Re: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita

Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:

"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."

This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.

This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment issue.

Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put the offending material just *outside* the gallery? I’ve never been there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is, then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk coming into contact with the messy real world.

If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an actual dialog with the public for once. Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think the way you do anyway. I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free speech in action, not an abridging of speech.

There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly on all the speech.




joy garnett wrote:

>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:40 -0500
> From: Barbara Hunt <[email protected]>
> To: Joy Episalla <[email protected]>, Joy Garnett
> <[email protected]>,
> Christian Rattemeyer <[email protected]>
> Subject: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily
> Jacir/Ulrich Museum
> Wichita
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: martha rosler <[email protected]>
> Date: December 11, 2004 10:35:59 PM EST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich
> Museum Wichita
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> >> From: Emna Zghal <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:07:37 -0500
> >> Subject: [aaw] Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> The following messages are from my friends Kamran Rastagar
> (visiting
> >> professor at Brown University) and Emily Jacir (artist).
> >> Emily's work at the a Museum in Kansas is being attacked by some
> >> religious
> >> group and the museum in authorizing this group to invade the space
> of
> >> her
> >> installation by materials this group is choosing.
> >> I think this sets a dangerous precedent, all artists should be
> >> allowed to
> >> express themselves and have their work be received on its own
> terms.
> >> The
> >> fact that a Palestinian, and in this case a Palestinian American,
> is
> >> only
> >> allowed to express her view with some sort of a disclaimer
> shouldn't
> >> be
> >> acceptable. That this "disclaimer" or "balancing material" is not
> >> authored
> >> by the Museum and is without the agreement of the artist is
> >> outrageous.
> >>
> >> I guess the first step is to write to the museum director and
> curator.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Emna Zghal
> >> http://www.nathirat.net
> >>
> >>
> >> —— Forwarded Message
> >>
> >> Dear Friends,
> >>
> >> The following is a call for assistance by the Palestinian-American
> >> artist Emily Jacir, whose work has been showing to critical acclaim
> >> internationally. An exhibition of her work "Where We Come From" was
> >> to go up at a museum in Wichita, Kansas affiliated with Wichita
> >> State University. The administration of the museum has now
> >> unilaterally decided to allow an outside religious group to have
> >> access to the museum in order to place a poster, and political
> >> materials 'balancing' Emily's work in the museum just outside her
> >> gallery for the duration of her show.
> >>
> >> This is a major deviation from any norms of conduct in the arts
> >> and academic community - the precedent this sets is clear and
> >> disturbing; anti-gay groups can place materials at a show by a gay
> >> artist,anti-semites at a show by a Jewish artist, etc.
> >>
> >> Please forward this widely, and write a note to the director of the
> >> museum (info below) - if anyone has connections with free-speech
> >> academic arts groups that are concerned about these kinds of
> issues,
> >> please involve them.
> >>
> >> Reviews of Emily's work:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_6_42/ai_113389509
> >> (ArtForum)
> >> http://adbusters.org/magazine/art_activism/exile.php
> >> http://www.contemporary-magazine.com/reviews59_1.htm
> >> http://www.newyorkmetro.com/arts/articles/04/whitney/3.htm
> >>
> >> - K. Rastegar
> >>
> >> ———————–
> >> Visiting Assistant Professor
> >> Department of Comparative Literature
> >> Marston Hall, Box E
> >> Brown University
> >> Providence, RI 02912
> >> email: [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> —– Forwarded message from emily jacir —–
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I was slated to have a one person show at the Ulrich Museum in
> >> Wichita, Kansas in January 26th. The piece was Where We Come From
> >> which was included by Dan Cameron on the 8th Istanbul Biennale
> >> "Poetic Justice", and a small excerpt of it was also included in
> >> this years Whitney Bienniel.
> >>
> >> This show has been planned for over a year, much to my horror two
> >> days ago I was told that the The Jewish Federation of Kansas has
> >> put pressure on the University and the Museum so that they have
> been
> >> granted permission to place brochures and a sign in the gallery
> >> expressing their views concerning the politics of the Middle East.
> >> Actually, the University and Museum have no idea what text is
> >> contained in the brochures and what the posters are but have given
> >> them permission nonetheless.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> On the one hand they are allowing me to speak but on another they
> >> are trying to control my work by placing brochures, thereby
> >> contextualizing and framing my work in ways I have no control over.
> >> Not only is this an infringement to free speech but it also
> disturbs
> >> the integrity of my work.
> >>
> >> This also sets a bad precedent for them - the next time the
> >> University has a show that some group wants to object to they will
> >> have to put that group's sign up in the gallery.
> >>
> >> I feel violated as an artist by their decision to put a sign in the
> >> exhibition with my pictures. This modifies my installation and the
> >> work is no longer what it was intended to be.
> >>
> >> I think people should be able to see my work on its own terms and
> be
> >> able to form their own opinion. I am not against having a
> >> conversation, or organizing panels where a variety of views can be
> >> expressed if necessary.
> >>
> >> If this group is allowed to do this then perhaps other groups
> should
> >> also demand that their own signs and brochures be placed in the
> >> gallery as well. How could they be refused? The Museum has now
> >> opened up my exhibition space as space for comments from one
> >> political group so why deny others?
> >>
> >> I am very upset and people are telling me I should cancel the
> >> exhibition. I am not sure what to do….I don't want to cancel
> >> because it is not fair that the people in Wichita are unable to see
> >> my work because of this fiasco but on the other hand these terms
> are
> >> unacceptable….
> >>
> >> Please help me. Does anyone have contacts with the ACLU or ideas?
> >>
> >> The Director of the Museum is David Butler.
> >>
> >> Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
> >> Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount, Wichita, Kansas 67260
> >> contact: Dr. David Butler, Director
> >> telephone: 316-978-3664, fax: 316-978-3898
> >> e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >> Kevin Mullins is the Curator who invited me to Wichita.
> >> [email protected]
> >> 316 978-5851
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________
> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> >> ARABNY Disclaimer:
> >>
> >> All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs,
> >> graphics,
> >> video, messages and other materials
> >> (&amp;amp;quot;Content&amp;amp;quot;),
> >> whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole
> >> responsibility of the person from which such Content originated.
> >> Neither
> >> Arabny nor Yahoo controls the Content posted via the Service and,
> as
> >> such,
> >> neither group guarantees the accuracy, integrity or quality of such
> >> Content.
> >>
> >> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> >> To unsubscribe from arabny, send an email to:
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> >> To learn more about the arabny, please visit
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arabny
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> —— End of Forwarded Message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ———————— Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >> ——————–~–>
> >> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> >> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM
> >>
> ——————————————————————–
> >> ~->
> >>
> >> visit our website http://www.aawnyc.org
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aawnion/
> >>
> >> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —
> Barbara Hunt
> Executive Director
> Artists Space
> 38 Greene St, 3rd Fl.,
> New York NY 10013
> Tel: 212.226.3970 x 33

Comments

, Cinque Hicks

Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:

"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."

This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.

This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment issue.

Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put the offending material just outside the gallery? I’ve never been there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is, then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk coming into contact with the messy real world.

If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an actual dialog with the public for once. Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think the way you do anyway. I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free speech in action, not an abridging of speech.

