Obama daughters labeled "nappy headed hos" in 'art' exhibit

After reading the article

it seems like this exhibit never existed.  The "artist" could not get a gallery that was willing to display his work, mainly because he went begging to them.  So he and his friends set up a website that listed two phony galleries that would show his work.  When people called aasking about showtimes, he told them that he was being censored, and that the shows had been canceled.  Sadly, journalists, if Michael Musto can be called a journalist, covered this as if it were real.

The guy is pretty pathetic.  But, he should basically be ignored for the waste of space that he is.

---

by: Cadence @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:20:10 AM CDT

Ugly as it is, it should have gone ahead.

He should have been able to display it. And he then should have been picketed, called out, denounced, protested, and rejected. The response to offensive speech is MORE speech. How he calls this "substantive" is beyond me. But a display ABOUT assassination isn't the same as urging someone else to go do it, right now.

Freedom of speech means the Klan gets to hold rallies, too, and David Duke can run for office. A government that can shut him up today can shut me up tomorrow.  

---

by: KCProgramr @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:23:43 AM CDT

Update

After reading Cadence's comment... Um, if this is all a publicity stunt... Well, I stand by what I said, but if no one was willing to display it, that's not censorship. He has a right to produce whatever racist junk he wants to. That doesn't create an obligation on anyone else's part to display it.  

---

by: KCProgramr @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:26:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The question made me recall this quote

From the movie, The American President:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Many people think bigotry, racism, and hatred are simply a part of America's past.  I think it's good to make this public to increase the awareness that it's with us - as all of us in the GLBTQ community know all too well.

---

by: a2audrey @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:01:40 AM CDT

The artist is explicitly commenting on the media

He didn't make up the racism or sexism.  He is putting the racism and sexism that have been nearly ubiquitous throughout this primary season into high relief for those who have refused to see it or be bothered by it.  The nooses, the Don Imus quote, all of it is based on actual events this primary season.

Putting the Don Imus quote above the picture of those beautiful girls is supposed to be jarring--he is trying to say, to all those who defended Don Imus (and remember that there were thousands of people who openly defended Imus), that PEOPLE LIKE THIS, BEAUTIFUL LOVELY GIRLS, is who Imus is calling "nappy head hos."  

He is trying to say that these events aren't isolated, but are the milieu in which our politics takes place.

---

by: rosmar @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:19:06 AM CDT

i initally thought the same thing

but in the end, i don't buy the supposed irony of the image juxtaposed with the jarring text.  first off, it's not just random little girls that he's pointing to--they have names and are becoming quite well known.  and secondly (and most importantly), they're not just innocent and beautiful, they're LITTE GIRLS.  putting the label "ho" above a little girl and sexualizing her is downright pornographic, and infinitely worse if we know who she is.    

without reading the LA times article, i know the artist is being cunning.  it's possible to present an exhibit about race and its effects on politics, but obama is only one facet of that discussion.  his personal life, and especially his family, have nothing to do with the themes supposedly being explored.  

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:09:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You might think Obama's personal life and family have nothing to do with these themes

But just this week Fox News called Michelle Obama "Obama's Baby Mama."  And Imus calling black women "nappy headed hos" was an attempt to degrade all black women, including Obama's children.

---

by: rosmar @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:15:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Over on Pandagon

I suggested that if Michelle is a baby mama, then Mother's Day should be renamed "Baby Mama Day"...

And while just the other day we were discussing how soon it would be before the "N word" would be said on Fox, I gotta admit that this really shocked me. There is alot of racism and ill minds out there- but to attack KIDS???

Not "art". The word is "scum".

Thanks for writing this one up, Pam; I'm still pissed on a gazillion levels. But taking out anger on the garden weeds is a good thing, I guess...

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:37:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Might want to rethink his career choice...

Since racism exists (much to Tony Snow's dismay) and is pretty blatant at times, why do we need an "artist" to point it out yet again?  Seems like the art is a great cover for his own racism OR he just made a really bad choice in what art to produce.  
So this guy is using all kinds of slurs and stereotypes.  I don't call that very clever.
I guess we can't really censor bad art, though.
But, since Obama is now a candidate for president, are there different standards, laws even, that protect him from something so directly and negatively aimed at him?  (Even as a senator?)

