Clough Stands By Decision To Pull “A Fire In My Belly” From Hide/Seek

What, me censor?

Despite concerns the Smithsonian’s Flashpoints and Faultlines forum would be a bland showcase designed to obscure the institution’s commitments to First Amendment principles instead of examining them, last night’s opening panels included direct criticism from the dais of Smithsonian Secretary Wayne Clough’s decision to censor David Wojnarowicz’s “A Fire In My Belly” from the Hide/Seek exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery.

That open criticism, however, would have meant a lot more if it had not been preceded by Secretary Clough re-affirming his unilateral decision to pull the video under pressure from the Catholic League and Speaker of the House Eric Cantor, his perpetuation of a false equivalence between free expression advocates who were wounded by his decision to censor and the astro-turf campaign to attack Hide/Seek, and the idea that by pulling “A Fire In My Belly” he did not undermine but protected the succjohn boehneress of Hide/Seek and the Smithsonian itself.

While the ensuing two-plus hours of comment from dedicated and experienced curators (including Hide/Seek co-curators David Ward and Jonathan Katz) offered many insights into how museums can cope with the risks associated with the important task of representing a broader narrative of American ideas, experience, and history, they were blunted by the fact that the man at the top of “The Castle” remains unrepentant in his decision to bypass such efforts in the case of Hide/Seek. And if Clough caved within hours of the first signs of partisan pressure in late 2010, what is to grant him the courage to defend Smithsonian exhibits in the future — if controversial material is even allowed to be shown at all?

While Clough remarked that he has “much to learn” in the wake of Hide/Seek, it’s a wonder if he has learned anything at all as of yet. Still, at least he can say he faced his critics. Michael Blasenstein, co-founder of the Museum of Censored Art, used his Q&A time to call into question the purpose of the forum since Clough had already stated he did “the right thing” in censoring “A Fire In My Belly”, and addressed Clough directly to criticize a perceived reluctance to speak with the public about the Hide/Seek debacle outside of pre-screened interviews with carefully selected journalists.

As the forum ended and guests were exiting the VIP section of the auditorium, free expression activist Adrian Parsons attempted to give a adorn Clough with a sign that read “Censor” but was escorted out of the building by security.

Today marks Day 2 of the Flashpoints and Faultlines forum, you can follow its live video feed online and email questions to the panelists at comments@si.edu. NCAC will be tweeting as well.

Future Social Media Policy (and policy)

In his article ”The Challenge of Developing Effective Public Policy on the Use of Social Media,” John Palfrey, co-director of Harvard Law’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, discusses the problems that American youth face in the wake of increased online social media presence in his article.

One of Palfrey’s  concerns is balancing the desire to encourage

“…digital-era youth media practices (for  instance, learning, creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship, and civic activism), while mitigating the challenges (for instance, safety, privacy, intellectual property, information quality concerns, and so forth).”

Palfrey advocates using both capital-P Policy (enforceable statues and regulations) and lowercase-p policy (behaviors and attitudes fostered by parents and teachers), to encourage teens to act responsibly on the Internet.

This creates a tension, particularly given Palfrey’s focus on the problem of privacy. What kinds of statutes and regulations does Palfrey imagine “protecting” the youth users of social media?  Are they the kinds of rules that would mandate Internet education, empower users to control who can access their data, or prohibit certain kinds of speech?

And, while Palfrey’s focus remains on teens and the propensity to act recklessly with technology, it isn’t like the grown-ups have a flawless track record (see: Brett Farve, Chris Lee).

Photo courtesy of Bob G. on flickr.

Christian Extremists Vandalize Art — Again and Again

Last October we reported about an incident at the Loveland Museum/Gallery in Colorado where a woman ripped into a lithograph after she busted the artwork’s plexiglass case with a crowbar. She did this because God told her to do it. In her explanation of the vandalism, Kathleen Folden refers to the similar destruction of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ in Australia in 1997 – “only oceans” apparently kept her from destroying the piece herself. And now the epidemic of violence among devout Christian extremists has spread to the cradle of the Enlightenment: France. This past Sunday (Palm Sunday) a group of French Catholic fundamentalists in Avignon attacked an exhibition print of Piss Christ with hammers. Another Serrano photograph, of a meditating nun, was also slashed. The damaged piece will remain in the exhibition as a testament to the barbarity.

The action was not just the work of a few crazy people. As the Guardian reports,

Civitas, a lobby group that says it aims to re-Christianize France, launched an online petition and mobilized other fundamentalist groups:

The (…) archbishop of Vaucluse (…) called Piss Christ “odious” and said he wanted this “trash” taken off the gallery walls.  Last week the gallery complained of “extremist harassment” by fundamentalist Christian groups who wanted the work banned in France.

Then, on Saturday, a day before the vandalism “around 1,000 Christian protesters marched through Avignonto the gallery. The protest group included a regional councilor for the extreme-right Front National, which recently scored well in the Vaucluse area in local elections.

