DAMage Report - When Freedom Dies

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html

In the U.S. we've become used to hearing stories of artists, poets, cartoonists, journalists and other creative types being arrested and worse for expressing their views via their chosen medium in other countries.

For example, Egypt, which is renown for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam recently banned a journal by respected poet Helmi Salem because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows.

In 2005 rioters killed Christians in Denmark, burned churches and called for the execution of cartoonists following the publication of cartoons disrespecting prophet Mohammed.

In Britain, a 15-year-old boy was charged last year for holding up a sign outside a Scientology building declaring, "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult."

Dutch prosecutors this year have brought charges against the Arab European League for a cartoon questioning the Holocaust.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders was barred from entering Britain because he made a movie describing the Quran as a "fascist" book and Islam as a violent religion.

In France, actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for saying in 2006 that Muslims were ruining France in a letter to the Interior Minister.

We have shook our collective heads and patted ourselves on the back for OUR constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. We may not like, agree, or appreciate some of the left wing, right wing, religious and/or bigoted sentiments of our artists, writers, poets, political cartoonists - but as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law, WE'VE respected their right to express. Well...for the most part. Our smug, self righteous days are ending. Times, they are a changing as a climate of censorship continues to grow.

Recently, Yale University Press published The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book by Jytte Klausen on the 2006 controversy surrounding 12 Mohammed cartoons. Yale, however, (over Klausen's objections) cut out the actual pictures of the cartoons.

Still, if you live in the United States, creating a painting and putting devil horns on a picture of the pope won't get you an automatic jail sentence here. Yet. That may soon change if recent resolutions supported by the United States are any indication.

The Obama administration supported the effort of the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month.

Jonathan Turley points out in his article, "the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. ...The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard."

Freedom of Speech is fundamental to who we are. It is the most essential tool an artist has. When that freedom dies, so do the arts.

***Sculpture by Alexandre Kosolapov, “the hero. the leader. the god”

DAMage Report - Freedom of Choice Goes BOTH Ways

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/nyregion/23complaint.html?_r=1

Art 'tards. Sometimes artists and galleries do more damage to public perceptions about art than

any narrow-minded, repressed, censorship-loving weenie out there.

The freedom to create and exhibit art without censorship comes with the responsiblity of giving those

who may not wish to see controversial or explicit art the freedom to walk away unscathed. Particularly in public

venues where children may see visuals that are age inappropriate.

We're not talking abstracted nude sculptures. We're talking semen spewing cowboys and blowup photographs of skanky celebrity vagina.

Forget the kids - I've seen enough pictures online of that particular poontang to last me a life time.

Mr. Bernstein points out in his NY Times article "It’s O.K. if [the gallery] wants to show vulvas in extreme close-up. (I don’t believe in censorship.) What’s not O.K. is that the only warning to parents was a tiny sign at the entrance to the gallery. The wording was clear — “These galleries contain graphic imagery. Parent/adult discretion is advised” — but the size and style of the sign made it unlikely that any harried parent would even notice it.

Points to the gallery for posting a warning. Demerits for not posting something legible/noticable. I understand there may be gallery esthetics involved but come on... by posting warning so they don't serve their function, the gallery ended up failing to uphold their responsibility to their visitors. Which was give them a CHOICE.

Another museum Mr. Bernstein took his son to could almost be accused of false advertising or at the very least misrepresentative marketing.

"A show by Takashi Murakami at the Brooklyn Museum in 2008 was a major draw for parents and kids. The first piece on display, a teaser in the museum’s lobby, was a playful sculpture of cartoonlike characters, which made my sons want to see more. So it came as a shock when, entering the main exhibition space, we were greeted by a masturbating cowboy spinning a lasso of his semen. There was no warning, unless you counted the sign urging parents and teachers to preview exhibitions before bringing children to see them. (Great advice, but hardly practical.)"

That kind of thing chaps my ass as much as seeing a sale circular for red boots, only to find out the store doesn't carry any.

The general public will continue to view (or not view as the case may be if they are given a damn choice) contemporary art as shocking, aggressive, and exploitive, reacting with automatic negativity towards subjects they don't understand and don't want to - if galleries, museums, and artists neglect to be sensative to viewer issues. Come on. How hard it is to post a warning and include relevant details in news stories? A writeup I read on the Murakami exhibit described the Lonesome Cowboy as "life-size but hardly lifelike sculptures of anime-manga derivation: “Hiropon,” a busty woman, and “My Lonesome Cowboy,” her well-endowed male consort. Both are mostly naked, with streams of bodily fluids spewing from various body parts." Is semen a no-no word in the media?

Like Mr. Bernstein, I don't believe in censorship of the arts. I believe if an artist wants to make it, a gallery wants to show it and a person wants to see it and possibly buy it - that is completely and absolutely their right and no one should take it from any of them. But I also defend the rights of the parent who doesn't want to expose their child to sexually explicit art.

Same goes for any person out there who doesn't want to walk into a gallery and be speared in the eye by the world's most exposed vulva of all time.

DAMage Report: Is the crime writing an erotic romance or trying to promote the book to other teachers?

http://wbztv.com/local/lawrence.principal.sex.2.996143.html
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=79780698927&h=JKI0a&u=8tKOO&ref=mf

It's like a freaking soap opera. The news started with Teachers' Union demanding that school principal Beth Gannon be fired for "peddling her porn" romance novel at the school. The outrage seems to be more about the type of book than the fact that she was trying to sell her book to other teachers. But it gets better. Apparently the teacher that filed the formal complaint against Ms. Gannon was reassigned from her classroom to detention hall and her daughter received a threatening note. Meanwhile the author has been put on indefinite medical leave for being "fragile." (insert eyeroll for the diva.) The community is up in arms and breaking out the pitchforks and torches. Even the head (literally) of the school superintendent is being tossed up for suspension over the controversy.

Give me a pen, this stuff is just too good to make up.

Several questions arise:
1. Was it inappropriate for Ms. Gannon to hawk her novel (self published before she became an principal) to other teachers? And with that same question - what consitutes promoting her novel? Did she bring them in and encourage teachers to browse the book for possible sales? Or did she mention in passing, to another teacher, the book she had published two years ago and offer to let someone buy a copy? Hmmmm....

2. Would there be as great an uproar if Ms. Gannon had written a mystery novel or scifi novel.... or would the community be celebrating that their school principal was an author? (Whether the book is good, bad, or nausea inducing being beside the point.)

3. And finally did Ms. Gannon, in spiteful retaliation, use her position to reassign a teacher to a crappy position and then threaten another teacher with an anonymous note? Because if she did, then her character is called into question and it is more than likely that she DID use her position for self promotion and deserves to be ousted as a bully.

The interesting thing to me is that the catalyst for ALL the outrage was someone writing a "porn/romance" book, as evidenced by the repeated mention of passages in news stories. And if she mentioned her book and offered to let someone buy it, is that REALLY grounds for dismissal? Even if she brought several copies to a teachers meeting (no kids there, right?) - it might be inappropriate, but is it really deserving a big scarlet letter on her forehead? Why is the topic of sex and relationships so offensive to so many?
___________
Today live at 5:30pm EST on www.latalkradio.com DAMage Report.
ALSO - Book Pimping: Megan Hart's Strangers and Lauren Dane's Relentless