Down With Porn

You've got to hand it to William H. Walsh. The guy has guts. Last week, claiming he was outraged by a display of "vulgar" art at City Hall, Walsh brazenly walked away with what he considered the exhibition's most disturbing contents.

His booty? Two dildos and a photograph of a penis.

With that, Cambridge's most notorious city councillor--a convicted felon who awaits sentencing on 41 counts of bank fraud and conspiracy--added another title to his illustrious list: art critic (or art thief, depending on your point of view).

We must admit that we don't hold Bill Walsh in the highest esteem. We think he's corrupt. And we think he should resign his council post.

But on a few issues, Walsh does have it right. Rent control is one (he opposes it). And pornography is another; it's not art; it shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayer dollars; and it shouldn't be displayed on public property.

In this case, Walsh's protest was short-lived. Hardly had he taken the sex toys home, when Cambridge City Manager Robert W. Healy called him up to retrieve them. Within a matter of hours, the dildos and the penis were back on display.

To be sure, the exhibit does feature a rather unusual disclaimer. It notes that a "jury of professional artists"--and not City Hall staffers--chose the items to be featured. Walsh has remarked sarcastically (and correctly) that the jury "must have been blind."

But the disclaimer has a purpose: it attempts to absolve Cambridge's elected leaders from any responsibility for choosing the smut that's on display. By appointing a committee of so-called artists to make that decision independently--and then pointing the finger at that committee when its choices are criticized--our representatives in City Hall have sought to insulate themselves from controversy.

We don't think they should be let off the hook so easily.

Defining art (versus pornography) is a tricky problem that has everything to do with individual tastes and little to do with objective criteria.

At least if elected officials choose the art that is publicly funded or displayed on public property, though, they can be held directly accountable for their actions. If their constituents don't agree with their tastes--and with the ways their tax dollars are being wasted--they know whom to blame.

In our opinion, dildos are emphatically not art. Bill Walsh was right when he took them down (though we think it's a bit odd that he took them home). Call us closed-minded, but we're disturbed that they've gone back up.