Secret Service Probes Art Exhibit

[Teta040]

I notice that nobody has stopped to ponder the REALLY important issue: what is going to, or has already, happened to this artist, whoever he or she might be. Do you really think the Secret Service asked for their contact info so they could stop by for a informative interview and a nice cup of tea? NOPE.They will have come to arrest the motherfreaker, and under the loose dictates of said Act, this artist will most likely disappear. As a supected terrorist, or at least "political" criminal, he or she could even be sent to Gitmo, to join a long list of suspected terrorists who have had no access to phones, family, lawyers, media access, or even the protection of international law. They will disappear. Bush could even order him or her secretly tortured using the blunt end of said gun that they would have liked to point at said head. There is a BIG difference between an image used in woek of art, and the very real thing that the gov't could do.

Regardless of how right or wrong he or she might have been to use such an image, would this punishment fit the "crime"? Has such a punishment ever been meted out before, to any one else who has done things like thus? It is a very real possibility that this has happened..I wouldn't put anything out of reach. No matter what the work of art says or does not say, or advocate, this is till America, not one of the mullah-led states we profess to hate, and it does no good for the Light of the World to do things that any totalirariam regime would do.

Regardless of how you feel about this paijting, the fate of the artist is more important an issue right now. I hope there are people out there who are keeping track of this artists' whereabouts. I'd hate to think that we, the people, can sink to the level of...Saruman, at least.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I think there is quite a level of fear on a federal level, now that we realize that we are a target of terrorism. People will react differently to art and other mediums of expression based on their level of concern and based on taste. Have we overdone our security? Can security at this point possibly be overdone? I don't know if you can be overprotective when you realize that you are a target.

 

[Teta040]

I will agree with your statement, when the artist has been located, safe and sound, with no more than the memory of a bad once-over in Washington in their head. When we hear from them, then I'll say that such understandable fear justifies disappearances.

 

[verte76]

That's scary, that something could happen to that artist. Condemn the picture if you must, and it's in appallingly bad taste, but to nab an artist for something they put on paper or canvas is really scary stuff. That's what I was doing earlier today, ironically I was working on a picture that's a memorial to Pope John Paul II. Of course this isn't going to get me busted. It's a cross with abstract Gothic-colored imagery around it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I notice that nobody has stopped to ponder the REALLY important issue: what is going to, or has already, happened to this artist, whoever he or she might be. Do you really think the Secret Service asked for their contact info so they could stop by for a informative interview and a nice cup of tea? NOPE.They will have come to arrest the motherfreaker, and under the loose dictates of said Act, this artist will most likely disappear. As a supected terrorist, or at least "political" criminal, he or she could even be sent to Gitmo, to join a long list of suspected terrorists who have had no access to phones, family, lawyers, media access, or even the protection of international law. They will disappear. Bush could even order him or her secretly tortured using the blunt end of said gun that they would have liked to point at said head. There is a BIG difference between an image used in woek of art, and the very real thing that the gov't could do.

Regardless of how right or wrong he or she might have been to use such an image, would this punishment fit the "crime"? Has such a punishment ever been meted out before, to any one else who has done things like thus? It is a very real possibility that this has happened..I wouldn't put anything out of reach. No matter what the work of art says or does not say, or advocate, this is till America, not one of the mullah-led states we profess to hate, and it does no good for the Light of the World to do things that any totalirariam regime would do.

Regardless of how you feel about this paijting, the fate of the artist is more important an issue right now. I hope there are people out there who are keeping track of this artists' whereabouts. I'd hate to think that we, the people, can sink to the level of...Saruman, at least.

Can you list to me the no doubt thousands of dissapeared individuals who were brutally silenced by the Bush regime for exercising their political freedom.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I notice that nobody has stopped to ponder the REALLY important issue: what is going to, or has already, happened to this artist, whoever he or she might be. Do you really think the Secret Service asked for their contact info so they could stop by for a informative interview and a nice cup of tea? NOPE.They will have come to arrest the motherfreaker, and under the loose dictates of said Act, this artist will most likely disappear. As a supected terrorist, or at least "political" criminal, he or she could even be sent to Gitmo, to join a long list of suspected terrorists who have had no access to phones, family, lawyers, media access, or even the protection of international law. They will disappear. Bush could even order him or her secretly tortured using the blunt end of said gun that they would have liked to point at said head. There is a BIG difference between an image used in woek of art, and the very real thing that the gov't could do.

Regardless of how right or wrong he or she might have been to use such an image, would this punishment fit the "crime"? Has such a punishment ever been meted out before, to any one else who has done things like thus? It is a very real possibility that this has happened..I wouldn't put anything out of reach. No matter what the work of art says or does not say, or advocate, this is till America, not one of the mullah-led states we profess to hate, and it does no good for the Light of the World to do things that any totalirariam regime would do.

Regardless of how you feel about this paijting, the fate of the artist is more important an issue right now. I hope there are people out there who are keeping track of this artists' whereabouts. I'd hate to think that we, the people, can sink to the level of...Saruman, at least.