The gallery director, Eric Mézil, said the “movement against Piss Christ had started at the time of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party’s controversial debate on religion and secularism in France. At a record low in the polls before next year’s presidential election, Sarkozy has been accused of using anti-Muslim and extreme-right rhetoric to appeal to voters and counter the rise of the Front National.”

The collusion between dominant Christian denominations, nationalism and government in attacks on art is already a familiar reality in Russia. In January 2003, a gang of Russian Orthodox activists destroyed “Caution! Religion,” an exhibition in the Sakharov Museum. Instead of the vandals being punished, two Sakharov Museum officials and three of the exhibition organizers were convicted of religious hatred. The vandals, meanwhile, were hailed by church officials as heroes and martyrs, and all criminal charges against them were dismissed.

A year later, in January 2004, vandals wearing camouflage gear invaded the S.P.A.S. Gallery in St. Petersburg and splattered paint and ink over an exhibition of Oleg Yanushevsky’s constructions, called “Contemporary Icons.” Yanushevsky’s ironic message—that President George W. Bush, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and other political and pop-culture celebrities were the modern equivalents of holy figures—was considered an insult to the Russian Orthodox Church and to the sensibilities of believers. Although the works were destroyed and the gallery seriously damaged, the St. Petersburg prosecutor refused even to investigate the vandalism.

Religion-inspired violence is clearly not reserved for Muslims attacking cartoon artists or murdering filmmakers. While the expression of any ideas – no matter now extreme – should be protected, nothing, not even the most cherished beliefs, excuse the physical violation of a person or an artwork. Yet with their inaction or with their collusion with the views of extremists government officials encourage such violence. Make no mistake: these are crimes of hate not acts demonstrating the love of God.

Reading Below the Fold, and Between the Lines

After a member of the La Salle University’s faculty hosted an optional symposium with special guests (read: exotic dancers), the editors of the university’s  paper The Collegian knew they had a story on their hands.

Executive Editor Vinny Valla and The Collegian staff address the "above the fold" ultimatum.

One of the Collegian staff members interviewed two students who had attended the conference, as well as university officials and the professor himself.  But the Dean of Students kiboshed running the story until after the university finished its investigation.

In the meanwhile, a blog broke the story –as strippers at a Catholic university event are going to make news– and other media outlets followed up.  But the contents of those articles contradicted the eye-witness, on-the-record statements gathered by The Collegian.  When the paper was finally allowed to publish, the university barred them from running the story (which was already in the commercial press!) “above the fold.”

And as you can see from the picture, The Collegian complied with that request, albeit with an innovative use of layout and margins.

Frank LoMonte, Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center, says:

“I think what we are seeing at La Salle belongs under the headline, above-the-fold, of ‘censorship fail.’ Had the university just kept quiet, absolutely no one outside of the La Salle community would have paid any mind to this story and it would have blown over in a day. Instead, by trying to conceal unpleasant news, La Salle has succeeded in doing just the opposite – drawing exponentially more attention to it. This is why censorship is such a sucker’s bet – because it almost invariably fails, and fails embarrassingly. Surely La Salle must recognize that they’ve announced to the entire country that they view their students contemptuously as incapable of exercising independent judgment. That will look great on the cover of the next recruiting brochure. La Salle needs to join the 21st century and join the ranks of excellent private institutions including Notre Dame and Tulane that grant their students First Amendment-like freedoms as a matter of university regulation, recognizing that this creates a superior educational experience and a more respectful learning environment for the adults – and they are adults – attending these institutions.”

LoMonte calls it “censorship fail”, but when censorship merely amplifies the reach of a story we like to call it:

NCAC and FAP Send Letter To Marin Civic Center re: Nudes Censorship

Silvia Cossich Goodman, with censored painting. Photo by Robert Tong courtesy of MercuryNews.com

As blogged earlier this week, admins at the Marin Civic Center censored a painting of a nude female from an annual art show because an employee claimed it constituted sexual harassment.

This morning, NCAC and the First Amendment Project sent Marin County a letter to show them the error of their ways. In it, we sought to explain that:

• One painting of a naked lady in a contemporary art exhibit does not constitute sexual harassment. Even if you don’t like paintings of naked people it still is not, and cannot be perceived as, the kind of systemic, repeated behavior that creates a “hostile work environment” and therefore sexual harassment.
• As a public space opened to exhibiting artwork, Marin Civic Center has First Amendment obligations to refrain from censoring work based on personal views. The courts say public officials can’t pull strings to get rid of artwork that they personally don’t like. That includes art featuring naked people. That even includes art featuring naked people in a venue where children might see it. The children WILL BE FINE. Really.
  
• When Marin Civic Center officials censored that painting, they not only abridged Silvia Cossich Goodman’s right to free expression, they also did a disservice to the people of Marin County by not letting them evaluate art for themselves.

