Editorial: CCP controversy a question of cowardice

Therein lies the roots of the current and unfortunate controversy surrounding an exhibit at the Center for Creative Photography.

At least two classes have canceled planned trips to the "Imag(in)ing Mars" display at the world-renowned University of Arizona center out of fear that another exhibit in the same gallery, Ann Mandelbaum's "Proximities" would be "objectionable," in the word's of one local school administrator.

"A school is best serving its community if it tries to reflect what the community finds objectionable," said Andrew Kent, principal of Flowing Wells Elementary School.

Indeed.

A reasonable person, even a self-declared "raving liberal" like Kent, can see that some photographic exhibits by the late Robert Mapplethorpe would be too mature for an elementary school audience. However, since controversy erupted over a Mapplethorpe in Cincinnati nearly a decade ago, it seems we, as a society, have lowered the bar for what is objectionable.

Debate over Mandelbaum's extreme close-ups of lips and eyes and male nipples is not simply a question of aesthetic or taste. The controversy begs serious questions of the messages we send to children. To the impartial eye, this controversy comes down to context and cowardice.

The "Imag(in)ing Mars" exhibit recontextualizes the scientific history of Mars, from Lowell's observations to the 1997 Pathfinder mission, as art. At the same time, the exhibit explores our cultural fascination with Mars and in so doing, provides an interesting, stimulating, user-friendly experience perfect for students first interested in space, science, art and history.

Mandelbaum's portraits are sensual and textural looks at everyday parts of the body. They are snapshots that recontextualize our bodies as landscapes and abstracts. The photos resemble at times, in the most simpleminded comparison, the mystery close-ups on the back cover of the children's magazine World. In essence, there is nothing overt in Mandelbaum's photos other than the appearance of flesh. The exhibit should be stimulating conversation on beauty and intimacy instead of fostering debate on whether, at base, flesh is an inherently erotic, and therefore untouchable, subject matter.

An educated observer, like a teacher or principal, should be able to see the strictly contextual differences between the rolling, skin-like, black and white waves of shots from the Mariner 9 probe and one of Mandelbaum's untitled works.

And it is because of the essential similarity of the more abstract images of both exhibits that a school's decision to cancel field trip simply to avoid proximity to "Proximities" is truly a question of cowardice. The school's withdrawal inherently accuses Mandelbaum, the CCP, the UA and any would-be viewer of the same brand of thought crime.

"Raving liberals" like Kent, and even more reasonable people, might argue it's better to avoid the possibility of a fight with puritanical parents than to take expose students to something as exciting as Mars. But doesn't that supposition on its surface fly in the face of the very fundamentals of education?

So long as school administrators and teachers allow themselves and their curriculums to be held hostage to the whims of an extremist minority, our First Amendment rights are endangered. If fear dominates decision-making, society will inevitably suffer.