Can you list to me the no doubt thousands of dissapeared individuals who were brutally silenced by the Bush regime for exercising their political freedom. All those organisations like the ACLU must be controlled by the government for this to be going on without all but the most attentive from noticing.

 

[verte76]

Oh, the Bush Administration isn't running around nabbing artists who've done controversial art. We've done stuff that involves religion, Iraq, and other big time issues. If they had half my studio would be busted, myself included. Even worse, all of the teachers voted for Kerry. Yeah, we're going to get arrested........not!

 

[Teta040]

I'm not talking about how Bush has gone around arresting thousands of people. I'm sure he hasn't. But he has gone around arresting a LOT of people who have not been proven guilty. I don't see any deviation from his behavior as a President and the way he ran the Death Row in Texas...and things have come up aobut the accused in those cases. And he DARES to talk about "Jesus is my philosopher." I'm reading "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis right now and it's throwing me for a loop.

I'm talking about how he couls be uncerimoniously lumped in with the rest of the "presumed terrorist" herd that is currently rotting away in Gitmo, or Kabul, or any American jail who has not seen a lawyer, made aphone call, had contact with family, etc. No doubt some of them ARE terrorists, but it isn't even aobut that. It's about the presumption "guilty until proven innocent" which goes against..well..been to a U2 show or read aobut one lately? Article 3 or 4 from the UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION? Something about everyone having the rights to lawyer and that kind of thing. This is just the kind of thing that the band is trying to alert us to....do you think that the band is displaying that document up there just to preach about Africa? Don['t you think they're making a subtle statement about the so-called "merits" od said Act--and what has been done in the name of the "war on terror"?
We still don't know what has happened to this artist, we haven't heard from the artist, responding to the allegations, that's for sure. Maybe the SS told him to shut up. Maybe he is. But given the patterns of this Administration under said Act, I'm not banking on it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Strange how so many give Bush so much attention when it comes to human rights, yet when it comes to someone like Kim Jong Il, they tend to care less. What does this thread have to do with Bush arresting people?

 

[Do Miss America]

Strange how so many give Bush so much attention when it comes to human rights, yet when it comes to someone like Kim Jong Il, they tend to care less.

You're comparing the leader of the free world to Kim Jong? Different leaders different standards.

Now let's talk about art.

Censorship on any level is dangerous. I can't believe that people would defend this act, it's art it's expression, end of story.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

If one believes they may compare Bush to Hitler, than one may also compare Bush To Kim Jong Il. Unless of course you would rather filter that out of your head for no good reason.

On any level... interesting concept. As I said before, I don't believe the artist should serve jail time. It doesn't bother me that Secret Service questioned some of the material at the exhibit. If it's not perceived as a threat, it's not that big of a deal. It's not like they put anyone in prison.

 

[BVS]

If one believes they may compare Bush to Hitler, than one may also compare Bush To Kim Jong Il. Unless of course you would rather filter that out of your head for no good reason.

 

[verte76]

The main thing about this picture that bothers me is that it advocates using violence for a solution to political problems. It's sort of barbaric. People should be working for solutions to our political problems by writing Congress, the President, and other big shots.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The main thing about this picture that bothers me is that it advocates using violence for a solution to political problems. It's sort of barbaric. People should be working for solutions to our political problems by writing Congress, the President, and other big shots.

I could agree with that.

 

[Teta040]

MacPhisto' people DO give attention to Kim Jong etc. But he is the brutal dictator of a country historically led by authoritarians. "democracy" is as alien a concept there as it is in China.

People write aobut Bush because he is the Leader of the Free World, and America goes around always telling people that it is and always has been THE "gold standard" of human rights and freedoms, that the rest of the world should follow. We alone tell others that WE are the role model for the rest of the world, and not only with our words; we claim to provide the world with the moral example by actions as well. Nobody matches up to our caliber. So that when we, for the first time, openly make torture, detention without trial, etc etc ("disappearance") our national policy, (however we justify it by claiming "such actions are needed in the War on Terror"--as far as I am concerned, if our Humn Rights survied Pearl Harbor, then they can DAMN well survive this) it causes not only concern then alarm.

Verte..have you ever considered that the artist created this image precisely to "test the waters" and try to bring attention to policies? How stupid of him, you might say. Maybe. But this radical thing isjust what should be drawing attention ot the iffy "human rights thing."

The days pass. And still, no word from the artist. I'm going to add this anonymous "him or her" to my prayer list....

 

[JessicaAnn]

Theoretically, someone might consider crashing a plane into a building as a piece of art......

Are you talking about the actual act of crashing a plane into a building?

If so, that presents "clear and present danger" and is not protected speech.

Shouldn't the lawyer know that?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

not the Secret Service but sort of interesting nonetheless..

