Taste’s Good!
The issue of taste can be a very sensitive one. As Latter-day Saints, we are very conscious of persecution. Our early history was full of it, and even today (in our “Golden Window”), there are those who look down their nose at those false Christians, the Mormons. Because of that, we are very happy to follow the 11th Article of Faith, letting each and all worship whowhatwhereorwhat they may (especially what). But perhaps we can overgeneralize this. Elder Faust, in the September 1995 First Presidency Message, discussed serving God without offending the devil. For instance, not gambling, but voting for lotteries and Indian casinos, thereby allowing others to gamble without nary a thought because it is their God-given right to sin. Why exactly, I wonder, would we worry about offending the devil? If gambling is bad, if it is a societal evil, if it’s just a plain bad idea, why should we ever vote to allow it? For the children? C'mon! What’s next, prostitution taxes to fund education? An abortion tax to help fund prenatal care at small, local, nonprofit hospitals? Stretch it ad absurdum, and suddenly we see how ridiculous it is. Yet some Saints insist on being prochoice1—like it’s somehow wrong for a religious person to kill a fetus, but if you don’t know any better, that’s okay; you go ahead, honey. What’s next? It’s wrong to murder unless you’re a neoNazi? “Well sure! I mean—it’s part of their belief system! We can’t go putting reins on that!” (As you may notice, this kind of absurd attitude really irritates me.)
The tricky part for me is art and free speech. I look at Amendment I of the US Constitution (not the boat, the parchment) as being just one step shy of an Article of Faith. Don’t we believe it was inspired?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No “abridging the freedom of speech.” Hmmm. Of course, like all things, there are natural, common sensical bounds under which this guaranteed right falls. The famous “Fire!” in a crowded theater example, for instance. But what about Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring? People were so shocked at the premier of this badboy ballet there was rioting in the streets of Paris. The story is told of one man who stood and pounded on the head of the man in front of him with his fists in time with the overwhelming beat, raptured with the orchestra’s rhythm. So is Stravinsky’s ballet the musical equivalent of shouting “Fire!”?
I say no. First, I think Rite of Spring is one of the best pieces of orchestral music ever written (my opinion) and second, Rite of Spring was not (as far as I know) actually designed to spark a riot. But what about some of the art that was in the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999? The crucifix in a jar of urine? The elephant dung Madonna?
A few years ago, the Brigham Young University Museum of Art had the opportunity to display Rodin’s hands (sculptures). I deadly wish I had been a BYU student at the time, that I might have had the opportunity to see the work of one of the West’s great sculptors. In addition to the hands, the MoA was given a chance to display The Kiss. They decided not to.
There was an uproar. Now granted, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know all this from personal experience, but I do know that there was some disturbance at the decision. The Kiss, in case you don’t know, is a sculpture of a beautiful young man and a beautiful young woman on his lap, both unclothed and kissing. It is considered one of the most profoundly beautiful expressions of romantic love in the Western Canon of Art, and BYU wouldn’t display it! Can you believe that?
Well I can, and it doesn’t bother me. I don’t know that if it had been my decision, I would have done the same, but I think the decision was reasonable. (Besides, it’s not my desire to take those first steps down the road to apostasy over something like this.) And really, I’m not so sure of the appropriateness of displaying it in a church-owned building. My understanding of the first commandment given to Adam and Eve leads me to believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with naked people kissing, but is it a suitable subject for art? How about for art displayed in a Church-sponsored institution?
I am not in the least prepared to answer these questions for you. Would’ve displaying The Kiss have been counted as not offending the devil? I don’t know. But honestly, in my estimation, it is great art. Romantic and sexual love are important parts of this life. Take them away and phwoop! there goes humanity! And I think The Kiss is perhaps the best artistic expression of this I know in the realm of sculpture.
Related to me and this book, do you feel it was very wrong of me to use the word “urinal” a few pages back? I mean, you’re not likely to hear the word in a sacrament meeting or General Conference, but it’s not bad is it? After all, the urinal is a very utilitarian object—it performs a necessary job vital service and is convenient to use, right men? So, is it improper to mention?
