-millimeters, gun battles and crack wars."

A six-year study of music fans by Jeff Arnett, a researcher at the University of Missouri concludes that heavy-metal music often has a calming effect on "metalheads." Arnett observes that heavy-metal music appeals to young people with aggressive tendencies because it makes them feel like they "belong," that they share the same feelings and observations about society with others, and they can use the music to harmlessly release their aggression.

While speaking about Joe Gallegos, the young Colorado man who murdered his roommates, Ron Stallworth, a veteran cop and gang expert, maintained that "[w]hen somebody says the music made him do it, we should instead look at the person's socialization process: Who were his friends? What did he do with his life?" Stallworth says, "There were other things going on in [Gallegos'] life." In fact, Gallegos came from a broken home, had a history of methamphetamine use, and carried a criminal record including a conviction for assault.

Throughout the 20th century, rock music, from rhythm 'n' blues to heavy-metal and rap—has been linked to some of society's most difficult issues. Should this controversial music be censored? Can music actually encourage lawlessness, violence, or immorality? Do the ideas and feelings relayed by rap and heavy metal music actually cause the problems they describe or do they act as a mirror for society's problems?

For Discussion

1. How did controversy first arise around rock 'n' roll?
2. What were some issues that surrounded the rock music of the 1960s? What are some issues of today's music?
3. Do you think certain music is harmful? If so, should it be restricted? Explain your answers.

A C T I V I T Y

Should Record Companies Stop Marketing Controversial Artists and their Work?

Many people believe that record companies should not produce or distribute music that encourages lawlessness, violence, or immorality. Is the music industry responsible for the content of the music it sells? Should record companies refuse to produce and distribute controversial artists?

1. Form groups of four students each. Each group should review the article and create arguments for and against self-censorship in the recording industry.
2. After reviewing the pros and cons of music industry censorship, each group should write a one-paragraph opinion on their findings and choose a reporter to present its opinion to the class.
3. Reconvene the class and discuss the opinions of each group.

© 1997, Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005,  (213) 487-5590