Broward pressures Art Guild to remove graphic painting of Bush from 'Controversy' exhibit

By Jean-Paul Renaud
Staff Writer

May 27, 2005

An explicit art piece at the private, nonprofit Broward Art Guild was removed from its prominent position in the gallery after the agency's director received a phone call from the county's Department of Cultural Affairs, which partially funds the group.

County Administrator Roger Desjarlais said Thursday the phone call placed by department director Mary Becht -- and the subsequent decision to take the painting off the wall -- will lead to an internal discussion of whether county agencies have the right to influence artistic decisions or fund certain exhibits.

The Broward Art Guild's annual exhibit, entitled "Controversy," caught the attention of Becht when she received a complaint from another artist in the show that an art piece entitled "Yahoo!" was offensive and inappropriate.

"It's not every day that you get a call from the director of cultural affairs at your home," said guild director Susan Buzzi. "Of course I took it very seriously."

Becht confirmed placing the call, but said the conversation was to inquire about the Guild's policy on displaying explicit art.

The piece in question is a painting depicting President Bush being sodomized. Artist Alfred Phillips said images of an oil barrel and a man wearing a Muslim headdress in the work are part of a political statement about the United States being abused by oil companies.

Michael Friedman, the artist who complained to the county, said the painting is offensive and tasteless.

"Something snapped inside," he said. Friedman himself entered a piece depicting Pope Benedict XVI with several swastikas in the background.

"Sodomy in a public forum is not, from my perspective, considered art," he said. "I think somebody has to draw the line somewhere. I like political satire. However, that type of image ... I don't think is artistic."

The exhibit's organizers accepted the Bush painting into the show, saying there was a relevant political message, Buzzi said. The show includes about 45 pieces of art that generally make some kind of social or political statement. Another piece depicts Bush dressed as the Statue of Liberty and holding a tablet with a swastika on it. Yet another piece shows two American soldiers carrying a dead body into a car.

The show is being held at the Guild, 530 NE 13th St., until June 13.

Buzzi said she received a call at her home before the show opened May 20 from Becht, requesting the artwork be taken off the wall and moved to a less prominent space within the gallery.

Buzzi said Becht reminded her that the county partially finances the Guild's annual budget. On average, the county gives about $14,000 a year to the nonprofit, which has an annual budget of about $60,000.

Becht denied suggesting the piece be displayed in a less prominent manner.

"I really just asked what are their policies about exhibiting art that might be sensitive to the public," Becht said.

Buzzi said the decision to take the art piece off the wall was a compromise. By the time the exhibit opened its doors, "Yahoo!" had been removed from its original position, placed on an easel and set near a corner of the gallery facing the wall -- away from the other paintings.

A disclaimer, which was posted at the gallery's entry as well as read out loud by a Guild employee as people walked in, was also placed on the easel warning attendees of the painting's explicit nature.

"It forces you to walk around and take the initiative to look at it," Buzzi said. "I told [Becht] that we would be sensitive to it."

Desjarlais said officials would meet today to discuss how Becht handled the matter, and whether it's appropriate to fund such exhibits.

"We'll have to make some decisions ... Is it appropriate for a funding agency to attempt to influence the display of art, even though it's on private property?" he said. "The question also becomes if it's an appropriate use of public funds."

Broward County Vice Mayor Ben Graber said that as long as the art show placed disclaimers about the exhibit's content, that county officials had no place making that phone call.

"If there's a warning at the door, the county should not be involved," Graber said. "I respect freedom of speech regardless of the issue. It's obviously a political message. I can't see why one should be allowed and not the other. Everyone should have the opportunity."

Phillips said he's not an activist and rarely conjures up such political art. But he wanted to use this exhibit to express some of his views.

"It does bother me a little bit that it was mounted differently and turned away from the other art in the room," said Phillips, who specializes in landscape art. "A lot of people told me they didn't even see it. They didn't know it was there."

 

[BonosSaint]

Seems that should fall under freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Offensiveness isn't a crime.

Maybe it is. Maybe we should stick to paintings of large-eyed children, dogs playing poker and "Precious moments."

God forbid we be offended.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The guy who complained submitted a painting of the now dec. Pope with swastikas????
Yeah right, buddy...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Heh, yeah, really...a tad hypocritical there, buddy.

Offensiveness isn't a crime.

It's like I've said before-we cannot get rid of every single thing in this world that offends us. Just banishing it does not solve the problem-the thoughts are still there, the images are still there.

Censorship doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Angela

 

[BVS]

It looks like someone is jealous that the other artist was just a little more controversial than him.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The guy who complained submitted a painting of the now dec. Pope with swastikas????
Yeah right, buddy...

Lets just hope that Catholics don't riot over it.

 

[verte76]

This disturbs me. It's censorship. I'm not defending the picture, particularly, I'd never do a painting like this. Even when we do political protest at the studio, and one of my teachers did do a painting protesting Iraq, but Bush wasn't even it, it's not like this. Still, no one is obligated to like this picture. Taking it down is really extreme.