---

by: Beth in Phx @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:50:02 AM CDT

his motives

Given his MO, based on the LA Times article, which everyone should read, it sounds as if he was really all about publicity and not making a statement about racism or the culture or anything else. He wanted attention--and he got it.

I thought his art was pretty witless.  Why not replace Audacity with "Rapacity"--much more powerful and nasty--but then he doesn't sound that bright.

Nonetheless, someone above asked why we need artists to tell us we're racist?  That sounds dangerously rightwing.  Why do we need artists to tell us anything?  Why do we need artists at all?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:56:20 AM CDT

Amen to the witless comment.

His work looked like a really poor show from a severely underfunded junior college, complete with beginner-level Photoshop work. I'm only impressed that he got funding for the self-adhesive vinyl to put on the walls. That stuff isn't cheap!

Thanks for raising the questions about the role of artists in society, Lev. I'm off to brush up on my Walter Benjamin, starting with "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."  

---

by: Rick @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One more time

I should be more clear about needing an "artist" to point out racism.  I put artist in quotes because I'm not sure he's such a great artist or even enough of one to call himself an artist.
Also, I don't think simply repeating someone else's racial slur (Imus) is pointing out anything new to us.  I am sure lots of people heard about Imus.  And if they didn't, what chance is there that they would see this art exhibit or even read about it in the news now and experience something epiphanic.  And if they're racist, might they just see it and say, "That's right."
I did like someone else's comment about the complexity of art today.  It has indeed moved toward the arena of ideas.

---

by: Beth in Phx @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 18:31:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a working novelist

(albeit one who works in commercial genres) I have always been  more than mildly puzzled by the ongoing claims that calling yourself an "artist" somehow excuses anything you do.  As George Orwell once pointed out (in his essay on Dali), an artist is still a citizen.  And I would add that the special status frequently accorded artists in our society means that artists have a heightened social obligation, not a diminished one.  Given that this guy's "art" is obvious, vulgar and witless, not to say offensive and inflammatory, he doesn't get a pass on all that merely by pointing out that he calls it "art."  For an "artist" to claim that he should not be held responsible for the social consequences of his/her work is just plain silly; if the work wasn't meant to influence someone, somehow, however broadly, then what's the point of it?

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:34 AM CDT

I am an artist

and I have seen some very uncomfortable political/social pieces in my life.  The intent of art is to stir emotions, provoke discussion, present viewpoints and this in turn can make us feel uncomfortable.  

I once attended a show in Chelsea where a photographer took shots of young people doing heroin and it was known he did the drug with them.  It raised so many red flags of explotation and committing a crime.  The people at the  packed opening were very quiet and uneasy dealing with the material and really did not talk until they were outside the gallery.

My point is that contemporary art is very complex these days and can be all over the place.  It is up to us the viewer to decide if it has any meaning or do we simply dismiss it.

---

by: paulko @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:45:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Social obligation

You're right that the guy is ignoring his own attempt to inflame public opinion.  He's not just witless and unoriginal, he's also dishonest.

But how do we define social obligation and who does the defining?

I've had straight readers and reviewers object to the homoeroticism in my first book, Dancing on Tisha B'Av.

I've had gay readers object to the straight eroticism in my second book Winter Eyes.

Am I then doubly irresponsible?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Measure of irresponsibility

In your case, Lev, measuring your irresponsibility might not even be possible. I'm sure celibates and asexuals had their objections to your use of any form of eroticism! :-)

Zeke commented below about the question of government suppression being the real issue, which goes to your question of who does the defining of social obligations. We all have the power to choose which art we look at, read, listen to, or protest. Artists who want to challenge us know that some may object to their work, and they want the resulting reaction and dialog.

On the other hand, don't most of us support the illegality of child pornography? If we do, then we want some degree of government involvement. We do draw some lines of social responsibility. This artist used the word "Assassination" which appears to be the reason for the government shut-down of the exhibit. Is that appropriate? Can we call that being socially irresponsible?

---

by: LAwaters27 @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 15:24:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not a matter of offending people

or saying/creating something that someone finds objectionable.  Virtually any work with any merit or substance offends someone, somewhere (my own books included).   But there are reasonable limits.  There's a big difference between creating a work that that someone might object to and creating one that is a deliberate outrage to common decency (and I don't mean just sexual decency), then whining when you're called on it.  