Well if it made it into print, apparently the editors at Covenant decided my use of it was not intended as a vulgarity; I was merely describing a nuisance of the Academy building, and the word itself is not an evil entity guaranteed to insult Saints. If it didn’t, then you’ll never know otherwise anyway. The real question is whether something is appropriate for the audience, I suppose. I wager Random House wouldn’t care (they’ve published much worse); it may be a tougher call for an LDS-oriented publisher.
This is a constant dilemma in freedom of speech—what’s fine in one setting might not be appropriate placed in another. (If someone wanted to keep urine and a crucifix in a jar on their mantle, for instance, I suppose that’s their business, no matter what we may decide about public display.) As with all freedoms, freedom of speech (in my opinion) comes with responsibility. I believe there is another intrinsic right complimentary to the freedom of speech to choose what you want to hear, and anyone who speaks should have the common decency not to stray too far beyond that when they have access to your eardrums or eyeballs. (Question for family discussion: Should CAUTION: U-WORD be printed on the front of this book?)
I ran into a problem with this balance before the JSA’s Variety Show (which I’ll tell you more about later). I had written a poem for the show (for which poem a small makeshift band was helping me compose lousy music). It was based on a shocking story told us by fellow student Mandy regarding her sister. Her sister’s boyfriend sat her down one night to tell her it was over. She was crushed. To help her feel better about their now former relationship, he told her, “It’s like an old piece of gum, you know? When you first stuck it in your mouth, it tasted like real good. But now the flavor’s all gone. Or it’s like a song on the radio that you sued to really like and play loud and stuff, but after they go and play it too much you like, you know, hate it? It’s like that.” (I don’t know about you, but I feel that this gent’s concept of social grace to be the very epitome of bad taste. If it had been me, I suppose I would have been too shocked to cry. Someone needs to sit that boy down!!!)
Like every horrible situation, there was humor built right in. And so I wrote “A Song for Mandy’s Sister (to help her feel better).” (See Appendix C.) Mandy loved it, so we went to work, setting it to music. But a couple days before the Variety Show, Brother Dahl asked to see what I was working on. I had an immediate kerplunk, sinking feeling. I found a copy and let him read it. He didn’t like it.
The obvious way reaction would have been as the Outraged Artist: “Eet eez art! Oo do not understand! Oo Philistine!” As it was, I tried to justify the song: “See, it really happened, and everyone already knows the story and, and, and.”
“Just because something really happened, does that make it okay?”
Well, he had me there. Then he went on to explain that he had invited other people to the show—it wouldn’t just be us JSA folk—and this song really didn’t represent the image he was trying to present to the community. I understood. It was a good reason. I hope I don’t require good reasons every time, however. Where would we be if Nephi had refused to make a second set of plates because no one ever gave him a good reason to?2 He made the plates, but “for a wise purpose . . . which purpose I know not” (1 Nephi 9:6).
Heavenly Father doesn’t ask us to sacrifice our intellectual autonomy, and he leaves it up to us whether we will do what we’re asked and how we will feel about it. So, what then is good taste? Is it a urinal? Is it naked marble people? It is crazy ballet? Can the same things be good taste in one place that aren’t in another? I think it’s obvious that the answer to that question is yes. Things which are fine in the supermarket or the NCAA championship volleyball game are certainly far from appropriate in the Lord's House. And things sacred and divine inside that House are in the worst possible taste when made part of a comedy routine.
Protect freedom of speech, but protect taste also (which is to say: Protect People,3 or, rather, Respect People's Wishes—don't inflict your speech on them if they don't want it). Share “A Song for Mandy’s Sister” in the parlor, but not in front of all Nauvoo. Serve God, and go right on ahead and offend that devil!
return to the table of contents
Thanks for revisiting Nauvoo with me. I would love to hear your thoughts.