Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita

while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita. ever
been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative,
and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not
as glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near there.


anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see
as a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is
probably somewhere in between.

here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their
work and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often.
it's seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors
come first, and artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic
integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this
museum was afraid of pissing off investors.


but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you
don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there,
people tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises.
something for everyone.

and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members of
a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for art,
that just isn't universal.


we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept
their reactions or just not send any there. we could also complain
that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.

judsoN
–

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
New York, USA

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be equally
balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a gallery or
museum.

BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
heard!

It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art
institution should be ashamed of themselves.

On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:

> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita. ever
> been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative,
> and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not as
> glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near there.
>
>
> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
> what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see as
> a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is
> probably somewhere in between.
>
> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their work
> and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often. it's
> seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come
> first, and artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic
> integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this museum
> was afraid of pissing off investors.
>
>
> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you
> don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there, people
> tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises. something for
> everyone.
>
> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
> seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
> and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members of
> a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for art,
> that just isn't universal.
>
>
> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
> mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept
> their reactions or just not send any there. we could also complain
> that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>
> judsoN
> –
>

===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you
> don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there, people
> tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises. something for
> everyone.

i don't know… right down the street from me (in LA) is a restaurant
that offers burgers, burritos and Thai food. ;)
i don't think accommodation or compromise are the issues - allowing
difference is exactly what should be happening. i think judsoN was
closer to accuracy when locating the patron/funders as the source of an
intolerance for difference. and this isn't just an "art" respect issue
- this instance speaks to a fundamental shift in educational
institutions, as corporate interests and fundamentalists assert their
agendas at the expense of difference. and i don't think it's a good
idea to ignore it either way. oddly, religious fundamentalism and hyper
capitalism get along great here (the 700 club financial news is an odd
reality - "preparing your stock portfolio for the rapture")

TOTAL BS!

here is copy of an e-mail i sent to David Butler and copied to Kevin Mullins. I urge other to do so also.

hello,
I read a bit about the cowardly way you have marginalized the artist Emily Zghal's work by allowing a religious group to put some form of disclaimer in relationship to the work.
simply said art is about expression and not balance. You should be ashamed of yourself, this country does still have a constitution and it's first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

which applies to all forms of expression artistic and otherwise in case you forgot.
AE04





t.whid wrote:

> THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
>
> I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be
> equally
> balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a gallery or
> museum.
>
> BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
> heard!
>
> It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art
> institution should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>
> > while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita.
> ever
> > been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative,
> > and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not
> as
> > glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near there.
> >
> >
> > anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west,
> we
> > choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
> > what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see
> as
> > a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is
> > probably somewhere in between.
> >
> > here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their
> work
> > and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often.
> it's
> > seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come
> > first, and artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic
> > integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this
> museum
> > was afraid of pissing off investors.
> >
> >
> > but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i
> don't
> > mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
> > seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance.
> you
> > don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there,
> people
> > tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises. something for
> > everyone.
> >
> > and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
> > seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't
> agree
> > and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members
> of
> > a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for art,
> > that just isn't universal.
> >
> >
> > we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
> > mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and
> accept
> > their reactions or just not send any there. we could also complain
> > that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
> >
> > judsoN
> > –
> >
>
> ===
> > <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>

My *first* reaction was actually: *There are JEWS in Wichita?!* Okay, wow.

So I guess being Palestinian is even worse than being a jew in Wichita.



On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, t.whid wrote:

> THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
>
> I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be equally
> balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a gallery or museum.
>
> BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be heard!
>
> It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art institution
> should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>
>> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita. ever been
>> there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative, and
>> anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not as
>> glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near there.
>>
>>
>> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
>> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of what
>> is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see as a
>> shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is probably
>> somewhere in between.
>>
>> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their work and
>> say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often. it's seen as
>> integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come first, and
>> artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic integrity" (as we
>> define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this museum was afraid of pissing
>> off investors.
>>
>>
>> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't mean
>> just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more seriously), there
>> isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you don't see hamburgers
>> on a menu in an indian restaurant. there, people tend to try to
>> accommodate everyone with compromises. something for everyone.
>>
>> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only seeing
>> one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree and probably
>> no one on this list does either. but we'd be members of a minority
>> mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for art, that just isn't
>> universal.
>>
>>
>> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the mid-west,
>> where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept their
>> reactions or just not send any there. we could also complain that they
>> don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>>
>> judsoN
>> –
>>
>
> ===
>> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

sorry, that's like saying: it's okay in the mid-west that they don't
respect the First Amendment since they are religios and cannibals out
there – I mean, "our rules"? really now. I suppose the KKK didn't really
follow "our rules" either.