It is perfectly justifiable in many cases to provoke, anger and even outrage people.  But there has to be a more substantial justification than merely saying, "I am an artist, so whatever I do is okay."  The claim that an "artist" should never be held to account for the values contained in his/her work is counterintuitive; in fact, I'd say it negates the whole point of art.  An artist who isn't willing to stand behind and defend what he's done, other than just sniffling and saying, "Don't pick on me--I'm an artist" isn't really much of one at all.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:05:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I said above, he is explicitly saying what the values in his work are

and what his goals in creating the work are, and he is not trying to avoid responsibility.  He wants people to be outraged against racism, sexism, and ageism--that is his point.

---

by: rosmar @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two different issues here

But there are reasonable limits.  There's a big difference between creating a work that that someone might object to and creating one that is a deliberate outrage to common decency (and I don't mean just sexual decency), then whining when you're called on it.  

Why is creating a work meant to outrage wrong? Flaubert was tried for indecency. I'm sure the language of the prosecution could have echoed your phraseology. From everything I've read about him, including by him (like his letters), he knew that he would épater les bourgeois.

And then, what are the reasonable limits and who gets to decide?  Hadassah Magazine's reviewer found my very mixing of gay and Jewish elements in my first book an outrage.  Was she right?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:18:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're under the impression

that Flaubert's defense consisted of merely saying "I am an artist, so whatever I say or do is beyond criticism"?!

It seems to me you're trying to have it both ways here, Lev.  One the one hand you object when I note that artists are accorded special status in our society, then you turn around and argue that they DO have special status and should be exempt from any social, political or moral restraints.

You can't have it both ways.  If artists have these special privileges, then I repeat that they also have a heightened civic responsibility.  As wiser people than I have observed, with every right comes a responsibility.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 13:22:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope, not at all

Please don't put words in my mouth.  I never said any such thing about Flaubert's defense.  Having read about the trial and read his letters (twice) and several biographies, I know the issue was more complex than your attempt to pin me down to one phrase.

Seriously, anyone who could possibly compare the position of artists in France to those of American, int he 19th, 20th or 21st century needs to do some cross-cultural study, soon.  Artists in France have always been held in higher esteem, but that's not the point.

You seem to have misread my comment.  I did not say artists were granted special status in America, I said the exact opposite.  I don't believe they are.  I believe they are held in contempt by the wider culture.

But let's get back to the  root question: who decides about art--whether it crosses the line or not?  Can you answer that?  You don't seem to want to address that question, and that's what I've been driving at: who decides?  How about addressing that? What exactly is the artists' responsiblity?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 16:54:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

An artist's

responsibility is to be a good citizen, which at a minimum means not being willfully harmful.  That trumps any "obligation to his vision," in my mind.  I can't resist pointing out, with respect, that you have never answered my basic point: why should someone calling himself an artist give him leave to engage in any irresponsible behavior he chooses (such as attacking children, as this guy did--and does there have to be one particular someone who decides that attacking kids is wrong)?  Why does his "obligation to his vision" outweigh any other obligation, civic, social, political or moral?

As for putting words in people's mouths, you've been doing that through this whole thread (e.g. attributing the word "wrong" to me, even though I didn't use it, and wouldn't in this context).

Finally, I have to ask: you say "anyone who could possibly compare the position of artists in France to those of American, int he 19th, 20th or 21st century needs to do some cross-cultural study, soon."  Granted.  But then why did you do just that when you raised the issue?  If it's as irrelevant as you're now suggesting, why did you bring it up at all?

End of thread.  At least for me, Lev.  Let's go talk about something we agree on (and there's a lot, as I think we both know) instead of having agree to disagree about this.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:36:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Besides,

it's real stretch to call labeling  children as "nappy headed hos" art.  Schoolboy nastiness would be more like it.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 13:25:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think Zeke explained it well down below

So I'm going to stop repeating myself now.

---

by: rosmar @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 17:25:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He is trying to influence people

He has said he is trying to influence people to notice how bad racism, sexism, and agism really are.  He hasn't said "it is art, so I have no responsibility."

