Salazar| 1 Saige Salazar English 1010 3A Master Negley December 3, 2013

Censorship of art has been a largely debated topic since art itself has existed, the very core of what art is challenges rules set by society and pushes people to question the world around them. The nature of art, real controversial art, has pushed boundaries for centuries and changed society's morals throughout time, which is why censorship of art is debated to be either helpful, or anti-evolutionary for societies. Conservatives are often outraged by the statements that bold art may make, challenging their beliefs and standards of morality and seek control over what artists are allowed to do and say. The other side of the coin, liberalism (where many of the artists reside) argues that artists have every right to express and state whatever it is they want to, as promised by the first amendment. Navigating the loopholes and fine lines is what proves a challenge for "artistic freedom". Notably, this is a huge topic to dive into, with many branches and subtopics. I wanted to narrow down censorship into two different medias and two different author's opinions on the same side of the argument. My purpose in writing this paper is not to convince you that art censorship is wrong, but to thoroughly analyze the rhetoric at play within different degrees of writing on the same opinion of the issue of censorship. After reading articles by Matt Peckham and Barbara DeGenevieve and dissecting the rhetoric at play, I found DeGenevieve to make the more convincing argument. DeGenevieve cares much more deeply about the topic and it shines through her writing, she uses much stronger forces of rhetoric, she demonstrates a working knowledge of the government's stance of censorship and I found her to be more experienced through her actual battles with censorship she's been through with her own art. In contrast, from TIME magazine, I found that Matt Peckham is a gaming and technology critic who writes about science, interactive entertainment and the cultural impact of technology. Peckham

Salazar| 2 worked as a computer engineer for Union Pacific Railroad as a specialist in mobile technology research. After leaving Union Pacific, he wrote freelance for Computer Gaming World, Variety and co- founded PC World magazines game blog, titled Game On. After 2011, when he left his position of games editor at Game On, he became a freelance journalist for TIME, where he currently resides. In his article, Apples Wrongheaded, Dangerous Censorship of Satirical Sweatshop for iPad Peckham takes a stance against censorship of a fact- driven satire app meant to educate, according to him. Peckham expresses to his audience of Apple app users and avid gamers that this censorship was wrong and he believes Apple clearly misunderstood Littlelouds (the game creator) purpose. The purpose of his article is to convince readers that censoring a game that is simply trying to satire and educate their audience of a real-world problem is dangerous to society, and a mistake on Apples part. Furthermore, Peckham claims that Apples decision is wrongheaded and dangerous with supporting evidence of their strange loophole rules for books and music in their App Store, which they supposedly dont censor at all. He points out that this is a flawed system and uses ethos from Apples own Apple App Store approval guidelines, which blatantly states that We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. The question the author raises is what makes Apps different from other forms of art? he believes Apple is misunderstanding videogames as a different or separate form of art. He highlights Littlelouds statement of the purpose behind Sweatshop, describing that the creators meant the game to show the flaws and corruption of sweatshops, not encourage them, using real facts about sweatshops from sweat shop experts and the charity Labor Behind the Label. Peckham also draws upon the relevant source of Ian Bogost, Georgia Institute of Technology professor and game theory luminary who says that Sweatshop fits within the realm of games that provide the empathetic ability to step into someone elses shoes, in this case the shoes of the abused sweatshop employees. Peckham believes that Sweatshop is an intelligent well-designed game that could make players wake up and realize where the clothes they are wearing come from, in the hopes that they would be motivated to action. He closes his argument, strongly standing by the fact that Apples censorship was misguided and shows that the

Salazar| 3 company badly misunderstands the relationship between gaming and other forms of thought- provoking art, which should not be censored. Additionally, what really grabbed my attention was how Peckham quoted directly from Apples own Apple App Store app guidelines and broke down the quote to prove it to be nonsensical. The author quotes, We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate (Apple, 2010). He chose to directly quote the guidelines because it is plain fact for anyone to see how Apple feels, and it gives him solid ground from which to judge Apples decision on holding apps different from other forms of art, which he personally believes is ridiculous. He uses this quote because of how it sounds incorrect; strengthening his argument that censoring apps with good, educational intentions is no different than censoring other thought- provoking art and is, in his opinion, dangerous. Also, an intelligent choice by the author was his credit to Georgia Institute of Technology professor Ian Bogost. Peckham introduces Bogost as a game theory luminary who is a great source who knows what he is talking about when it comes to videogames and their societal impact. The author references Bogost saying Sweatshop fits right into his empathy category of games, which he says in his book How to Do Things with Videogames, is a vital part of the gaming experience because video games allow people a unique opportunity to virtually become someone else and live through their struggles, which is what Sweatshop was aiming for. Peckham is aiming directly for what censoring this game means for the gamers, who are getting cheated of a great satirical and thought-provoking game, he claims. Bogost fits Peckhams purpose because Peckham is trying to persuade the audience to understand what he believes as a mistake in censorship by Apple. On the other hand, Barbara DeGenevieve is a controversial, interdisciplinary artist who teaches at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and holds a chair in the Department of Photography at the Art Institute. DeGenevieve works in photography, performance and video and has received two National Endowment for the Arts Visual Artists Fellowship, among three Arts Council grants from Illinois. She graduated from the University of New Mexico in 1980 with an MFA in photography and quickly began