There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly on all the speech.

joy garnett wrote:

>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:40 -0500
> From: Barbara Hunt <[email protected]>
> To: Joy Episalla <[email protected]>, Joy Garnett
> <[email protected]>,
> Christian Rattemeyer <[email protected]>
> Subject: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily
> Jacir/Ulrich Museum
> Wichita
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: martha rosler <[email protected]>
> Date: December 11, 2004 10:35:59 PM EST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich
> Museum Wichita
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> >> From: Emna Zghal <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:07:37 -0500
> >> Subject: [aaw] Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> The following messages are from my friends Kamran Rastagar
> (visiting
> >> professor at Brown University) and Emily Jacir (artist).
> >> Emily's work at the a Museum in Kansas is being attacked by some
> >> religious
> >> group and the museum in authorizing this group to invade the space
> of
> >> her
> >> installation by materials this group is choosing.
> >> I think this sets a dangerous precedent, all artists should be
> >> allowed to
> >> express themselves and have their work be received on its own
> terms.
> >> The
> >> fact that a Palestinian, and in this case a Palestinian American,
> is
> >> only
> >> allowed to express her view with some sort of a disclaimer
> shouldn't
> >> be
> >> acceptable. That this "disclaimer" or "balancing material" is not
> >> authored
> >> by the Museum and is without the agreement of the artist is
> >> outrageous.
> >>
> >> I guess the first step is to write to the museum director and
> curator.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Emna Zghal
> >> http://www.nathirat.net
> >>
> >>
> >> —— Forwarded Message
> >>
> >> Dear Friends,
> >>
> >> The following is a call for assistance by the Palestinian-American
> >> artist Emily Jacir, whose work has been showing to critical acclaim
> >> internationally. An exhibition of her work "Where We Come From" was
> >> to go up at a museum in Wichita, Kansas affiliated with Wichita
> >> State University. The administration of the museum has now
> >> unilaterally decided to allow an outside religious group to have
> >> access to the museum in order to place a poster, and political
> >> materials 'balancing' Emily's work in the museum just outside her
> >> gallery for the duration of her show.
> >>
> >> This is a major deviation from any norms of conduct in the arts
> >> and academic community - the precedent this sets is clear and
> >> disturbing; anti-gay groups can place materials at a show by a gay
> >> artist,anti-semites at a show by a Jewish artist, etc.
> >>
> >> Please forward this widely, and write a note to the director of the
> >> museum (info below) - if anyone has connections with free-speech
> >> academic arts groups that are concerned about these kinds of
> issues,
> >> please involve them.
> >>
> >> Reviews of Emily's work:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_6_42/ai_113389509
> >> (ArtForum)
> >> http://adbusters.org/magazine/art_activism/exile.php
> >> http://www.contemporary-magazine.com/reviews59_1.htm
> >> http://www.newyorkmetro.com/arts/articles/04/whitney/3.htm
> >>
> >> - K. Rastegar
> >>
> >> ———————–
> >> Visiting Assistant Professor
> >> Department of Comparative Literature
> >> Marston Hall, Box E
> >> Brown University
> >> Providence, RI 02912
> >> email: [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> —– Forwarded message from emily jacir —–
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I was slated to have a one person show at the Ulrich Museum in
> >> Wichita, Kansas in January 26th. The piece was Where We Come From
> >> which was included by Dan Cameron on the 8th Istanbul Biennale
> >> "Poetic Justice", and a small excerpt of it was also included in
> >> this years Whitney Bienniel.
> >>
> >> This show has been planned for over a year, much to my horror two
> >> days ago I was told that the The Jewish Federation of Kansas has
> >> put pressure on the University and the Museum so that they have
> been
> >> granted permission to place brochures and a sign in the gallery
> >> expressing their views concerning the politics of the Middle East.
> >> Actually, the University and Museum have no idea what text is
> >> contained in the brochures and what the posters are but have given
> >> them permission nonetheless.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> On the one hand they are allowing me to speak but on another they
> >> are trying to control my work by placing brochures, thereby
> >> contextualizing and framing my work in ways I have no control over.
> >> Not only is this an infringement to free speech but it also
> disturbs
> >> the integrity of my work.
> >>
> >> This also sets a bad precedent for them - the next time the
> >> University has a show that some group wants to object to they will
> >> have to put that group's sign up in the gallery.
> >>
> >> I feel violated as an artist by their decision to put a sign in the
> >> exhibition with my pictures. This modifies my installation and the
> >> work is no longer what it was intended to be.
> >>
> >> I think people should be able to see my work on its own terms and
> be
> >> able to form their own opinion. I am not against having a
> >> conversation, or organizing panels where a variety of views can be
> >> expressed if necessary.
> >>
> >> If this group is allowed to do this then perhaps other groups
> should
> >> also demand that their own signs and brochures be placed in the
> >> gallery as well. How could they be refused? The Museum has now
> >> opened up my exhibition space as space for comments from one
> >> political group so why deny others?
> >>
> >> I am very upset and people are telling me I should cancel the
> >> exhibition. I am not sure what to do….I don't want to cancel
> >> because it is not fair that the people in Wichita are unable to see
> >> my work because of this fiasco but on the other hand these terms
> are
> >> unacceptable….
> >>
> >> Please help me. Does anyone have contacts with the ACLU or ideas?
> >>
> >> The Director of the Museum is David Butler.
> >>
> >> Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
> >> Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount, Wichita, Kansas 67260
> >> contact: Dr. David Butler, Director
> >> telephone: 316-978-3664, fax: 316-978-3898
> >> e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >> Kevin Mullins is the Curator who invited me to Wichita.
> >> [email protected]
> >> 316 978-5851
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________
> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> >> ARABNY Disclaimer:
> >>
> >> All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs,
> >> graphics,
> >> video, messages and other materials
> >> (&amp;amp;quot;Content&amp;amp;quot;),
> >> whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole
> >> responsibility of the person from which such Content originated.
> >> Neither
> >> Arabny nor Yahoo controls the Content posted via the Service and,
> as
> >> such,
> >> neither group guarantees the accuracy, integrity or quality of such
> >> Content.
> >>
> >> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> >> To unsubscribe from arabny, send an email to:
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> >> To learn more about the arabny, please visit
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arabny
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> —— End of Forwarded Message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ———————— Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >> ——————–~–>
> >> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> >> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM
> >>
> ——————————————————————–
> >> ~->
> >>
> >> visit our website http://www.aawnyc.org
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aawnion/
> >>
> >> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —
> Barbara Hunt
> Executive Director
> Artists Space
> 38 Greene St, 3rd Fl.,
> New York NY 10013
> Tel: 212.226.3970 x 33

, Ivan Pope

Cinque Hicks wrote:

>This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment issue.
>
>Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put the offending material just *outside* the gallery? I’ve never been there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is, then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk coming into contact with the messy real world.
>
>If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an actual dialog with the public for once. Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think the way you do anyway. I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free speech in action, not an abridging of speech.
>
>There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly on all the speech.
>
>
>
>
>
Cinque,
I think the point here is not about art having to to deal with the real
world. I think Emily Jacir's work is fully engaged with the world. And
obviously people have the free speech right to demonstrate against
things they don't like. Maybe they should mount a picket outside the
gallery. It would certainly raise interesting questions about the work.
I don't think artists are afraid to argue.
But the current situation is that the people who commissioned the work
in the first place have invited the prostesters into the lobby to keep
warm, in other words they have sprung an ambush on the artist without so
much as a by your leave. In doing so, they have validated the protest
(which is of course a political protest, not an art protest). And god
knows where that leads us, as others have pointed out.
Ivan



Ivan Pope
[email protected]

Studio website –>http://ivanpope.com
Absent Without Leave –> http://blog.ivanpope.com

, MTAA

On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Cinque Hicks wrote:

> Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:
>
> "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."
>
> This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to
> say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U
> chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.

I'm no lawyer but..

and I've done no research but…

I'm sure it is very probable that Wichita STATE U gets STATE money and
also probably FEDERAL money. Your reading of the 1st amendment is
extremely narrow. Whatever the institution is, I'm sure it's not
completely private.

>
> This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and
> a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment
> issue.

The decision is also extremely unethical.