---

by: rosmar @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:44:15 AM CDT

A nutjob like this gives artists a bad name

... and that's what makes me REALLY steamin' about idiotic stunts like this (well, other than the racism and incitements to violence, hel-LO).

If that's the best you can do, then for heaven's sake, close up your studio and clear out of the way so that REAL artists can be heard and seen.

If someone is willing to associate his name with vile sentiments of this sort, I don't want anything to do with him and I don't want him corrupting what art can do for people and society.

"I'm not really a racist but I play one on the interwebz"... where have we heard that before?

"I'm not really a homophobe but I play one on my records" - eminem

"I'm not really a rightwing nutjob -- my show is just entertainment even though my listeners think it's news" - Rush Limbaugh

---

by: dewdrop_world @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:25:40 AM CDT

Yeah, but how about

"I'm not really a rightwing nutjob--my show is just entertainment designed to point out how crazy rightwing nutjobs are"--Stephen Colbert

---

by: rosmar @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:42:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Special status?

And I would add that the special status frequently accorded artists in our society means that artists have a heightened social obligation, not a diminished one.

The arts are chronically underfunded in the U.S. and artists held in very low regard culture-wide.

Art isn't always comfortable.  Did I think Piss Christ was vulgar and witless?  Yes, but I didn't think it deserved the huge Congressional uproar it got. People's comfort levels and taste are very different. I've had straight readers and reviewers of my first book, Dancing on Tisha B'Av, object to its homoerotic content.  Does that mean I failed in my social obligation?  Who decides?

Artists have an obligation to their work, their vision.  Some viewers will like it, some will not.  


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:47:07 AM CDT

I've never hard anyone

say anything like "artists have an obligation to their work, their vision" who didn't mean to imply they should be exempt from anything like sociel norms and conventions--as if their "obligation to their vision" somehow trumps any other obligation they might have--civic, social, political or what have you.  If that isn't arguing for special status, I can't imagine what might be.

Any real artist is constantly re-examining his/her "vision" for clarity, for accuracy, for responsibility.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 13:31:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if law enforcement

thought that this exhibit presented a real incitement to violence against obama or clinton, they were right to shut it down as non-protected speech.  but of course with art this is always a subjective call.  a few years ago at a gallery in nyc  (guggenheim? can't remember for sure) there were giant photographs of black men's penises being displayed coming through their pants flies.  it was a fetishizing of The Big Black Penis, and it was disturbing for its racism.  Yet apparently there was no problem displaying the photos because it was "just" racism without an individual target and without portraying physical violence.  I fount the exhibit offensive but I was ok with it being there because it raised A LOT of worthwhile dialog.  

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM CDT

Do you mean Mapplethorpe?

His Black Book collects nudes of black men. And to my knowledge there's only one photo like the one you describe,
Man in Polyester suit (1980):
http://www.dmoma.org/lobby/exh...

There's a lot of controversy over whether he is or is not racist, is or is not an artist. The more I've studied his work, especially the portraits, the more I see there. One could argue that Man in Polyester Suit is actually a comment on fetishization of body parts. There's a British documentary on Mapplethrope that really lays out his development as an artist and what in his work is groundbreaking, featuring commentary by Edmund White who is typically eloquent:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

Is an exhibit of photos all of black men's penises implicitly racist?  Is an exhibit of photos of women's breasts implicitly sexist?  How do we decide?  

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes it was mapplethorpe

and there was more than one penis-through-fly photo.

the questions you ask at the end there is why i said i think it was ok to show the exhibit.  everyone answers such questions differently, depending on their knowledge base and life experiences.  no right answers, art is what you make of it, and all that.  i happened to be at the exhibit with a man who had been sexually humiliated as a child by family members.  as you might imagine, his take on the display was visceral shame/anger/disgust, and this certainly prompted me to look at the images differently than i might have otherwise.  the artist can be asked what s/he intended the art to say, but there are no wrong answers when it comes to the art observer.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

if it was Mapplethorpe and black penises--

--there's only one such in his collection of black homoerotic portraits, the Black Book, which I have a copy of.

