Besides, attending an art show is a matter of choice, not a requirement, and anyone easily offended can simply stay away.
Such censorship is ultimately self-defeating, because it only draws attention to the banned works. Would Hebron’s painting have received anywhere near the same level of attention had it remained on display?
People do not need protection from paintings. But Temecula residents should be worried when city government starts deciding which artistic works are appropriate for public consumption.
This article raises the issue that I have never understood about censorship. by censoring pieces indiscriminately there is a greater opportunity to create publicity for the very work that they are trying to squash. how does this make sense? if the aim is to sweep the piece under the rug then rely on the judgement of the patrons. they don’t have to look, they don’t have to attend and they will almost certainly not care either way. however, when a piece is censored, the artist receives publicity, the work receives publicity and the organizers receive flack.
would this piece receive publicity if it were just involved in the exhibition? are artists going to try to push the boundaries in order to receive this kind of publicity? the rewards are great for the great unknowns and the losses very few.
*edit* The city of Temecula has issued a formal apology to the artist. while a very nice gesture it doesn’t address whether the work will be shown and seems to be more about protecting their own interests and votes. you can read it here.