I'm unsure if this is a constitutional issue as well, but the artist
has every reasonable expectation that her work be viewed in the gallery
in a neutral context. This is a very dangerous precedent for many
reasons we've gone into already and that you didn't address like,

Should neo-nazis be allowed to post their opinions in the foyers of
holocaust museums? Would you support that action?

Whatever the Kansas jewish org espouses, I'm sure it's not as
disgusting as neo-nazi propaganda so I'm not trying to create an
equivalence btw the two groups. I bring it up to show where this sort
of precedent can lead logically.

>
> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put
> the offending material just outside the gallery? I’ve never been
> there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would
> house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is,
> then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of
> tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art
> as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk
> coming into contact with the messy real world.

You don't need to have pious or quasi-religious views of art to clearly
see the dangerous precedent being set in this case.

>
> If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an
> actual dialog with the public for once.

I would seize the opportunity to protest this ridiculous and outrageous
action by canceling my show.

> Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some
> artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think
> the way you do anyway.

That is a very large leap. I don't see the Palestinian or Arab POV
being expressed in galleries very often. And seriously, don't we get
the other side 24/7 in the major media?

> I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free
> speech in action, not an abridging of speech.

Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to talk over
everyone else. This is an attempt to frame and contextualize a person's
speech in a half-assed attempt to neutralize or quell it. It may not be
a constitutional free speech issue but it's hard to see how this
bullying tactic is a celebration of free speech.

>
> There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let
> the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their
> own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly
> on all the speech.
>
>>

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

, Rob Myers

Imagine that Rhizome caved to pressure to prepend the following
disclaimer to your posting:

"The following posting is complete nonsense. It is counter to the
facts. People who make this kind of statement should be pitied as
simpletons. And beside, they kick puppies. I have proof. Look! Puppy
kicker!"

And then published it on the web for all to see. Don't worry, they
won't add that to anyone else's posting, just yours.

That is the problem with this case.

On 15 Dec 2004, at 16:42, Cinque Hicks wrote:

> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put
> the offending material just *outside* the gallery?

Yes, as in "before you see the show". Why is a premptive strike needed?

> I’ve never been there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry
> hall that would house the material? Does anybody know if this is the
> case? If it is, then I especially have no problem with this.

Cool. What value do you feel it adds to the show?

> Again, it’s sort of tacky, but I also don’t have such a
> sanctimonious, pious view of art as some quasi-religious object that I
> don’t think it should risk coming into contact with the messy real
> world.

"Pious" and "sanctimonious" are kinda opposites. Unlike freedom of
speech and the moral right of integrity, despite whatever
constitutional Wookie Defense you feel like deploying.

Give the NeoCons their own art show. That would solve this. They can't
get one? I see. Very interesting…

- Rob.

, Plasma Studii

>in the first place have invited the prostesters into the lobby to keep
>warm, in other words they have sprung an ambush on the artist without so
>much as a by your leave. In doing so, they have validated the protest
>(which is of course a political protest, not an art protest).


ok. that's just the galleries own conflict of interest. they
invested in the artwork and then invested in a protest against it
(though to a far, far lesser degree). but that's the gallery
devaluing something it invested in. but it's not any affront to the
artwork or artist. it's just a mildly contradictory move. says "our
selections aren't important ON EVERY LEVEL". that's all.

in fact, the more i hear about this, sounds like the receptionist
buzzed the manager and said, "is it ok to let these people in our
lobby. it's pretty cold out there." the manager had a million more
important things to think about and said "sure" just to get off the
phone. the protesters may have been vehement about the art. probably
even a little crazed and psycho. but the manager didn't
particularly care. dec in kansas is cold. these are just deranged
folks anyway.

the gallery obviously doesn't give much of a hoot about the artists
message, but wanted something up to attract visitors. that's their
prerogative. they can put up signs that say "this work sucks!" but
this is just despondence. they couldn't care less what she is
saying. and that's the only conflict. you can't just tell them to
care. no one chooses to care. they have other priorities and ours
are just as arbitrary.

is the gallery doing any physical damage? of course not. if you
rent a washing machine, and don't break it, it doesn't matter if you
invite 100 people over for a telemarketing campaign to tell the world
your washing machine doesn't keep fruit as cold as you like it.


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

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

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

, joy garnett

Cinque et al.,

I think it is more complex and a lot less trivial than "tackyness." Leave=

the 1st amendment aside for a second: this is about qualifying and
contextualizing an artist's work without their consent, WITHOUT DISCUSSION=

and in a way that they find offensive, in a way they feel would interfere=

with the viewers' engagement of their work. The Jewish Federation of
Kansass's attempt to "balance" is a joke: it's an attempt to SKEW. This
is a very Fox News m.o., as someone here observed. Also: this is not a
news program, where balance is at issue; this is a solo show where
IMbalance in the direction of the artist should be protected.
Forchrissake, since when do we want art to be about "balance."

Museum shows, art venues, ARE elitest spaces, not democratic forums. They=

offer a departure from the mainstream, from mass culture, a place where
individuals–artists–may give voice to perhaps unpopular views in a
way that is relatively unencumbered. This is not the "norm" in our culture=

– this is why most of us are in the arts to begin with, because the mass=

culture does not support small unpopular voices. Please see this
conservative line, this notion that the People must be protected from the=

Elitest Art World and the Evil Artists, for what it is: utterly and
completely twisted.

Perhaps the operative principal here is not freedom of speech, the first
amendment or the constitution; perhaps it's simple respect. The Jewish Fed=

of Kansas (and smaller Zionist groups, apparently) is behaving in an
aggressive, inappropriate and politically opportunistic manner. What
business do they have interfering with an artist's exhibition in this
manner, without first entering into discussion? What do you think they
intend really? The show hasn't even opened yet, it's not even hung,
therefore there has been no public outcry. This is a pre-emptive attack.
(It is slated to open Jan. 26th; it was scheduled a year ago…)

If I were the artist I would certainly pull my work if the posters and
brochures were to stay against my wishes. Their presence anywhere inside
the museum is not acceptable on any grounds. I would agree to debate and
discussion in public programs ONLY, which is where all that belongs. My
sense is the JFOF is not interested in discussion but in UNDERMINING the
show and hence this individual's opportunity to have her say in a way
that is commensurate with the normal standards of museum exhibitions; this=

sets a reallly bad precedent. Where is your respect for the artist? Is
she chopped liver or what?

(This work, btw, is really not polemical and consists of portraying
various Palestinian individuals in light of their humanity. Apparently
this is a problem that needs to be balanced?)

*fumes*
Joy


On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Cinque Hicks wrote:

> Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or p=
rohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, o=
r of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe=
tition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to sa=
y or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U chooses to=
do with regard to its own internal policies.
>
> This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient =
and a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment i=
ssue.
>
> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put the o=
ffending material just *outside* the gallery? I’ve never been there=
, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would house=
the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is, then I espe=
cially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of tacky, but I =
also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art as some qua=
si-religious object that I don’t think it should risk coming into c=
ontact with the messy real world.
>
> If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an actual=
dialog with the public for once. Imagine: an actual dialog instead of bein=
g sequestered off in some artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basi=
cally already think the way you do anyway. I say go for it, let the recrimi=
nations begin! Finally! This is free speech in action, not an abridging of =
speech.
>
> There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let the =
show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their own minds =
about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly on all t=
he speech.
>
>
>
>
> joy garnett wrote:
>
>>
>> ———- Forwarded message ———-
>> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:40 -0500
>> From: Barbara Hunt <[email protected]>
>> To: Joy Episalla <[email protected]>, Joy Garnett
>> <[email protected]>,
>> Christian Rattemeyer <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily
>> Jacir/Ulrich Museum
>> Wichita
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: martha rosler <[email protected]>
>> Date: December 11, 2004 10:35:59 PM EST
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich
>> Museum Wichita
>> Reply-To: [email protected]
>>
>>>> From: Emna Zghal <[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:07:37 -0500
>>>> Subject: [aaw] Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> The following messages are from my friends Kamran Rastagar
>> (visiting
>>>> professor at Brown University) and Emily Jacir (artist).
>>>> Emily's work at the a Museum in Kansas is being attacked by some
>>>> religious
>>>> group and the museum in authorizing this group to invade the space
>> of
>>>> her
>>>> installation by materials this group is choosing.
>>>> I think this sets a dangerous precedent, all artists should be
>>>> allowed to
>>>> express themselves and have their work be received on its own
>> terms.
>>>> The
>>>> fact that a Palestinian, and in this case a Palestinian American,
>> is
>>>> only
>>>> allowed to express her view with some sort of a disclaimer
>> shouldn't
>>>> be
>>>> acceptable. That this "disclaimer" or "balancing material" is not
>>>> authored
>>>> by the Museum and is without the agreement of the artist is
>>>> outrageous.
>>>>
>>>> I guess the first step is to write to the museum director and
>> curator.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Emna Zghal
>>>> http://www.nathirat.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> —— Forwarded Message
>>>>
>>>> Dear Friends,
>>>>
>>>> The following is a call for assistance by the Palestinian-American
>>>> artist Emily Jacir, whose work has been showing to critical acclaim
>>>> internationally. An exhibition of her work "Where We Come From" was
>>>> to go up at a museum in Wichita, Kansas affiliated with Wichita
>>>> State University. The administration of the museum has now
>>>> unilaterally decided to allow an outside religious group to have
>>>> access to the museum in order to place a poster, and political
>>>> materials 'balancing' Emily's work in the museum just outside her
>>>> gallery for the duration of her show.
>>>>
>>>> This is a major deviation from any norms of conduct in the arts
>>>> and academic community - the precedent this sets is clear and
>>>> disturbing; anti-gay groups can place materials at a show by a gay
>>>> artist,anti-semites at a show by a Jewish artist, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Please forward this widely, and write a note to the director of the
>>>> museum (info below) - if anyone has connections with free-speech
>>>> academic arts groups that are concerned about these kinds of
>> issues,
>>>> please involve them.
>>>>
>>>> Reviews of Emily's work:
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_6_42/ai_113389509
>>>> (ArtForum)
>>>> http://adbusters.org/magazine/art_activism/exile.php
>>>> http://www.contemporary-magazine.com/reviews59_1.htm
>>>> http://www.newyorkmetro.com/arts/articles/04/whitney/3.htm
>>>>
>>>> - K. Rastegar
>>>>
>>>> ———————–
>>>> Visiting Assistant Professor
>>>> Department of Comparative Literature
>>>> Marston Hall, Box E
>>>> Brown University
>>>> Providence, RI 02912
>>>> email: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> —– Forwarded message from emily jacir —–
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I was slated to have a one person show at the Ulrich Museum in
>>>> Wichita, Kansas in January 26th. The piece was Where We Come From
>>>> which was included by Dan Cameron on the 8th Istanbul Biennale
>>>> "Poetic Justice", and a small excerpt of it was also included in
>>>> this years Whitney Bienniel.
>>>>
>>>> This show has been planned for over a year, much to my horror two
>>>> days ago I was told that the The Jewish Federation of Kansas has
>>>> put pressure on the University and the Museum so that they have
>> been
>>>> granted permission to place brochures and a sign in the gallery
>>>> expressing their views concerning the politics of the Middle East.
>>>> Actually, the University and Museum have no idea what text is
>>>> contained in the brochures and what the posters are but have given
>>>> them permission nonetheless.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> On the one hand they are allowing me to speak but on another they
>>>> are trying to control my work by placing brochures, thereby
>>>> contextualizing and framing my work in ways I have no control over.
>>>> Not only is this an infringement to free speech but it also
>> disturbs
>>>> the integrity of my work.
>>>>
>>>> This also sets a bad precedent for them - the next time the
>>>> University has a show that some group wants to object to they will
>>>> have to put that group's sign up in the gallery.
>>>>
>>>> I feel violated as an artist by their decision to put a sign in the
>>>> exhibition with my pictures. This modifies my installation and the
>>>> work is no longer what it was intended to be.
>>>>
>>>> I think people should be able to see my work on its own terms and
>> be
>>>> able to form their own opinion. I am not against having a
>>>> conversation, or organizing panels where a variety of views can be
>>>> expressed if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> If this group is allowed to do this then perhaps other groups
>> should
>>>> also demand that their own signs and brochures be placed in the
>>>> gallery as well. How could they be refused? The Museum has now
>>>> opened up my exhibition space as space for comments from one
>>>> political group so why deny others?
>>>>
>>>> I am very upset and people are telling me I should cancel the
>>>> exhibition. I am not sure what to do….I don't want to cancel
>>>> because it is not fair that the people in Wichita are unable to see
>>>> my work because of this fiasco but on the other hand these terms
>> are
>>>> unacceptable….
>>>>
>>>> Please help me. Does anyone have contacts with the ACLU or ideas?
>>>>
>>>> The Director of the Museum is David Butler.
>>>>
>>>> Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
>>>> Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount, Wichita, Kansas 67260
>>>> contact: Dr. David Butler, Director
>>>> telephone: 316-978-3664, fax: 316-978-3898
>>>> e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> Kevin Mullins is the Curator who invited me to Wichita.
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> 316 978-5851
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
>>>> ARABNY Disclaimer:
>>>>
>>>> All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs,
>>>> graphics,
>>>> video, messages and other materials
>>>> (&amp;amp;quot;Content&amp;amp;quot;),
>>>> whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole
>>>> responsibility of the person from which such Content originated.
>>>> Neither
>>>> Arabny nor Yahoo controls the Content posted via the Service and,
>> as
>>>> such,
>>>> neither group guarantees the accuracy, integrity or quality of such
>>>> Content.
>>>>
>>>> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
>>>> To unsubscribe from arabny, send an email to:
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
>>>> To learn more about the arabny, please visit
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arabny
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> —— End of Forwarded Message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ———————— Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>>> ——————–~–>
>>>> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
>>>> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
>>>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM
>>>>
>> ——————————————————————–
>>>> ~->
>>>>
>>>> visit our website http://www.aawnyc.org
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aawnion/
>>>>
>>>> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>>>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> —
>> Barbara Hunt
>> Executive Director
>> Artists Space
>> 38 Greene St, 3rd Fl.,
>> New York NY 10013
>> Tel: 212.226.3970 x 33
> +
> -> 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 Myers

On 15 Dec 2004, at 17:55, Plasma Studii wrote:

> ok. that's just the galleries own conflict of interest. they
> invested in the artwork and then invested in a protest against it
> (though to a far, far lesser degree). but that's the gallery
> devaluing something it invested in. but it's not any affront to the
> artwork or artist. it's just a mildly contradictory move. says "our
> selections aren't important ON EVERY LEVEL". that's all.

IMHO this is like saying it's OK for the gallery to drape transparent
blue cloth over all the works because you can still see the work
underneath. In both instances the viewer's perception of the work is
colored by an intervention, it is recontextualised by something that is
placed before it.

- Rob.

, MTAA

OK, I'll admit that this is driving me crazy and that I should stop
posting about it…

Two things:

First, we haven't discussed that tho it's probably NOT illegal for the
museum to put these materials inside or outside the gallery, it
probably IS illegal for the artist to cancel the show. I'm sure she has
a contract with the museum and if she canceled the show she could be
sued. So she may be forced into showing her work in an environment she
finds unacceptable.

Artists take note – we may want to start adding 'acceptable
conditions' clauses to our agreements.

Second, for the apologists on the list, I demand space on your
homepages in order to make my POV heard.

