John opens the show quoting the Supreme Court definition of obscenity, which mainly denotes that the object at hand has no artistic value. Ken finds this interpretation odd, because if the definition was correct, then art could never be obscene. John says it is best not to get too hung up on the definitions themselves – an example of a work that has at some point been considered obscene is better. So Ken brings up Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Fountain,’ a common urinal that, in the gallery setting, was referred to as vulgar and immoral and that elevated Duchamp to being credited with conceptual art. Ken says he understands why the work caused anger in 1917, but in comparing the piece to more recent works, it seems tame. John brings up Andres Serrano’s image of a crucifix submerged in urine – in time, this too will seem non-controversial, because what is considered obscene changes over time. Even Impressionism was once considered offensive, John points out. Ken expresses concern that with an overload of shock art, a line – the very line the Supreme Court was attempting to delineate in its definition of obscenity – is going to be crossed. So, John asks Ken, should the law dictate what artists can and cannot do? Shock art questions convention, and artists have a right to express their opinion in whatever form – after all, if a person is offended, all he has to do is look away.

Ken and John introduce guest Richard Meyer, professor of Art History at Stanford University and author ofWhat Was Contemporary Art?约翰首先问理查德，他是如何对当代艺术(而且常常是有争议的)产生兴趣的。理查德解释说，他是在看过罗伯特·梅普尔索普(Robert Mapplethorpe)的作品回顾展后意识到这一点的。该回顾展最初在华盛顿被取消，后来在伯克利(Richard正在那里完成研究生学业)举行。At the time, Richard’s focus lay on the politics of art in the 19^thand 20^th但在看过回顾展后，他决定用他的训练来研究现代艺术的问题，来解决最近提出的关于艺术表达的局限性的问题。接着，约翰问理查德，他如何看待最高法院对淫秽的明确定义(或对淫秽的任何定义)。Richard解释道，虽然有法律上的定义，但我们也必须注意到，艺术家并不太关心法律的逻辑或与之并行的工作。他举了梅普尔索普(Mapplethorpe)的例子，梅普尔索普曾说过，他想创作色情艺术，这是一个艺术家挑战界限的例子，包括哲学和逻辑，或者完全遵守法律。肯问理查德关于淫秽和艺术之间的矛盾，理查德同意在这两个概念之间有一个重要的和发人深思的紧张关系。理查德还谈到前卫的想法是越界的和创新的，这可能是艺术家挑战观众的责任，通过什么方式可能。

Ken poses the question of how to evaluate the artistic merit of a controversial piece. Richard makes a distinction between a piece being a work of art and the piece being agoodwork of art. He can agree that a photograph likePissed Christis art, but whether it is good is the real issue. Ken considers that ‘art’ is an honorific term that ascribes a certain standing to a piece and to its creator. Can an artist only get away with presenting an obscene piece if the piece is a good work of art? Richard brings up the saying “I know it when I see it,” which was originally brought up in the context of discussing obscenity, and asks whether we reallydo当我们看到淫秽的时候就知道它，特别是如果淫秽的概念是时间敏感和波动的。然后，理查德简要地谈到了那些声称在一件艺术作品中存在淫秽的人所赋予的伤害或冒犯观众的力量。当约翰提出了一个有趣的轶事，关于他年轻时在电影中看到碧姬·芭铎的屁股的争议时，淫秽的本质被进一步讨论——现在，发现暴露皮肤的争议似乎是奇怪的。理查德对此表示同意，他还提出了这样一个观点，即艺术家有责任解放视野，尽管危险在于接近这样一个临界点，即艺术家为了宣传或震撼价值而突破界限。

Ken and John then take questions from the audience. To a question regarding whether art should be educational and teach viewers something they do not already know, Richard concurs. Art, he says, should be revelatory. John then opines about levels of controversy and whether certain things, like, child abuse, should ever be presented in an artistic context, regardless of whether it is a raw cell phone video or a produced experience. Richard speaks about the importance of and power stemming from art inciting these questions – art leads people to decide that they are going to be the arbitrators, the legislators, of what obscenity means to them. Whether restriction is nowadays more shocking than being shown skin, for example, is also a topic that is touched upon, as is whether the definitions in legislation are meant to protect children only and the legitimacy of claims of injury to a whole group based on religion. Ken wonders what gives anybody the right to restrict what he sees – after all, those who walk into museums are there on their own accord. Richard concludes by suggesting the problematic notion of obscenity credentialing an artist.

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 6:40): Caitlin Esch talks to Bruce Gunther, Curator of Modern and Contemporary Art at the Portland Art Museum, about the most controversial works he has displayed in the museum. The pieces discussed, both which were once highly controversial, are a sculpture of a crucified frog by Martin Kippenberger and “The Bear Chair” by Edward and Nancy Kienholz.
  
• 60-Second Philosopher(Seek to 46:28): Ian Shoales discusses a painting he saw at a Mark Rothko retrospective show, a very large canvas painted entirely with two shades of black, and the effect it had on viewers, who walked away quickly. Ian speeds through modern alternatives to this painting.