By Kevin Lee Associate Editor

First of all, let’s turn the clock back a bit.

In February of 2004, Artifice conducted a quick poll at a Fairhope gallery, asking the question “What aspect of the Bay Area cultural scene is of the most immediate address?” One attendee, a professor from Spring Hill College and renown arts patron, addressed his perception of provincialism with, ””Think about it, when’s the last time you saw a nude in Mobile?”

Ironically, the answer to that question would have been “just a few months ago.” When Space 301 premiered in downtown, it made entrants feel as if new times were ahead for a sleepy town where many yearned to make it a city. Among the offerings on that cool November evening were pieces featuring nudity in a variety of forms.

Fast forward to the present. A local artist whispered something in the Artifice ear over the last fortnight that gave pause. When this artist inquired about inclusion in a forthcoming Space 301 show, they said the curator relayed certain limitations on depictions of the human form, that there was to be no frontal nudity involved. The artist said the explanation given was that early showings of nudity had offended a well-heeled benefactor and Space 301 made adjustments accordingly. One piece cited in particular was a work from Mobilian William G. Nolen-Schmidt.

Were it true, it wouldn’t be the first time that Nolen-Schmidt’s art caused a stir. Some may remember the furor raised by a piece he had at the Mobile Museum of Art not very long ago. That particular work called attention to violence against women in a rather unabashed manner. The resulting uproar brought a lot of notice to the museum, the exhibit, the artist and the statement he was trying to make.

So, this latest rumor piqued interest on our end. Space 301 was founded as a contemporary safe haven, a respite from myopia and the often pedestrian brutality of the marketplace. The idea of this de facto censorship occurring there was disheartening.

Artifice did some digging. A visit to Nolen-Schmidt’s studio found the artist in his usual candor. He relayed one tidbit he gleaned after the opening, that Space 301 had difficulty with a printer hired to produce a catalogue of the exhibit.

We wrestled a name from him and made a phone call. Sure enough, the company he mentioned certainly declined an offer to steer a similar project their way, a catalogue of artwork in which some pieces contained nudity.

Attempts to contact the curator who supposedly handed down the dictates on bare bodies were unfruitful.

One member of the Space 301 advisory board stated there was no such limitation spelled out in the Space 301 by-laws although they did seem unsurprised that an unwritten rule governing nudes might manifest.

A call to the Centre for the Living Arts President Carlos Parkman revealed a bit more about the nudity question (all pun intended). Parkman was aware of some initial difficulty obtaining a printer but was unsure of the specifics. “I wasn’t sure what the problem was, or who we asked,” said Parkman, “and to tell you the truth, I was a little bit surprised. We had several nudes in that first show but it’s not like we had anything pornographic. I know we eventually settled on Gwin Printing to get it done.”

When asked if the difficulties had resulted in a change of policy regarding the content of exhibitions, she responded, “Oh no. That’s not what we’re supposed to be about here.”

Parkman did pause a moment, then continued. “Well, the only thing…we do want exhibitions that are friendly because the place is so open. We have busloads of schoolchildren coming in here, everyone from 9 to 90.” As to what “friendly” entails, she offered no further explanation, but Artifice imagines it would encompass levels of possibly intentional obscenity or eroticism.

One hallmark of note uncovered during the research for this column was the palpable fear that secreted from most of the players. The artist who steered the story our way was concerned with the curator finding out they contacted the press. It seems likely they feared retribution via exclusion.

Another artist was also sensitive about upsetting the powers-that-be.

The advisory board member seemed to want to keep things somewhat “close to the vest.”

What gives? Is this reflective of the libertine seed Space 301 hoped to cultivate? It would seem not.

However, what it is happens too be as old as patronage itself. When artists have to kowtow to those with deep pockets, the benefactors can hold tremendous power. It’s not censorship via mandate, but it certainly can become a form of “tyranny of the majority.”

Well, those with the majority of the resources, anyway.

Kevin Lee is Lagniappe associate editor. Contact him at klee@lagniappemobile.com.

Archives