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

, Plasma Studii

>>ok. that's just the galleries own conflict of interest. they
>>invested in the artwork and then invested in a protest against it
>>(though to a far, far lesser degree). but that's the gallery
>>devaluing something it invested in. but it's not any affront to
>>the artwork or artist. it's just a mildly contradictory move.
>>says "our selections aren't important ON EVERY LEVEL". that's all.
>
>IMHO this is like saying it's OK for the gallery to drape
>transparent blue cloth over all the works because you can still see
>the work underneath. In both instances the viewer's perception of
>the work is colored by an intervention, it is recontextualised by
>something that is placed before it.

OH BOY!!! that's just it.

this is not a case of some moral obligation and the gallery shouldn't
behave some way, it's more of a breech of contract. (though an
actual contract is nearly useless, to ensure the work be presented in
a way favorable to the artist). if the artist feels they don't like
they are getting the deal they agreed to, that's too bad. sometimes
you feel ripped off, but you bought into the deal.

every gallery has the freedom/right to build a damn wall around the
art. obscure it completely. if they want, pay the fee and hide it
in the basement. just as much as every person has a right to say
what they want. but the gallery doesn't have to care and isn't
expected to guess what some artist intended to say.

twhid argued this sets a nasty precedent. it does in a way. he's
right. but i surely doubt this is actually a precedent, as it must
happen constantly to varying degrees.

you've been handed pamphlets from protesters. do you read them? you
just think "look a bunch of protesters in the lobby. i came to look
at the pretty colors. am i going to be able to get through without
being hassled?"

, Matthew Mascotte

ok-

first, i think its important to understand EXACTLY
what materials the jewish league are posting…does
anyone know what the brochure contains…what the
poster looks like? not to defend the motion at all
but it seems like we don't have enough information
to be acting out like i've seen.

second, i'd be interested if anyone sees a correlation
with the museum's action and the recent postings on
RAW about exhibitions that enable cell phone users to post
text,images and voice messages about specific works on display.
how do people feel about that in terms of unfairly treating
artists?

happy holidays to you all,

matthew







On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 12:44PM, t.whid <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Cinque Hicks wrote:
>
>> Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to
>> say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U
>> chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.
>
>I'm no lawyer but..
>
>and I've done no research but…
>
>I'm sure it is very probable that Wichita STATE U gets STATE money and
>also probably FEDERAL money. Your reading of the 1st amendment is
>extremely narrow. Whatever the institution is, I'm sure it's not
>completely private.
>
>>
>> This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and
>> a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment
>> issue.
>
>The decision is also extremely unethical.
>
>I'm unsure if this is a constitutional issue as well, but the artist
>has every reasonable expectation that her work be viewed in the gallery
>in a neutral context. This is a very dangerous precedent for many
>reasons we've gone into already and that you didn't address like,
>
>Should neo-nazis be allowed to post their opinions in the foyers of
>holocaust museums? Would you support that action?
>
>Whatever the Kansas jewish org espouses, I'm sure it's not as
>disgusting as neo-nazi propaganda so I'm not trying to create an
>equivalence btw the two groups. I bring it up to show where this sort
>of precedent can lead logically.
>
>>
>> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put
>> the offending material just outside the gallery? I’ve never been
>> there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would
>> house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is,
>> then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of
>> tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art
>> as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk
>> coming into contact with the messy real world.
>
>You don't need to have pious or quasi-religious views of art to clearly
>see the dangerous precedent being set in this case.
>
>>
>> If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an
>> actual dialog with the public for once.
>
>I would seize the opportunity to protest this ridiculous and outrageous
>action by canceling my show.
>
>> Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some
>> artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think
>> the way you do anyway.
>
>That is a very large leap. I don't see the Palestinian or Arab POV
>being expressed in galleries very often. And seriously, don't we get
>the other side 24/7 in the major media?
>
>> I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free
>> speech in action, not an abridging of speech.
>
>Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to talk over
>everyone else. This is an attempt to frame and contextualize a person's
>speech in a half-assed attempt to neutralize or quell it. It may not be
>a constitutional free speech issue but it's hard to see how this
>bullying tactic is a celebration of free speech.
>
>>
>> There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let
>> the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their
>> own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly
>> on all the speech.
>>
>>>
>
>===
><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
>
>

, joy garnett

Michael et al.,
This is all I have from Emily's letter (see orig. post):

"This show has been planned for over a year, much to my horror two days
ago I was told that the The Jewish Federation of Kansas has put pressure
on the University and the Museum so that they have been granted permission=

to place brochures and a sign in the gallery expressing their views
concerning the politics of the Middle East. Actually, the University and
Museum have no idea what text is contained in the brochures and what the
posters are but have given them permission nonetheless."


Interesting, if what she says is accurate then no one involved has enough=

information–and yet such decisions are being made? In any case, the
artist was kept out of the process. That alone seems underhanded. We don't=

even know how long ago the group and the university came to this
arrangement, how long it took for the artist to find out, etc. And one
only has to visit the JFOK website to understand their position
concerning the politics of the Middle East.

In any case, if the press picks it up and does their job we'll have more
info soon…



Best,
Joy


On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Matthew Mascotte wrote:

>
> ok-
>
> first, i think its important to understand EXACTLY
> what materials the jewish league are posting…does
> anyone know what the brochure contains…what the
> poster looks like? not to defend the motion at all
> but it seems like we don't have enough information
> to be acting out like i've seen.
>
> second, i'd be interested if anyone sees a correlation
> with the museum's action and the recent postings on
> RAW about exhibitions that enable cell phone users to post
> text,images and voice messages about specific works on display.
> how do people feel about that in terms of unfairly treating
> artists?
>
> happy holidays to you all,
>
> matthew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 12:44PM, t.whid <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Cinque Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to
>>> say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U
>>> chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.
>>
>> I'm no lawyer but..
>>
>> and I've done no research but…
>>
>> I'm sure it is very probable that Wichita STATE U gets STATE money and
>> also probably FEDERAL money. Your reading of the 1st amendment is
>> extremely narrow. Whatever the institution is, I'm sure it's not
>> completely private.
>>
>>>
>>> This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenien=
t and
>>> a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment
>>> issue.
>>
>> The decision is also extremely unethical.
>>
>> I'm unsure if this is a constitutional issue as well, but the artist
>> has every reasonable expectation that her work be viewed in the gallery
>> in a neutral context. This is a very dangerous precedent for many
>> reasons we've gone into already and that you didn't address like,
>>
>> Should neo-nazis be allowed to post their opinions in the foyers of
>> holocaust museums? Would you support that action?
>>
>> Whatever the Kansas jewish org espouses, I'm sure it's not as
>> disgusting as neo-nazi propaganda so I'm not trying to create an
>> equivalence btw the two groups. I bring it up to show where this sort
>> of precedent can lead logically.
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put
>>> the offending material just outside the gallery? I’ve never been
>>> there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that wo=
uld
>>> house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is,
>>> then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of
>>> tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view o=
f art
>>> as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk
>>> coming into contact with the messy real world.
>>
>> You don't need to have pious or quasi-religious views of art to clearly
>> see the dangerous precedent being set in this case.
>>
>>>
>>> If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an
>>> actual dialog with the public for once.
>>
>> I would seize the opportunity to protest this ridiculous and outrageous
>> action by canceling my show.
>>
>>> Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some
>>> artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think
>>> the way you do anyway.
>>
>> That is a very large leap. I don't see the Palestinian or Arab POV
>> being expressed in galleries very often. And seriously, don't we get
>> the other side 24/7 in the major media?
>>
>>> I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free
>>> speech in action, not an abridging of speech.
>>
>> Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to talk over
>> everyone else. This is an attempt to frame and contextualize a person's
>> speech in a half-assed attempt to neutralize or quell it. It may not be
>> a constitutional free speech issue but it's hard to see how this
>> bullying tactic is a celebration of free speech.
>>
>>>
>>> There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let
>>> the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their
>>> own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a mon=
opoly
>>> on all the speech.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ===
>> <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
>
>

, Rob Myers

On 15 Dec 2004, at 18:56, Plasma Studii - uospn

, MTAA

These seems to have been lost in the shuffle so I send again because I
think it contains an important point, sorry if it dupes

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK, I'll admit that this is driving me crazy and that I should stop
posting about it…

Two things:

First, we haven't discussed that tho it's probably NOT illegal for the
museum to put these materials inside or outside the gallery, it
probably IS illegal for the artist to cancel the show. I'm sure she has
a contract with the museum and if she canceled the show she could be
sued. So she may be forced into showing her work in an environment she
finds unacceptable.