About M's "racism," one could see/say quite the opposite, especially in his more sculptural and classicly-leaning portraits of black men (one actually on a pedestal), that he's saying these men are as beautiful as the subjects we have learned to think are the proper subject of the artist: white men and white women.  That he's valorizing the black male nude.


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

interesting assumption

that there are no more pictures of black mens penises than what was published in his book.  i recall more than one large piece of wall art in the gallery with black penises hanging out.  they were all by the same artist.  it isn't hard for me to believe that he had more prints than made it into his book, or that he may have divided one original photo to make several different pieces for an exhibition.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 13:45:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, you missed my point

By "one such" I was referring back to your reference to black penises hanging out out of zippered pants.

Yes, there are plenty of black penises in his Black Book.  Not surprising, since it's a book of nudes.

:-)

 

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 14:25:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not enough to provoke, the artist should give context.

Images like this might (might) be seen as commentary if each image were paired with a video or screen shot of the offending media episode (eg, Imus delivering his mauvais mot about the basketball players). But why bother? Just assemble the media clips into a video, as in the documentary about FOX "news" ("Outfoxed"?).

And use of the word "assassination" is sheer self-publicity if the producer is not a conscious racist. There seems to be a lot of "let's be an asshole to get attention" in the contemporary arts scene.

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:15:23 AM CDT

The reason it was shut down...

was because he had festooned (a word I try to use at least once a day) the store front with signs reading -

"The Assasination of Hillary Clinton"   and

"The Assasination of Barack Obama"

Protected speech does not extend to the concept of assasinating a presidential candidate.  Period.

Classis constitutional law dilemma. Easy (and correct)call by the Secret Service

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM CDT

I'm sorry but I think most of you are completely missing the intent of his displays...

First, let me say that I deplore racism and that I am as big of an Obamaniac as they come (or so I've been told).

Having said that, I think he was being honest when he said that this wasn't his statement it was his artistic impression of what he was seeing in the media.

I was horrified when I first looked at the picture but after putting it into that context I have to say that I think it is brilliant and accomplishes EXACTLY what political art is supposed to.  It stirs people to think by showing an everyday injustice in a way that makes it as radically offensive as possible.  This makes people uncomfortable but jars them into thinking about something that they had become too accustomed to and desensitized to in everyday life.

Take the "Nappy headed Hoes" picture for example.  Were people offended when it was directed at adult women on the Rutgers women's basketball team?  Yes.  But did most people REALLY think about the greater affect such careless language might have on young African-American girls?  I don't think so.  When you look at that picture of innocent girls who we have all come to know, love and care about can you help but think about it?  Not unless you are completely hateful or out of touch.

THIS, I think, is what this artist was trying to do and I think it did it brilliantly.

Take a step back; take a deep breath; clear your mind of preconceived notions and take another look at these displays in light of the artist's own explanation.

REGARDLESS of how I, or anyone else thinks about the artist's intent or how offensive we may think his art is, it would be disgusting, shameful and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for for a person to be arrested for producing and displaying it.  I certainly hope that at least that part of the story was not true.

Some of the people here lauding the possibility that a man could be arrested for "offensive art" are the same people who RIGHTLY defended the right to free speech of the artists who produced and displayed the "Last Supper" leather and sex toy poster for the Folsom Street Fair.

We can't have it both ways.  Either we stand for free speech or we don't.  Free speech doesn't mean, as many seem to think, that a person has a right to not be challenged, boycotted or picketed, it means that the GOVERNMENT does not have the right to supress it.  Arresting a person for "offensive" art would be exactly that.  

---

by: Zeke @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 14:16:10 PM CDT

I hope there is more to this story

that will come out in the next couple of days.  I for one, don't like the government to decide what art I can and can not look at.  I understand why the Secret Service did what it did because of the assination art.  That is over the line and had to come down.  I hope the the other pieces are returned and put back up.

It is for each one of us to decide what art we like and what we don't.  Our recourse is to protest or simply not look at it.  This is not the government's job.

Art that incites violence against a particular person or group is across the line and doesn't belong in public gallery's but the picture of Obama's girls doesn't fall into any category that should be censored.  You might not like it but that doesn't give anyone the right to take it down.

Just my thoughts.

Matt

---

by: Idealcrap @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 19:23:59 PM CDT