Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed in letters to the editor are those of the author, and publication in the Graphic in no way represents an endorsement of any opinions published. This space is provided to allow public response and commentary on articles and issues that are covered by the Graphic and important to its readership.
Art was a defining part of my Pepperdine experience. I worked for the Center for the Arts for several years as a student, followed by eight years as a full-time employee — plus two years working for university Alumni Affairs. I was also fortunate to participate in the University’s international program in Europe, where I was able to visit the Louvre, the Vatican and dozens of other world-class museums across the continent. This experience was vital to my education, deepening my connection with history, humanity and the divine, especially when a work of art challenged me. Because of this, I am incredibly disappointed to learn of the University administration’s recent censorship of the exhibition “Hold My Hand in Yours” at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art. These actions betray the ideals of a liberal arts education and undermine Pepperdine’s commitment to intellectual freedom and the relentless pursuit of truth.
One of my favorite works of art can be difficult to look at. I first learned about “El Tres de Mayo de 1808 en Madrid” [The Third of May 1808 in Madrid] by Francisco de Goya in my humanities class, and I was fortunate enough to see it in person at Madrid’s Museo del Prado. In this painting, an unarmed peasant kneels among a pile of gruesome corpses, his hands held high in surrender. A row of faceless soldiers aims their rifles at him as the rest of the rebels helplessly wait for their own executions. Seeing this shocking, graphic, and inherently political painting in person showed me the power of art to address questions of justice, empathy and truth, directly informing my academic experience and proving the value of studying liberal arts.
Goya’s masterpiece has been described as “the first great picture which can be called revolutionary in every sense of the word,” according to “Looking at Pictures” by Kenneth Clark. In the two centuries since this work was created, artists have carried forward the revolutionary tradition Goya established. Picasso’s “Guernica,” on display less than half a mile from the Prado at the Museo Reina Sofía, portrays the bombing of the artist’s hometown during the Spanish Civil War. Today, artists such as Banksy and Ai Weiwei continue a legacy of political engagement, confronting political and economic power directly through bold installations and performances. In a 2011 interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel, Ai Weiwei said, “I don’t think anybody can separate art from politics. The intention to separate art from politics is itself a very political intention.”
Pepperdine’s affirmation statement holds “that freedom, whether spiritual, intellectual, or economic, is indivisible.” Yet the administration’s recent actions reflect not intellectual freedom, but fear — fear of discomfort and dissent. Censorship as a fear response is not new. The same fear led the Spanish Inquisition to seize two of Goya’s works, “La Maja Vestida“ and “La Maja Desnuda“, finding them to cause “serious scandal and no lesser harm” [el agrave escándalo y daño no menor], according to Novus Index Librorum prohibitorum.
Not all of Goya’s art was controversial — if my coursework had removed any material found to be political or untasteful, I might have learned about his inoffensive pastoral tapestries such as “The Picnic,” “The Fair of Madrid” or “Boys Picking Fruit.” These works depict beauty and serenity in a flat, idealized manner, lacking the moral truth of Goya’s more challenging works. Pepperdine’s affirmation “that truth, having nothing to fear from investigation, should be pursued relentlessly in every discipline” should extend to art that is controversial or challenging. When I view a work of art, I do not always expect to like, agree with or even understand it. But that doesn’t mean it should be hidden. The University’s censorship demonstrates to the Pepperdine community that difficult ideas are unwelcome on campus, a message that betrays principles of both academia and faith. My education taught me that faith, freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not in conflict, but are in fact complementary in pursuing a life of purpose, service and leadership.
From all evidence, Museum Director Andrea Gyorody has shown remarkable curatorial judgment in selecting works that challenge the status quo without crossing into indecency or harm. I sincerely hope that President Gash, Lauren Cosentino and the rest of the administration will recognize that art is vital for education precisely when it challenges us, and that censorship of art jeopardizes the academic pursuit. I urge the University to restore the exhibition to view without compromising curatorial integrity. Until then, I will be withdrawing all financial and volunteer support from the University.
Daniel Lovett (‘08, MBA ‘19)
___________________
Follow the Graphic on X: @PeppGraphic
Contact Daniel Lovett via email: danielvlovett@gmail.com