Artists take note – we may want to start adding 'acceptable
conditions' clauses to our agreements.

Second, for the apologists on the list, I demand space on your
homepages in order to make my POV heard.

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

, Plasma Studii

from rob
>As for keeping quiet if you get ripped off, I doubt you'd do that if
>your new PC died two weeks after buying it. ;-)

hahaha. i would never buy a pc because getting ripped off is just
what i'd be asking for. who cares what's morally right about it, you
deal with the situation you're in. but this example is really
doesn't apply since they aren't doing any physical damage to the
work. some galleries are going to get pressure differently.

>>you've been handed pamphlets from protesters. do you read them?
>>you just think "look a bunch of protesters in the lobby. i came to
>>look at the pretty colors. am i going to be able to get through
>>without being hassled?"
>
>It's the artistic equivalent of push polling:
>
>"Would it affect your view of this art if you knew that the artist
>was supporting terrorists and murderers?

she can take it as getting more attention, more press. (perhaps
that's all this really is)

the folks who shlep to the gallery want to see the art, not the
pamphleteers. everything they do in life will effect how they see
the work.

>Protest is very important. Obviously it's a matter of freedom of
>expression. But so is the show. And the show does not get to answer
>this pre-emptive strike on its integrity.

freedom of expression. so, who cares what the protesters say? let
em scream. the artist found a forum and nobody's keeping it from
her. if she doesn't like it, she can try another.

it's a totally non-issue. it's really only an issue that anyone
could possibly construe this as an issue.

from joy
>In any case, the artist was kept out of the process.

that's life! at least the person who decided, must have felt the
artists opinion is of no relevance in this situation. which is
perfectly valid. in fact, what they do with their lobby is their
business, not hers. they don't have to approve every work a visitor
may see on the way to hers. why should the artists have the
slightest feeling their opinion about what happens in galleries has
any importance whatsoever.

it's just a deal, they borrow the piece for a particular duration and
give it back unharmed. it'd be totally prima donna obnoxious to
insist on any aspect of how to present it, though out of convenience
often curators will try to make accommodations. Artists often seem
to think just cause they can talk, people automatically listen.

, Liza Sabater

On a soapbox, ya'll :

To this I would like to add that, given the current political climate
in this country, it would be "best practice" for all artists to be more
pro-active about their working relationships with institutions funded
by the government. Artists like Ms Jacir have to be vigilant of the
possible repercussions of their work. Whether it is fair or not, it's
beyond the point at this moment in time. All artists dealing with
anything potentially political need to be prepared for "the worse". The
question is how?

1. Know your rights and liabilities.
2. Know your hosting institution and its social and political
environment.
3. Identify your friends in the media; then create your own
broadcasting media.
4. Create, develop, and grow a network of resources and supporters.

It's all about building a community that will support you. It's not
easy, but it is certainly not impossible. On the contrary –it's
absolutely necessary.

The right knows this very well and they were absolutely brilliant at
exploiting this during the past election. I had the opportunity to talk
with Chuck DeFeo, the eCampaign Manager for Bush-Cheney 2004. We talked
about how technologically savy are a lot of the evangelical churches
they worked with. The point of our conversation was that, without the
actual social structure off line, the social networking online could
not have been so effective.

Extend this to a right wing group like the The Jewish Federation of
Kansas and how they use the internet to network people not only in the
state but around the world. You can see then how easy it would be for
them not only to mobilize people to the museum, but maybe a few dozen
if not a hundred signatures or emails –to make it seem like there is a
deluge of people opposed to Ms. Jacir's work.

Again, there is no excuse not to focus on what is happening today,
right now, in this country. Complaining does not change anything. It
might get you on the cover of a magazine or a newspaper but it will not
get you anywhere else. On the contrary. Not having a strong
counter-argument (or attack) will render you untouchable to a lot of
art institutions. They will not necessarily want to deal with the
hassle you bring with your work.

If you don't care about art institutions, then more power to you. If
you are like Ms Jacir and want to be in museums, then learn how the
enemy works and be prepared to battle –and if not to win, then to call
it a draw. Because to The Jewish Federation of Kansas it is war, and
Ms. Jacir's show is just one battle to win. To not take that seriously
is definitely and artist's "worst practices".

Best,
liza sabater
www.culturekitchen.com

May be of interest:
Secular Blue America
http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/002643.html

The shocking truth about the FCC: Censorship by the tyranny of the few
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html



On Wednesday, Dec 15, 2004, at 16:18 America/New_York, t.whid wrote:

> These seems to have been lost in the shuffle so I send again because I
> think it contains an important point, sorry if it dupes
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> OK, I'll admit that this is driving me crazy and that I should stop
> posting about it…
>
> Two things:
>
> First, we haven't discussed that tho it's probably NOT illegal for the
> museum to put these materials inside or outside the gallery, it
> probably IS illegal for the artist to cancel the show. I'm sure she
> has a contract with the museum and if she canceled the show she could
> be sued. So she may be forced into showing her work in an environment
> she finds unacceptable.
>
> Artists take note – we may want to start adding 'acceptable
> conditions' clauses to our agreements.
>
> Second, for the apologists on the list, I demand space on your
> homepages in order to make my POV heard.
>
> ===
> <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
>

, Plasma Studii

>I don't know if Plasma is a troll or a windup or you really believe this stuff

don't know what you mean by "troll", but i like that one!

>Your attitude seems to be, 'hey, stuff happens. this is the way the
>world is. Just live with it because you can't and won't make things
>change.'

quite the contrary. it's the difference between working with a
situation that you're actually in and arguing for some abstract
ideal. fighting the system is tantamount to whining. it's like the
election; bush somehow got the presidency again. it was probably
underhanded how. but NOW how can we proceed. how can we circumvent
this and make the next move. meanwhile, they are going ahead their
next move and we are forfeiting our chance by dwelling on idealism.

just that fighting for what's "right" is a lot different than making
things "work". glad deborah from wichita u, actually described the
situation. the decision was financial. the administration is trying
to keep the doors open. artists can whine all they want, but the
bills have to be paid. it's not something where the administrators
at fault for going over the artist, it's because they are trying to
appease some psycho donor. the money is needed to help pay the
electric bill to have the that show, and all the art. it's a spoiled
brat attitude to be outraged at the admin because they didn't consult
the artist. this is not up to her. stinks how they went about it,
but would if it was a science fair. the potential for message in the
art is no different than the potential for message in a baking soda
volcano. get over it.

>You say that the gallery just 'borrows' the work, the artist has no
>right to demand any respect. Well, sorry, but that's really not the
>way the world works.

in some form or another it does. often there is no money. often the
gallery rents it, buys it, or someone commissions it's creation.
it's a manufacturing business transaction like any else. we
sell/rent/lend goods and are paid for services. liza had a great
point, to review what you can do in your contract. if there's no $$$
(which is often the case), you are forfeiting all rights. you
basically handed it over willingly. that's not fair, but that's what
we have.

>The artist has some power.

great. i can cancel my con ed.