These local incidents of censorship are important because, if we let them slide, they build precedents that can be used to hurt free expression in the future. We truly hope that Marin Civic Center will immediately reinstate Goodman’s painting, take this as a teachable moment, and not resort to a legal fight.

Check back here for updates and developments, or join our Twitter feed.

Nudes In The News! Marin County Civic Center Censors Artist

The Marin County Civic Center has chosen to eliminate a nude painting by San Rafael artist Sylvia Cossich Goodman from a public exhibition.

The full-frontal nude was accepted through what we can assume was a standard submission process, and was up in public for a week. So why take it down now? Because an employee complained it created “a hostile work environment.” No, wait…Because Of The Children!  Or maybe both! You decide:

Mona Miyasato, chief assistant county administrator, noting that art is in the eye of the beholder, said an employee who was offended complained after the exhibit went up last week “about being accosted by the painting every day in the work environment” because her office was near the first-floor gallery.

(…)

Colleen Proppe, membership director of the Marin Arts Council, which coordinated the exhibit, said the council’s annual “member show” at the Civic Center involves artists who submit one piece each.

“We did remove one painting at the request of the Civic Center staff,” Proppe said. “The Civic Center is a public thoroughfare, in which 8-year-old children come through on field trips. As a mother of twins who both did the field trip with their public school this year, I can understand the call the Civic Center made on this one painting. … We don’t want to lose our ability to share the works of 90 other artists because one painting was upsetting the administrators.

(emphasis added)

(How exactly does an inanimate painting accost someone? Is this a magical, talking, sentient painting?)

Free Speech Activists take note: Failure to keep the story straight is a prime symptom of censorship. When authorities know, at some level, that they are acting on arbitrary impulses they try to “cover the spread” with a grab-bag of claims.

In this case, we’re told the complaint came from an employee who felt uncomfortable seeing the painting near her workplace, but then Proppe falls back to hide behind the need to protect the Purity of Our Youth from the nekkid ladies.

Since we are talking about a public venue, then there are clear First Amendment issues that are currently under investigation by NCAC. In the meantime Goodman puts it best:

What about the rest of us? Do we have a voice on this? Where does the censorship stop? Is this democratic? Which kind of message are we giving to our community? Is it OK in order to avoid conflicts to just ‘give in’ and be silenced? We are sheltering the public from a nude in an art contest. Is this the dark ages all over again?

Not if we can help it. And if you are an administrator at a publicly-funded venue that showcases art: Please. We beg you. Save yourself a lot of trouble by setting up an open procedure for responding to complaints and consistently apply it! Without one, you leave your community and staff vulnerable to knee-jerk decisions that hurt your stakeholders and your credibility.

Contact NCAC if you’re looking for advice on this process.

NCAC Calls For Release of Ai Weiwei

Photo from ArtKnowledgeNews.com

NCAC is adding to the global community of artists and institutions calling for the immediate release of the renowned Ai Weiwei, one China’s most innovative and socially engaged creators. He was arrested at Beijing Airport this week for “economic crimes”, and he alleges that in 2009 the security police attacked and beat him. Check out our call to action, and if you’re not familiar with Ai Weiwei, watch FRONTLINE’s short film online now.

Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’? Create a Statue of Jackson With Child

A statue commemorating the time Michael Jackson dangled his baby son out of a Berlin hotel window was unveiled in London this week.

L.A. artist Maria Von Köhler has received death threats for the statute, entitled “Madonna and Child”.  Others have asked that the installation be removed.

Enraged fan krazy4kitties asks, “This is disgraceful.  What kind of person would do a think like this… Why don’t you look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you did such a thing.”

… A true fan would have demanded Köhler to make a change.

Famous Art Censored For Sensitive Types

In response to the disturbing story of a woman who attacked a Gauguin at the National Gallery, Flavorwire Art Editor Marina Galpernia has helpfully compiled a photo set of great works modified for those with…delicate sensibilities:

Thou shall not show your wiener to God, Adam. Even if Michelangelo’s God is emerging out of an embracing pile of amorous angels, he is not in the mood. And cut the gay stuff!

Check out all 14 works, including saucy selections from Dali, Bosch, and Picasso.

The Logic of the Censor

Susan Burns, the woman who tried to tear a Paul Gauguin painting off a wall at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., stated her reasons thus:

“I feel that Gauguin is evil. He has nudity and is bad for the children. He has two women in the painting and it’s very homosexual. I was trying to remove it. I think it should be burned.” Burns concluded her statement condemning nudes by saying “I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.”

Though wannabe censors are generally more subtle in expressing their reasons, they frequently share Burns’ sentiments (about nudes, not the CIA).

Hopefully next time somebody blessed with an unhealthy imagination argues nudes should be suppressed from view, they will remember that they share this desire with a woman who not only has a radio in her head, but whose rap sheet includes convictions for carjacking, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and assault on a law enforcement officer.