On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Plasma Studii wrote:

> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita. ever been
> there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative, and
> anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not as glamorous,
> but not despondent. i grew up near there.
>
>
> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we choose
> to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of what is decent
> policy for art will be different there. what we see as a shocking breach,
> they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is probably somewhere in
> between.
>
> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their work and
> say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often. it's seen as
> integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come first, and
> artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic integrity" (as we
> define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this museum was afraid of pissing
> off investors.
>
>
> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't mean
> just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more seriously), there
> isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you don't see hamburgers on a
> menu in an indian restaurant. there, people tend to try to accommodate
> everyone with compromises. something for everyone.
>
> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only seeing one
> side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree and probably no one
> on this list does either. but we'd be members of a minority mind-set there.
> we have an unspoken "respect" for art, that just isn't universal.
>
>
> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the mid-west, where
> they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept their reactions or just
> not send any there. we could also complain that they don't speak english
> enough in bangladesh.
>
> judsoN
> –
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> PLASMA STUDII
> art non-profit
> stages * galleries * the web
> New York, USA
>
> (on-line press kit)
> http://plasmastudii.org
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

>>you don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant.
>
>i don't know… right down the street from me (in LA) is a
>restaurant that offers burgers, burritos and Thai food. ;)

ryan,
hahaha. you're right about that. actually i think a memory was
lurking from my childhood. there was a place in Laguna Beach (near
LA) that had a menu like you describe, but think it was spaghetti at
a mexican place.. come to think of it LA seems to be a big flaw in
my theory. LA is like a cultural soup that hasn't been stirred much.
isn't homogenized. i don't doubt you speak a lot more spanish than
me. maybe it's just an east coast attitude and not as ubiquitous as
i thought.


(oops sent joy half a reply, sorry)
>sorry, that's like saying: it's okay in the mid-west that they don't
>respect the First Amendment since they are religios and cannibals
>out there – I mean, "our rules"? really now. I suppose the KKK
>didn't really follow "our rules" either.

not until the country pretty much agreed on some rules (like all out
bigotry), did the KKK stop being such a frightful menace. i'm sure
the KKK still exists out there, but that's not an "our rules" their
rules thing. we pretty much have come to a consensus. but you won't
see burning crosses in wichita.

the first amendment is a shifty example. it's kinda like if you
served red whine with fish. if you were the caterer, it could cost
your job, and that might really jeopardize your family, etc. so it
becomes significant. takes on one interpretation.

the starving guy would hardly notice, and it would be interpreted
differently, a very different significance.

"Our rules" means the constitution; it's not about consensus,
it's about whether or not THE rules are honored–enforced–or not. One
country, one constitution, right?

And so the ugly issues of separation of church and state and first
amendment rights get all twisted and turned together here.


On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Plasma Studii - [iso-8859-1] uospn

This is just so far beyond bizarre it's not even funny.

If they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that
seems to be at odds with the themes of this show… why wouldn't that
work?

fight art with art - that's what I always say!

beyond that, if the admins refuse to remove this BS the artist has no
choice but to cancel the show.


On Dec 14, 2004, at 2:54 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:

> My *first* reaction was actually: *There are JEWS in Wichita?!* Okay,
> wow.
>
> So I guess being Palestinian is even worse than being a jew in Wichita.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, t.whid wrote:
>
>> THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
>>
>> I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be
>> equally balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a
>> gallery or museum.
>>
>> BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
>> heard!
>>
>> It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art
>> institution should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>>
>>> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita.
>>> ever been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly
>>> conservative, and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about
>>> like nj. not as glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near
>>> there.
>>> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
>>> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
>>> what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see
>>> as a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue
>>> is probably somewhere in between.
>>> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their
>>> work and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often.
>>> it's seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors
>>> come first, and artists are way down the list of concerns.
>>> "artistic integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt,
>>> this museum was afraid of pissing off investors.
>>> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
>>> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
>>> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance.
>>> you don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there,
>>> people tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises.
>>> something for everyone.
>>> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
>>> seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
>>> and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members
>>> of a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for
>>> art, that just isn't universal.
>>> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
>>> mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and
>>> accept their reactions or just not send any there. we could also
>>> complain that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>>> judsoN
>>> –
>>
>> ===
>>> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
>> ===
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

On 14 Dec 2004, at 20:27, t.whid wrote:

> If they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that
> seems to be at odds with the themes of this show… why wouldn't that
> work?

Indeed. Freedom of speech doesn't mean talking over someone, it means
finding another podium.

"Balance", however, is a *tactic*. It's how creationism got into
science classes. Notice that religion classes aren't enough to provide
balance, the stickers have to be on science books.