>What do you think the point of the gallery is?

in commercial galleries, it's a repping agency. they get a
commission. like selling on consignment.they try to swing deals with
bigger museums, collectors. in non-prof galleries, it's varies on the
venue, is often more vague, but pretty much works like
marketing/advertising. the public sees the art usually for free (or
pay in taxes), because the whole dynamic relies on these products at
least being popular somehow. as a result, a whole slew of reviewers,
historians and theorists add to the value. and people wouldn't read
those reviews, study history, or theorize if the art was locked away
and hidden. so it ultimately pays to let the public in.

it's not the popular romantic vision of the art world any more.
schools still make kids think there's something more fantastic
involved. don't fret bart, it's carpentry/freemasonry again.

>What do you think the funders of the gallery will think if if the
>gallery has no work to show?

hardly anything. they may not like the Jewish Federation of Kansas.
they may not like them on the campus handing out brochures. they may
not like the admin's attempt to appease the donor in a totally
kiss-butt way. but the artist has nothing to do with it. there is
always more art being made and artists eager to be shown, than
venues. we don't dictate the supply and demand, but we have to
work with it.

, joseph mcelroy

So we have those who want to be practical and live with the world as it
exists, and those who want to scream and protest, scolding those of
practical interests, yet providing no actual avenues of useful
proaction. The fanatical right live with their ideals and take
practical actions, with long term strategy and effective tactics, to
acheive them. To throw up our hands and live in the world being built
for us but not by us (us being the term for the progressive minded) is
stupido. To scream and whine, tactics without strategy, is stupido. So
let us form effective strategies - how can we affect the bottom line of
the musuem and university? How can we cause more financial damage than
$1.5 million a donor is threatening to withdraw? Is there other donors
we can influence? Are their government or non-profit financial interests
being affected? Could a campaign illustrating the backwardness of the
university influence students to go to competing institutions? Can the
donor threatening to withhold funds be hurt financially by some efforts
on our part? Let us go about practically acheiving our ideals.

"If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they put one of ours in the
hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue" Sean Connery in the
Untouchables.

Metaphorically speaking of course.

Is there anybody out there actually taking this further than a scream
and whine campaign? Outrage needs to be funneled into an appropriate
tool for combatting the forces of idiocy.

joseph mcelroy

, joy garnett

wow. you rock; remind me nevver to get on your bad side joseph!


On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, joseph mcelroy wrote:

> So we have those who want to be practical and live with the world as it
> exists, and those who want to scream and protest, scolding those of practical
> interests, yet providing no actual avenues of useful proaction. The
> fanatical right live with their ideals and take practical actions, with long
> term strategy and effective tactics, to acheive them. To throw up our hands
> and live in the world being built for us but not by us (us being the term for
> the progressive minded) is stupido. To scream and whine, tactics without
> strategy, is stupido. So let us form effective strategies - how can we
> affect the bottom line of the musuem and university? How can we cause more
> financial damage than $1.5 million a donor is threatening to withdraw? Is
> there other donors we can influence? Are their government or non-profit
> financial interests being affected? Could a campaign illustrating the
> backwardness of the university influence students to go to competing
> institutions? Can the donor threatening to withhold funds be hurt
> financially by some efforts on our part? Let us go about practically
> acheiving our ideals.
>
> "If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they put one of ours in the
> hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue" Sean Connery in the
> Untouchables.
>
> Metaphorically speaking of course.
> Is there anybody out there actually taking this further than a scream and
> whine campaign? Outrage needs to be funneled into an appropriate tool for
> combatting the forces of idiocy.
>
> joseph mcelroy
>
> +
> -> 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
>
>

, mark cooley

what's interesting to me about this situation is that this is a case where the institution has failed to filter out something that is potentially destructive to the institution itself (financially anyway). This goes to show that institutions are not monolithic, since apparently there were individuals who thought the work would be beneficial in some way - perhaps to the institution, the public or otherwise. Obviously, this conflicted with cash flow and members of the upper administration seem to have shown themselves as either spineless and/or in ideological agreement with the protestors. somehow it always seems refreshing (even though it ususally pisses me off) to see protest around an art exhibit. Perhaps, it means that the art is working, i mean that it is actually effective in engaging peoples minds about issues outside of whether this color looks good next to that one and all that vacuous formalism that tends to hang in the air of galleries. As far as protecting the "purity" and "neutrality" of the gallery - if anything, this is an illustration that an art exhibit is never pure and neutral - but it is usually only when controversy hits that all of the usually hidden agendas come out into view. I don't see how an artist showing in a large institution can somehow think that the politics of that institution cease at the entrance of the gallery. I can't count how many times i have walked into a museum to see "challenging and controversial" work and looked up on the wall to see 10 logos of major corporation who sponsored the exhibition. that's not controversial in any sense that i'm interested in. Here we have an institution scrambling to protect it's capital because the art that was accepted into the institution has (albeit unintentionally) somehow threatened the institution itself. that's subversive. i suggest the artist throw away the notion of a "pure" space, try anticipate these sorts of things, and work responses to them into future shows.

this reminds me of chomsky's critique of the media. You have to understand what the institution is there to do - what the power and operating structure is, what the goals are - then you will no longer be surprised when the institution rejects something that it finds destructive to itself - which is not to say that we shouldn't try to inject subversive moments into it.



Cinque Hicks wrote:

> Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in
> whole:
>
> "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."
>
> This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to
> say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U
> chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.
>
> This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and
> a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment
> issue.
>
> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put
> the offending material just *outside* the gallery? I’ve never been
> there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would
> house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is,
> then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of
> tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art
> as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk
> coming into contact with the messy real world.
>
> If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an
> actual dialog with the public for once. Imagine: an actual dialog
> instead of being sequestered off in some artsy-fartsy gallery
> preaching to people who basically already think the way you do anyway.
> I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free
> speech in action, not an abridging of speech.
>
> There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let
> the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their
> own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly
> on all the speech.
>
>
>
>
> joy garnett wrote:
>
> >
> > ———- Forwarded message ———-
> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:40 -0500
> > From: Barbara Hunt <[email protected]>
> > To: Joy Episalla <[email protected]>, Joy Garnett
> > <[email protected]>,
> > Christian Rattemeyer <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily
> > Jacir/Ulrich Museum
> > Wichita
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: martha rosler <[email protected]>
> > Date: December 11, 2004 10:35:59 PM EST
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich
> > Museum Wichita
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> >
> > >> From: Emna Zghal <[email protected]>
> > >> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:07:37 -0500
> > >> Subject: [aaw] Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum
> Wichita
> > >>
> > >> Dear All,
> > >>
> > >> The following messages are from my friends Kamran Rastagar
> > (visiting
> > >> professor at Brown University) and Emily Jacir (artist).
> > >> Emily's work at the a Museum in Kansas is being attacked by some
> > >> religious
> > >> group and the museum in authorizing this group to invade the
> space
> > of
> > >> her
> > >> installation by materials this group is choosing.
> > >> I think this sets a dangerous precedent, all artists should be
> > >> allowed to
> > >> express themselves and have their work be received on its own
> > terms.
> > >> The
> > >> fact that a Palestinian, and in this case a Palestinian
> American,
> > is
> > >> only
> > >> allowed to express her view with some sort of a disclaimer
> > shouldn't
> > >> be
> > >> acceptable. That this "disclaimer" or "balancing material" is not
> > >> authored
> > >> by the Museum and is without the agreement of the artist is
> > >> outrageous.
> > >>
> > >> I guess the first step is to write to the museum director and
> > curator.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Emna Zghal
> > >> http://www.nathirat.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> —— Forwarded Message
> > >>
> > >> Dear Friends,
> > >>
> > >> The following is a call for assistance by the
> Palestinian-American
> > >> artist Emily Jacir, whose work has been showing to critical
> acclaim
> > >> internationally. An exhibition of her work "Where We Come From"
> was
> > >> to go up at a museum in Wichita, Kansas affiliated with Wichita
> > >> State University. The administration of the museum has now
> > >> unilaterally decided to allow an outside religious group to have
> > >> access to the museum in order to place a poster, and political
> > >> materials 'balancing' Emily's work in the museum just outside her
> > >> gallery for the duration of her show.
> > >>
> > >> This is a major deviation from any norms of conduct in the arts
> > >> and academic community - the precedent this sets is clear and
> > >> disturbing; anti-gay groups can place materials at a show by a
> gay
> > >> artist,anti-semites at a show by a Jewish artist, etc.
> > >>
> > >> Please forward this widely, and write a note to the director of
> the
> > >> museum (info below) - if anyone has connections with free-speech
> > >> academic arts groups that are concerned about these kinds of
> > issues,
> > >> please involve them.
> > >>
> > >> Reviews of Emily's work:
> > >>
> > >>
> > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_6_42/ai_113389509
> > >> (ArtForum)
> > >> http://adbusters.org/magazine/art_activism/exile.php
> > >> http://www.contemporary-magazine.com/reviews59_1.htm
> > >> http://www.newyorkmetro.com/arts/articles/04/whitney/3.htm
> > >>
> > >> - K. Rastegar
> > >>
> > >> ———————–
> > >> Visiting Assistant Professor
> > >> Department of Comparative Literature
> > >> Marston Hall, Box E
> > >> Brown University
> > >> Providence, RI 02912
> > >> email: [email protected]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> —– Forwarded message from emily jacir —–
> > >>
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> I was slated to have a one person show at the Ulrich Museum in
> > >> Wichita, Kansas in January 26th. The piece was Where We Come From
> > >> which was included by Dan Cameron on the 8th Istanbul Biennale
> > >> "Poetic Justice", and a small excerpt of it was also included in
> > >> this years Whitney Bienniel.
> > >>
> > >> This show has been planned for over a year, much to my horror two
> > >> days ago I was told that the The Jewish Federation of Kansas has
> > >> put pressure on the University and the Museum so that they have
> > been
> > >> granted permission to place brochures and a sign in the gallery
> > >> expressing their views concerning the politics of the Middle
> East.
> > >> Actually, the University and Museum have no idea what text is
> > >> contained in the brochures and what the posters are but have
> given
> > >> them permission nonetheless.
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> On the one hand they are allowing me to speak but on another they
> > >> are trying to control my work by placing brochures, thereby
> > >> contextualizing and framing my work in ways I have no control
> over.
> > >> Not only is this an infringement to free speech but it also
> > disturbs
> > >> the integrity of my work.
> > >>
> > >> This also sets a bad precedent for them - the next time the
> > >> University has a show that some group wants to object to they
> will
> > >> have to put that group's sign up in the gallery.
> > >>
> > >> I feel violated as an artist by their decision to put a sign in
> the
> > >> exhibition with my pictures. This modifies my installation and
> the
> > >> work is no longer what it was intended to be.
> > >>
> > >> I think people should be able to see my work on its own terms and
> > be
> > >> able to form their own opinion. I am not against having a
> > >> conversation, or organizing panels where a variety of views can
> be
> > >> expressed if necessary.
> > >>
> > >> If this group is allowed to do this then perhaps other groups
> > should
> > >> also demand that their own signs and brochures be placed in the
> > >> gallery as well. How could they be refused? The Museum has now
> > >> opened up my exhibition space as space for comments from one
> > >> political group so why deny others?
> > >>
> > >> I am very upset and people are telling me I should cancel the
> > >> exhibition. I am not sure what to do….I don't want to cancel
> > >> because it is not fair that the people in Wichita are unable to
> see
> > >> my work because of this fiasco but on the other hand these terms
> > are
> > >> unacceptable….
> > >>
> > >> Please help me. Does anyone have contacts with the ACLU or ideas?
> > >>
> > >> The Director of the Museum is David Butler.
> > >>
> > >> Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
> > >> Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount, Wichita, Kansas 67260
> > >> contact: Dr. David Butler, Director
> > >> telephone: 316-978-3664, fax: 316-978-3898
> > >> e-mail: [email protected]
> > >>
> > >> Kevin Mullins is the Curator who invited me to Wichita.
> > >> [email protected]
> > >> 316 978-5851
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> __________________________________
> > >> Do you Yahoo!?
> > >> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> > >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> > >> ARABNY Disclaimer:
> > >>
> > >> All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs,
> > >> graphics,
> > >> video, messages and other materials
> > >> (&amp;quot;Content&amp;quot;),
> > >> whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole
> > >> responsibility of the person from which such Content originated.
> > >> Neither
> > >> Arabny nor Yahoo controls the Content posted via the Service and,
> > as
> > >> such,
> > >> neither group guarantees the accuracy, integrity or quality of
> such
> > >> Content.
> > >>
> > >> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> > >> To unsubscribe from arabny, send an email to:
> > >> [email protected]
> > >>
> > >> %-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%
> > >> To learn more about the arabny, please visit
> > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arabny
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> —— End of Forwarded Message
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ———————— Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > >> ——————–~–>
> > >> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> > >> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> > >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM
> > >>
> > ——————————————————————–
> > >> ~->
> > >>
> > >> visit our website http://www.aawnyc.org
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aawnion/
> > >>
> > >> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >> [email protected]
> > >>
> > >> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > Barbara Hunt
> > Executive Director
> > Artists Space
> > 38 Greene St, 3rd Fl.,
> > New York NY 10013
> > Tel: 212.226.3970 x 33

, joseph mcelroy

Being in the South Bronx brings out my hard edge….

So perhaps the Jewish Federation or the Wichita Jewish Community School.
needs some posters and other literature - to protect their children from
a one-sided version of current events…. a non-profit, even privately
funded, exists to serve the public good… it pays no taxes…so if both
viewpoints are necessary in an art institution, it is necessary
everywhere - only makes sense to follow their own logic…

February 14 brought happy hearts when members and guests of the
Brotherhood of Congregation Emanu-El hosted their seventh annual
Brotherhood Roast in the social hall. *Judy Press* was the roastee this
year, with most subject matter centering on the many roles she plays as
executive director of the Mid-Kansas Jewish Federation and Wichita
Jewish Community School.

joseph mcelroy


Joy Garnett wrote:

> wow. you rock; remind me nevver to get on your bad side joseph!
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, joseph mcelroy wrote:
>
>> So we have those who want to be practical and live with the world as
>> it exists, and those who want to scream and protest, scolding those
>> of practical interests, yet providing no actual avenues of useful
>> proaction. The fanatical right live with their ideals and take
>> practical actions, with long term strategy and effective tactics, to
>> acheive them. To throw up our hands and live in the world being
>> built for us but not by us (us being the term for the progressive
>> minded) is stupido. To scream and whine, tactics without strategy,
>> is stupido. So let us form effective strategies - how can we affect
>> the bottom line of the musuem and university? How can we cause more
>> financial damage than $1.5 million a donor is threatening to
>> withdraw? Is there other donors we can influence? Are their
>> government or non-profit financial interests being affected? Could a
>> campaign illustrating the backwardness of the university influence
>> students to go to competing institutions? Can the donor threatening
>> to withhold funds be hurt financially by some efforts on our part?
>> Let us go about practically acheiving our ideals.
>>
>> "If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they put one of ours in the
>> hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue" Sean Connery in the
>> Untouchables.
>>
>> Metaphorically speaking of course. Is there anybody out there
>> actually taking this further than a scream and whine campaign?
>> Outrage needs to be funneled into an appropriate tool for combatting
>> the forces of idiocy.
>>
>> joseph mcelroy
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
>