미국 문화, 그 기로에 서서 - NEA(국립예술진흥기금)를 둘러싼 논쟁 중심으로

American Culture at the Crossroad : Debates over NEA(National Endowments for the Arts)

'문화 전쟁(Culture Wars)'은 1980년대 말부터 1990년대 초 미국에서 보수주의자와 진보주의자 사이에 벌어진 문화적 논쟁을 일컫는다. 이 용어는 제임스 헌터(James Hunter)의 책 "문화 전쟁: 미국을 정의하려는 노력(Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America)"의 출간으로 대중화되었고, 당시 공화당 대통령 후보였던 패트릭 부캐넌(Patrick Buchanan)에 의해 급부상하게 된다. 그는 "이 나라에는 지금 종교 전쟁, 즉 냉전만큼 중요한 '문화 전쟁'이 일어나고 있고, 이것은 미국의 영혼을 위한 전쟁이다." 라고 부르짖으며 급변하는 문화 정체성의 위기 속에서 미국적인 전통을 지키고자 하였다. 이 문화 전쟁은 여러 다양한 논쟁을 함의하고 있었는데, 교목제도의 폐지, 교육기관에서의 다문화주의(multiculturalism) 커리큘럼 도입, 동성애자의 군복무, 낙태, 총기 소지 등의 허용 문제로 당시 미국의 교육계, 문화계뿐만 아니라 정치계, 입법부에서도 첨예한 대립 구도를 형성하였다. 미술계에서 가장 치열했던 문화 전쟁은 안드레 세라노(Andres Serrano)의 작품전과 ${\ll}$로버트 메플소프: 완벽한 순간(Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment)전${\gg}$이 공공기금인 국립예술진흥기금(National Endowments for the Arts, NEA)의 지원을 받아 개최되는 것이 타당한 것이냐에 대한 논쟁에서 표출되었다. 이 두 전시를 기점으로 그 뒤로도 여러 미술 전시회와 음악회, 연극 등을 둘러싼 NEA 기금 지원과 관련한 분쟁은 한동안 계속된다. 이 글은 이러한 미술계 문화 전쟁의 발전 과정과 몇몇 논점에 초점을 맞추되, 세라노나 메플소프의 작품 자체를 분석하고 비평하는 글이 아님을 밝혀 둔다. 본 연구는 분쟁의 전개에 대한 상세한 기술적, 연대기적 조사보다는 그 발단과 전개 과정에서 몇 가지 핵심적인 사항들을 기술하고, 이 사항들이 암시하는 정치적, 미학적, 미술사적 시각의 충돌에 대해 지적하는 글이 될 것이다. 더 나아가 당시 이러한 논쟁이 미국 미술계에 의미하던 것, 미국 문화 전체에 의미하던 것은 과연 무엇인가에 대한 비평적 질문으로 글을 맺고자 한다.

The cultural debates between conservatives and liberals at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s were termed as "culture wars." The "culture wars" involved a diverse range of controversial issues, such as the introduction of multicultural curricula in educational institutions, prayers in schools, whether to allow gays to serve openly in the military, and whether abortion should be permitted. The most heated debates of the "culture wars" regarding art raged over the NEA and the question of whether Andres Serrano's works should have been publicly funded, in addition to the exhibition "Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment" which were charged as projecting "obscene" or "blasphemous" images. This paper examines the development of culture wars in art and focuses on several issues invoked by the NEA debates. However, it is not a detailed chronological investigation. Rather it pays attention to the several phases of the debates, analyzing and criticizing the clashes of the political and esthetical points of views between conservatives and liberals. How could NEA funding, a mere fraction of the federal budget, have become so critical for both sides(conservative and liberal), for politicians and artists' groups, and for academics and the general public? The art community was astounded by this chain of events; artists personally reviled, exhibitions withdrawn and under attack, the NEA budget threatened, all because of a few images. For conservative politicians, the NEA debate was not only a battle over the public funding of art, but a war over a larger social agenda, a war for "American values and cultures"based on the family, Christianity, the English language, and patriarchy. Conservative politicians argued the question was not one of "censorship" but of "sponsorship," since the NEA charter committed it to "helping museums better serve the citizens of the United States."Liberals and art communities argued that the attempt to restrict NEA funding violated the First Amendment rights of artists, namely "free speeches." "No matter how divided individuals are on matters of taste," Arthur C. Danto wrote, "freedom is in the interest of every citizen." The interesting phase is that both sides are actually borrowing one another's point of view when they are accompanied by art criticism. Kramer, representative of conservative art critic, objected the invasion of political contents or values in art, and struggled to keep art's own realm by promoting pure aesthetic values such as quality and beauty. But, when he talked about Mapplethorpe's works, he advocated political and ethical values. By contrast, art experts who argued for Mapplethorpe's works in the Cincinnati trial defended his work, ironically by ignoring its manifest sexual metaphor or content although they believed that the issues of AIDS and homosexuality in his work were to be freely expressed in the art form. They adopted a formalistic approach, for example, by comparing a child nude with putti, a traditional child-angel icon. For a while, NEA debates made art institutions, whether consciously or unconsciously, exert self-censorship, yet at the same time they were also producing positive aspects. To the majority of people, art was still regarded as belonging to the pure aesthetic realm away from political, economical, and social ones. These debates, however, were expanding the very perspective on the notion of what is art and of how art is produced, raising questions on art appreciation, representation, and power. The interesting fact remains: had the works not been swiped in NEA debates, could the Serrano's or Mapplethorpe's images gain the extent of power and acceptance that it has today?