Embrace this.

Demand that balance be respected in all walks of life.

Let challenging art be shown alongside landscapes, in the name of
balance. Let Scientology and Aum Shrinko be taught alongside the
gospels at school, to provide balance. And let freedom be given a place
alongside repression. Just in the name of balance, of course.

- Rob.

the crazy thing is that Emily's show is not polemical (did anyone here
see it when it was at Debs in 2003?); otoh I just checked out
the website for the Jewish Federation of Kansas which is wildly
right-wing, pro-Bush. so it is perhaps more of a political pressure on the
museum than a "religious" one, if that distinction can still be made…



On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, t.whid wrote:

> This is just so far beyond bizarre it's not even funny.
>
> If they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that seems to
> be at odds with the themes of this show… why wouldn't that work?
>
> fight art with art - that's what I always say!
>
> beyond that, if the admins refuse to remove this BS the artist has no choice
> but to cancel the show.
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2004, at 2:54 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
>> My *first* reaction was actually: *There are JEWS in Wichita?!* Okay, wow.
>>
>> So I guess being Palestinian is even worse than being a jew in Wichita.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, t.whid wrote:
>>
>>> THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
>>>
>>> I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be equally
>>> balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a gallery or
>>> museum.
>>>
>>> BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
>>> heard!
>>>
>>> It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art institution
>>> should be ashamed of themselves.
>>>
>>> On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>>>
>>>> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita. ever
>>>> been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative,
>>>> and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not as
>>>> glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near there.
>>>> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
>>>> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
>>>> what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see as
>>>> a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is
>>>> probably somewhere in between.
>>>> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their work
>>>> and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often. it's
>>>> seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come
>>>> first, and artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic
>>>> integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this museum
>>>> was afraid of pissing off investors.
>>>> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
>>>> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
>>>> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you
>>>> don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there, people
>>>> tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises. something for
>>>> everyone.
>>>> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
>>>> seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
>>>> and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members of
>>>> a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for art,
>>>> that just isn't universal.
>>>> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
>>>> mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept
>>>> their reactions or just not send any there. we could also complain
>>>> that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>>>> judsoN
>>>> –
>>>
>>> ===
>>>> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
>>> ===
>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
>>
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Rob,

Agree completely.

Does balance extend to neo-nazis, the KKK, and holocaust-deniers
getting fair time at Holocaust museums worldwide?

The answer is no of course, but logically this is where this precedent
would lead!

again, TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE!


On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Rob Myers wrote:

> On 14 Dec 2004, at 20:27, t.whid wrote:
>
>> If they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that
>> seems to be at odds with the themes of this show… why wouldn't that
>> work?
>
> Indeed. Freedom of speech doesn't mean talking over someone, it means
> finding another podium.
>
> "Balance", however, is a *tactic*. It's how creationism got into
> science classes. Notice that religion classes aren't enough to provide
> balance, the stickers have to be on science books.
>
> Embrace this.
>
> Demand that balance be respected in all walks of life.
>
> Let challenging art be shown alongside landscapes, in the name of
> balance. Let Scientology and Aum Shrinko be taught alongside the
> gospels at school, to provide balance. And let freedom be given a
> place alongside repression. Just in the name of balance, of course.
>
> - Rob.

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

The "balance" tactic is definitely important to consider, and something
i hadn't really recognized as such. though it should have been obvious
with Fox's "Fair & Balanced" news. certainly, neoliberal/conservative
cultural institutions have learned from past mistakes. The Guggenheim's
censoring of Hans Haacke's work for example didn't work so well as a
long term tactic of repression. I recently saw Gregg Brodowitz speak,
and his analysis of "queer eye for the straight guy" was essentially
that it promoted tolerance to the degree that straight guys "shouldn't
kill their hair dresser."
It seems that other interests, like religious fundamentalism, are
figuring this out too. Framing and co-opting, or "balancing," seems a
much more successful method of setting the agenda. It's easier to
demonize something if you can point to it.
But perhaps Lee's right… maybe "balance" it can be reappropriated.

my letter

++++++++

Mr. David Butler,

I'm writing to express my outrage that you are allowing the The Jewish
Federation of Kansas to post brochures and a sign in the gallery to
express their views on Middle Eastern politics in conjunction with Ms.
Jacir's exhibition "Where We Come From."

I agree with Ms. Jacir:

"This is a complete infringement on my right to free speech, not to
mention an insult to me as an artist. It is intolerable that I have to
go through this just because of my background. I am sure no other
artist would accept to work under such conditions. They are placing a
huge unnecessary burden on my exhibit with the presence of the
brochures which are intended to silence or censor my work. I am shocked
that they would place such conditions in a the space of a museum."

