Free thoughts on censorship
Introduction
Dear readers,
In this article I want to talk to you about a very delicate topic, today as almost 2500 years ago: censorship. But what does this term mean? The Treccani vocabulary defines it, of course, exhaustively. For the purposes of this article, I will try to analyse this concept starting from the definition that, for me, is more critical – given that it is separated from institutions such as sovereign states and religious entities – : “Condemnation, the severe reprimand of the conduct or actions of others, or of works of ingenuity“. Precisely starting from this definition, I want to examine a question as old as Plato’s writings. The philosopher himself discusses it extensively, more or less directly, in his most famous work: The Republic. In books II and III, it is discussed how the works of writers such as Homer and Hesiod contain what the author labels “lies“. “Lies” that Plato claims derive from the intrinsic and fundamental constructive need of myths and fables: the exaggerated characterization of the characters shown in the aforementioned works. All this serves to represent the morals that the author wants to convey, with the exaggeration of the vices and virtues of the protagonists, in a clear and immediate way for the public. – Personal parenthesis to explain this concept: for example the environmental activists who, in order to get their messages transmitted, carry out shocking actions to make the meaning and importance of the message of their actions immediately visible to the public (whether these actions and ambitions are then right on the merits but wrong on the method, to paraphrase Marco Travaglio, it is not up to me alone to decide it, but also to that complex living system which is our society ) -.
The (in)utility of censorhip
Does censorship have a concrete societal utility? The question arises spontaneously. I believe that a first answer to this question could be the following: Censorship has an abstractly tangible societal utility. But what does this mean? It means that one of the results of censorship is to remove, or even never put into circulation, literary works, personal thoughts – written or oral -, works of art, music, etc. And this results in what I call tangible abstraction; tangible because it influences future societal generations , abstract because it removes at the source, and therefore nullifies, and makes immaterial, works that otherwise would have been concrete. Many examples confirm this opinion of mine. Starting with Leonardo Da Vinci, who, once arrived at the Papal court, was excluded from the projects concerning St. Peter’s by Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, with further confiscation of some of his manuscripts such as the De Vocie and a multitude of works of art – which thanks to this censorship, carried out on him because of his anatomical studies, will never be known to us -. And this episode gave rise to a very characteristic phrase, found in his notes: “Li Medici mi creorno e distrusseno” [“The Medici created and destroyed me”]. A further example can be found in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment fresco. The artist was criticized for having depicted the characters as naked and for this reason, after his death, Daniele da Volterra was commissioned to cover the nudity – an act that earned him the nickname of “Il Braghettone” [The breeches maker] -. What does all this prove? That if it hadn’t been for, almost indiscriminate, censorship, we might have had works and manuscripts, there are many more examples than the two I mentioned, which we cannot admire today. – I can say that we got lucky with the Last Judgment since “Il Braghettone” did an almost textbook job and the meaning of the work has not been changed by his additions, phew! -.
” DEL SENNO DIPOI N’È RIPIEN LE FOSSE “ [You can fill pits with hindsight]
If you’ve come this far, you’re probably wondering “but this damn censorship, is it useful or not?“. I’m sorry to disappoint you but I can’t give you the exact answer. But I can tell you what, after careful analysis and research, is my opinion. That is, it is up to the future generations to decide whether the censorship, of something or someone, was actually useful or not. Here, however, a paradox is created with my definition of tangible abstraction, given that: If the material – works and thoughts – is made immaterial, how can posterity decide whether or not we were right to censor certain things and/or people? To be safe, I would avoid censorship and I would try to make information and culture free for everyone. Even if only to avoid again that some artist – not even too incompetent – goes remembered in history only as “Michelangelo’s Braghettone”.
Thank you for reading what is the first official article of my blog! – And if you haven’t read it, I refer you to the introductory article –
Yours truly, Davide.