Salazar| 4 lecturing and teaching. Her article Censorship in the US or Fear and Loathing of the Arts is a brief yet in depth history of her battle with the US government over art censorship in her long career as an artist, as well as a deep analysis of the conservative corruption over true artistic expression and what artistic freedom actually means. For example, DeGenevieve claims that the US is under serious political conservative corruption, in regards to the loss of artistic freedoms over the past thirty years specifically, the time lapse of her career. She points out that the first amendment, freedom of speech and expression, used to make artists feel secure and protected as American citizens but now has dissolved because of "political correctness" which DeGenevieve has grown to detest. She highlights some of the greatest quotes from former presidents, including one directly regarding her argument, from President Kennedy: "The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable..." (DeGenevieve 160). She believes that the people who are most offended by obscene and lewd art work, the political right, have no right to censor her or artists like her because they deeply misunderstand and misinterpret the true nature of the art and the artist's intentions. She goes on in crafted rhetorical literature giving various points of evidence to strengthen her argument, and reinstates her conclusion and her personal strong belief that the general public of the United States is blindly unaware to how much they are actually stripped of their rights as Americans, in her case the right to freedom of expression in art. In regards to rhetoric, Barbara DeGenevieve proves herself a gifted writer and makes her argument with several strong points of rhetoric, but the one that surprised me most as a reader was her use of introduction. DeGenevieve begins her sixteen page analysis of censorship of the arts by giving a brief summary of the situation she is about to discuss, and then suddenly hits you with the fact that she was one of the artists directly involved with the situation of censorship with the US government, which caught me off guard. The reason this strikes me as interesting as a reader and intellectual student is because usually articles are written by people analyzing things that have happened, not the actual participants arguing

Salazar| 5 their point and actually giving personal memories and statements. This personal touch and surprise introduction strengthened DeGenevieve's credibility to the topic hugely. Later into DeGenevieve's paper she goes very in depth about what art censorship actually means and why it is harmful to Americans, but looking back, the part of her argument that really won me was her excerpt from her own speech given before the National Council for the Arts (NCA) and the press in Washington DC. Her speech uses several points of reference to the Constitutional rights concerning art and freedom of speech, supporting evidence from past US presidents, and analyzes why the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the NCA were wrong in their censorship of her art (DeGenevieve,160).Within the strongest part of her article, in her speech, was the quote directly from the NEA itself, in 1965, declaring: "It is the intent of the committee that in the administration of this act there be given the fullest attention to freedom of artistic and humanistic expression. One of the artists' and humanists' great values to society is the mirror of self-expression which they can raise so that society can become aware of its short comings as well as its strengths." (DeGenevieve, 160). Out of all the things DeGenevieve could have used to support her stance on art censorship and protection of her own controversial photography it was strongest to use an excerpt from the very speech she gave to the people she was fighting against because it is legitimately what actually happened and what she actually said and still feels. In conclusion, the main reason I find DeGenevieve's rhetoric to be more effective than Peckham's is experience with it. DeGenevieve exercises a working knowledge of rhetoric and uses rhetorical tools to her disposal to win over the reader, different from Peckham who is mostly reporting events and giving slight commentary with little rhetoric present. Furthermore, was the difference between one specific app and a gigantic analysis on all art censorship and the psychological and sociological reasons for it and why DeGenevieve believes the concept to be wrong at the very core. Rhetorically speaking, DeGenevieve really dives deep into a long debated topic of what is to be censored, what is considered "politically correct" and acceptable in a society, which Peckham just can't combat with.

Salazar| 6 Moreover, DeGenevieve is much more credible because she is the subject of her own argument, her art was being censored, whereas Peckham is an outside entity analyzing and criticizing a corporation's judgment on a specific item of censorship, as opposed to DeGenevieve facing the US government. DeGenevieve retells her story, saying: "I made a formal request to speak to the National Council on the Arts during one of their quarterly sessions but was denied that request . . . I then went to Washington anyway and distributed a statement to the NCA and the press. Here is that statement:" (DeGenevieve, 159) and she then provides her statement in the text, which is a much more convincing argument than a tech author explaining why a certain app should get to exist in the App Store. DeGenevieve also has a longer career as an artist under her belt, since she has been a visual artist since the '90s, combating the US government in 1994, different from Peckham who is in a more specific area of expertise and focuses on much smaller topics. After thoroughly dissecting both articles from DeGenevieve and Peckham, I have realized something interesting concerning audience, while DeGenevieve clearly made the more convincing argument and achieves her purpose much more fluidly, Peckham has the advantage of audience and his article is more likely to be read and understood by the majority of readers. As a writer and artist, I can now walk away with the knowledge that though I may be vastly more intelligent or correct than someone else, if they have the audience, they get the attention; which is an important insight for all writers and intellectuals to gain and understand. Regarding this, the topic of censorship is major to me in my daily life because of the conservative culture where I live, I have grown up in the counter culture my whole life and constantly face opposition to my beliefs and I am expected to censor my thoughts for the political correctness of the state of Utah. Additionally, as an artist I face censorship with everything I try to accomplish, from scripts to visual art to daily conversation. Censorship is arguably one of the biggest topics in America today, because of the constant growing explicitness of our media people are always debating what has gone too far. Art is aimed to question and to push boundaries and many conservative Americans cannot deal with it, which I

Salazar| 7 dont see as my problem to censor my feelings and thoughts for those who do not want to learn or broaden their intellectual spectrums, which deliberates those who do. Artists reserve the right to question our flawed society, our flawed existence, and without some sort of analysis human beings are being robbed the right to evolve. I only wish DeGenevieve had a larger audience to educate on this issue.