Sculpture sparks controversy at Slippery Rock

Slippery Rock University found itself embroiled in controversy this week as the result of an… Slippery Rock University found itself embroiled in controversy this week as the result of an outdoor art show on campus featuring sculptures from students at nearby universities.

The problem concerns a piece by 22-year-old Edinboro University of Pennsylvania student Adam Tate, called “Prescription.” It’s a life-size bronze sculpture of the head of Sigmund Freud with a pistol against his nose.

Tate says the gun is meant to represent cocaine – to which Freud became addicted after prescribing it to patients – and the drug’s devastating effects on users.

Some members of the Slippery Rock community see it differently.

Students, faculty and staff have been complaining that the work is violent, disturbing and situated in a nearly unavoidable spot on campus – outside the front entrance of the Strain Behavioral Science Building. Tate specifically requested the piece to be placed near a psychology building to represent Freud’s line of work, and the Strain Building best fit the bill.

Unknown persons under cover of darkness have twice censored the statue, and both times the changes were reversed. Once, the piece was encased in cardboard. Another time, it was moved into a less-conspicuous location.

Diana Dreyer, the assistant dean of the College of Humanities and Fine and Performing Arts, stands behind the piece as art and refuses to censor it.

Kathleen Bellinger, chair of the nursing department, says the violence in the statue invokes thoughts of suicide, and she says such thoughts are dangerous at finals time. She also says the statue is alarming to those with loved ones in Iraq.

These arguments are specious, simply the results of fear and ignorance.

The work is a piece of art, no more, no less.

Sometimes the nature of art is to be mysterious and to push the envelope, and always the nature of art is to be provocative. This piece is clearly stimulating thought, which is not only a goal of art, but one of institutions of higher learning in general. To censor it would be stifling intellectual discourse.

However noble and artistic the artist’s original goals were, questions of sensitivity must still be addressed. Any would-be censor must tackle issues of pornography, hate and violence.

The piece, without doubt, is not remotely pornographic. It doesn’t call for hate, either.

That leaves violence. The piece depicts potential violence, not actual violence, and is not graphic. It’s a commentary on the destructive power of drugs. It suggests violence, but does not advocate it.

Censoring this piece in any way, by covering it or moving it or otherwise detracting from its message, would be a loss.