On the Thursday, when the symposium began with Cox as the keynote speaker, I arrived just in time to hear her tell students to do first and ask later before descending the podium. An audience member noted that it was a more reserved Cox that presented that morning, perhaps due to the setting as an official research symposium.
Panel 1 comprised of Taynia Nethersole, Clinton Hutton, Marcia Hextall and Kim Robinson-Walcott and was the most comprehensive in its scope. Taynia Nethersole spoke about the law in relation to censorship as being very subjective. The basic guideline being that the rights and freedoms of the individual should not infringe on the rights and freedom of others or the public interest. She also spoke about the law being used to label an artwork seen as having no artistic value as being obscene. Concerns raised are that often persons call to make judgements about the artistic value of something are often not qualified to do so. An individual judges what is in public interest and not a majority therefore rulings are often personal matters and not necessarily rooted in the
Clinton Hutton's take on the role of censorship in the arts in the Caribbean involved the cultural and religious censure of African slaves in plantation society. His vociferous quotations of ethnological texts was surely strategically placed to incite the black members of the audience to nod heads and cause the caucasian audience members to feel discomfort in their seats. His conclusion from his research was that whatever was considered white was beautiful and whatever was black was ugly. This ugliness and 'love of vice' was not curable by our own devices but had to be assisted through the colonizing powers thus the attempted erasure of African heritage.
Kim Robinson-Walcott gave a very entertaining talk which involved her doing a slow rap from the now popular Kiprich track mimicking Zebra and Tiger. She clearly stated that she enjoyed the beat of the music, calling it 'cute and catchy'. Her issue was not the catchiness but with a specific section of the song which described graphically and admittedly quite lyrically, the events of a possible rape. Her frustration then stemmed from attempts to have the song removed from the air waves to have the censured song re-appear with a beep at the last words of each line. This she did not find satisfying as any one could figure out the missing words. I say possible rape as a debate ensued about this. Was it rape or what Carolyn Cooper called a 'bait and switch'. Cooper was however quick to say that she was not defending slackness but looking at the possiblities of the song. Winston Campbell, who later presented on the Visual arts panel, chided Robinson-Walcott for taking the song out of the context of the mimicry of dancehall rivalry. This was countered with the general sentiment that context or not, a public description of a rape for entertainment purposes is never appropriate. This led her to her main area of Anthony Winkler's 'healthy sexual references'. Robinson-Walcott introduced a kind of binary system for measuring 'slackness' which perhaps could guide in the censorship process. 'Slackness' and obscenity could be 'fun' or harmful, meaningless or meaningful. Intention is apparently all. This again made me think of the issue of artistic license and freedom of speech. Does the title 'art' make slackness alright in society. Do artists use slackness and controversy as a poltical tool and what does that do to perceptions of art and artists?
On a last note Karl Fagan, a 2nd year student who presented a lengthy paper, must be commended for almost outshining several other presenters at the symposium. He obviously had an opinion and was not shy or rudimentary in his expression of it. Censorship functions within some of the very instituions who don a progressive self-image such as the Edna Manley College. Censorship of students for final year shows, censorship of certain ideas in certain courses and departments. To reference Winston Campbell, society seemingly cannot exist wtthout censorship as social groups do have rules and guidelines for appropriate behaviour. Is Censorship linked to power? Perhaps as Omari Ra suggests censorship is not linked to morality as such but political agenda. Do we judge the our popular culture, the dancehall, with the same code as, our high culture?