You are treading on a very slippery slope. If you were to exhibit work
of a gay artist would you allow right-wing christians to display
brochures and posters beside the exhibition explaining how gays are
abominations? If it was an exhibition of Jewish artists would you allow
neo-nazis or the KKK to express their views? These may sound like
ridiculous speculations, but that is where this twisted logic leads.

I urge you to resist this pressure and allow artists' voices to be
heard in a neutral context. Do not allow special interest groups to
take over your museum in their wrong-headed pursuit of "balance."

++++++++

On Dec 14, 2004, at 4:05 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:

> the crazy thing is that Emily's show is not polemical (did anyone here
> see it when it was at Debs in 2003?); otoh I just checked out the
> website for the Jewish Federation of Kansas which is wildly
> right-wing, pro-Bush. so it is perhaps more of a political pressure on
> the museum than a "religious" one, if that distinction can still be
> made…
>
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

>"Our rules" means the constitution; it's not about consensus, it's
>about whether or not THE rules are honored–enforced–or not. One
>country, one constitution, right?

supposedly, the constitution is a consensus. (arguably the
constitution is really just a song rove sings in the shower).
enforcement/honor is a lot different than seeing art the same way
though.

>And so the ugly issues of separation of church and state and first
>amendment rights get all twisted and turned together here.


ok, but this isn't a religious issue per se. it's more fundamental.
here art has more weight (to artists). economics, politics,
religion, etc carry less weight. (obviously if there's a huge
economic issue and small art issue, the $$$ wins, and that's
happening more and more all the time).

elsewhere art doesn't carry much weight at all. there are others who
will say economics or whatever is fundamental, and art just doesn't
warrant priority. they attend to much more important issues, than
what they see as some ugly decoration by some flake who decides to
use their wall as a bullhorn.

nobody's arguing about the first amendment. this isn't a freedom of
speech thing. they are still displaying her work. if anything the
gallery could argue that the pamphleteers have a first amendment
right to voice their counter-opinion.

which is really the same thing as us deciding whether or not to let
her voice be heard. allowing it, is also acknowledging she could
come out and say something we don't like. but we agreed to it. we
agree to that possibility when we hang the art. same as putting art
in the mid-west, they may pull some neo-conservative bullshit we
don't like, but we agreed to it. we agreed to that possibility when
we sent the art.

YO!

Let up a little on the Mid-west! I know what you mean, but we all aren't that way out here! And by all means keep sending your art out here!!! Regardless of how a few fanatics act. I'm just a small town, white bread, farm boy, but thanks to some very giving teachers and artists (Mary Zerkel, Marjorie Franklin) I was able to see artwork that snapped me out of that mindset. NYC has some hang ups too (Guiliani).

I think that this whole issue is an example of how much the artwork is "working" - we all know that this kind of attention usually helps an artist (I know who Joy is because of the Molotov issue). Don't they teach that in "Art Media Literacy 101"?


Don't waste too much time protesting - send more art instead.

bbw







joy garnett wrote:

> sorry, that's like saying: it's okay in the mid-west that they don't
> respect the First Amendment since they are religios and cannibals out
> there – I mean, "our rules"? really now. I suppose the KKK didn't
> really
> follow "our rules" either.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Plasma Studii wrote:
>
> > while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita.
> ever been
> > there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative, and
> > anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not as
> glamorous,
> > but not despondent. i grew up near there.
> >
> >
> > anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
> choose
> > to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of what is
> decent
> > policy for art will be different there. what we see as a shocking
> breach,
> > they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is probably somewhere
> in
> > between.
> >
> > here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their
> work and
> > say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often. it's
> seen as
> > integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come first,
> and
> > artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic integrity" (as
> we
> > define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this museum was afraid of
> pissing
> > off investors.
> >
> >
> > but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
> mean
> > just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more seriously),
> there
> > isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you don't see
> hamburgers on a
> > menu in an indian restaurant. there, people tend to try to
> accommodate
> > everyone with compromises. something for everyone.
> >
> > and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
> seeing one
> > side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree and
> probably no one
> > on this list does either. but we'd be members of a minority
> mind-set there.
> > we have an unspoken "respect" for art, that just isn't universal.
> >
> >
> > we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
> mid-west, where
> > they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept their
> reactions or just
> > not send any there. we could also complain that they don't speak
> english
> > enough in bangladesh.
> >
> > judsoN
> > –
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > PLASMA STUDII
> > art non-profit
> > stages * galleries * the web
> > New York, USA
> >
> > (on-line press kit)
> > http://plasmastudii.org
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >