Astonishingly bad taste at the Skirball

[Chris Aguilar]

Certain people certainly seem in favor of censoring the material based on their personal notion of "bad taste".

No one is claiming that it's already been censored.

[Kevin Connolly]

Is it OK for one to be able to censor material and another not to?

[Richard Kaufman]

What are you referring to?

[John Lovick]

I have no problem with the work of art in question, but all this talk of censorship is completely misplaced. There are different definitions of censorship, but it only really makes sense if we are talking about government action.

There are dozens of works of art that are on display in this exhibition and MILLIONS that are not. The millions that were not chosen were not "censored". Choosing what works to include (and not include) is what curators do. It has nothing to do with censorship.

If, because of controversy or complaints, the "offensive" piece were now removed form the show, it would be unfortunate, but it would not be censorship.

[Kevin Connolly]

What I'm talking about if a curator doesn't like a piece for what ever reason like the piece is too big, wrong message, not the direction they want, etc., is that "censorship"?

[Richard Kaufman]

No, of course not.

[Chris Aguilar]

Censorship isn't the sole (or even primary) purview of the government.

If a museum knuckles down (probably fairly reluctantly if it's a piece they've chosen) to protestors and removes art that others find interesting/challenging/etc. , they are certainly being forced to censor. The conditions leading up to that sort of censoring don't magically shield it from still being censorship.

It's still a group (often a very small vocal group) removing the rights of others to enjoy a certain piece of art.

Simple selection (picking out objects of art for an exhibition prior to it being shown) is not the logical equivalent of choosing something and then being forced against one's will by public pressure to censor it.

[houdini's ghost]

The Skirball is aiming a lot of advertising at kids.
Pettibon's humor isn't so much "adult" as it is "in."
Sometimes the humor is so "in"--it's only in his head.
Chris, this isn't about Houdini. I don't give a good Goddam if Rich and Ken thought it related to Houdini--if they did. They're a couple of hip, mature, New Yorkers and they have seen everything.
Perhaps the Skirball thinks it's okay to write fuc*k on the wall then lure children in to see it.
Perhaps it's a positive step. Perhaps they'll bond with the tots.
You know, a seven year old says, "Gee, the Jewish Cultural Center thinks I'm hip enough to enjoy a sketch of Houdini on a cross saying "FUC*K GOD"--these Skirball people must be pretty hip themselves."

[Jonathan Townsend]

somebody has not seen South Park.

[Chris Aguilar]

It's just a word. And a word that most kids hear all the time. Do I have a problem with a museum having that where a kid might see it? Absolutely not.

And yes, if the piece is as described, I agree completely with Richard And Ken about the relationship to Houdini.

If kids ask about it, use it as a teaching moment, explain it.

Most museums have plenty of violent pieces, naked people abound, etc. Responsible parents know what their kids can handle and react appropriately.

It's not the museum's job to be a parent for you.

[John Lovick]

It's still a group (often a very small vocal group) removing the rights of others to enjoy a certain piece of art.

There is no such thing as a right to enjoy a certain piece of art.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Chill out folks. Children are rarely effected by words on pictures though they can be greatly affected by the way adults and those they trust respond to works. Do you really want anger and disgust where a simple explanation of "political, crude but about as brash as the subject" might suffice?

[Richard Kaufman]

John, I read your post quickly and thought you wrote:
"There is no such thing as a right way to enjoy a certain piece of art."

Both are true.

[Kardova]

Obviously, the piece did its job. Critical thinking is such a rare commodity these days, especially for children. Every day, marketers peddle them things that they often buy without much thought about why they want it. When a piece of art gets one to think and start a dialogue, than to me, it has done its job. Selecting a piece of art that obviously turns heads is probably what the curators were going for. After all, people go into a Houdini exhibit with certain expectations. When those expectations are met and an additional surprise is thrown in there just to stir things up, I think thats what Harry Houdini and magic is all about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe anyone can go into the public library and check out profanity laden books such as the Catcher and the Rye and not be carded for it. I suppose the maturity of the individual will determine how he or she will react to a work. Most underage children who may pass by the piece in question probably won't have the frontal lobe of their brains fully functional at that point to really understand its message and would probably be more interested and in a hurry to see David Blaine do a card trick. Now that's marketing.

[Chris Aguilar]

There is no such thing as a right to enjoy a certain piece of art.

Eh, so what?

By the same token, there is no right on your part to deny me or anyone else the enjoyment of whatever legal entertainment we (or our kids) choose. You have every right to whine and complain, but no rights to inflict your tastes on others via censorship.

How would you construe that to mean that it's ok (or even reasonable) to censor legally displayed material simply because you might not like it?

Expecting a curator to censor a particular display simply because one might find it tasteless robs others of their right/opportunity to enjoy the same. That mindset selfishly/foolishly assumes that there's some type of consensus on subjective matters of taste.


The whole "Please think of the children!" meme is often just a smokescreen for adults who either don't trust or give their kids much credit or (for whatever reasons) can't abide art that challenges their values system. It seems quaint to find so much offensive being take here when one considers all the nastiness that surrounds our kids nearly 24/7 (tv, movies, that guy blaring gangsta rap at you and your kids at the intersection, etc.)

I think it's great that you can express yourself in terms of your stern disapproval here. How about affording the artist the same right to express himself via his art?

[Kardova]

Watch any Disney movie and I'm sure you will find several adult references and innuendo thrown in there for the adults.

Go to Disneyland here in California and you will find a secret adult spot in New Orleans Square set aside just for the adults called Club 33 where hard liquor is served. The number 33 has several references that associate it with the dark arts and secret fraternities. Was this coincidental? No, it's for those who appreciate the hidden message and meaning of things beyond the literal face-surface. But do the children need to know this or even understand this? Again no, this for the benefit of the adults who can appreciate such things.

[Chris Aguilar]

In the past week, I've had to deal with my daughter having night terrors, primarily from certain disney animated movies. I somehow doubt that exposure to the word F^ck would have had such a deleterious effect on her(and my) sleep.

[Kardova]

You know about the rumors of the subliminal things they edit in the movies right? Maybe they are flashing the F-word to her subconscious. Damn pervert editors. j/k (but I think it's true)

[houdini's ghost]

Tasteless. . .

[Chris Aguilar]

Hah, good one Khardova.

I have a much larger problem with the violence we see on TV than I do with simple "dirty" words. Fortunately, it's pretty easy to just turn the set off. It's also pretty easy to avoid an art exhibit if one can't deal with it.

Some of the bad guys (and situations) in certain disney films are a bit too much for little ones. I've learned my lesson here and will more carefully vet them in the future.

What I won't do is insist that Disney preemptively censor all that stuff out so I don't have to worry about it.

[Richard Kaufman]

Chris, avoid letting your daughter see "The Rescuers 2." The bad guy in there, voiced by George C. Scott, is really a frightening character and you see kids in surprising physical jeopardy.

[Dustin Stinett]

Go to Disneyland here in California and you will find a secret adult spot in New Orleans Square set aside just for the adults called Club 33 where hard liquor is served.

Having last been there just a couple weeks ago, I can say that Club 33 allows kids (though yes, it has a full bar). As for the rest of that stuff, I'll leave that to the Disneyphiles to confirm or deny.

[Chris Aguilar]

Chris, avoid letting your daughter see "The Rescuers 2." The bad guy in there, voiced by George C. Scott, is really a frightening character and you see kids in surprising physical jeopardy.

I certainly appreciate the heads up on that one Richard. Having never seen it, I never would have guessed.

[John Lovick]

Chris Aguilar, did you read anything I wrote? Nothing you wrote in your response to my quoting you makes any sense whatsoever, and has nothing to do with what I have been saying. You're arguing against things I did not say, endorse, or even imply.

[Kardova]

Tasteless. . .

Tasteless? I completely agree with you. You've changed my mind. I'm on your side now. In several weeks, months, years, this little trifle will just be a hiccup in the grand scheme of our lives. And in retrospect, we (or rather I (I can't speak for all of us)) will look back on this and think, why did I expend my time, energy, and thought on such a fleeting moment in time. Because it's the only show in town at the moment and it's better to at least have something to say than nothing to say at all. I got out of bed and one of the first things I did was check the genii forum. Not because I had to, not because it profits me in any way, but because in some strange way, I enjoy reading what all of you have to say and feel connected to something, anything worth thinking and talking about. It makes me feel slightly more connected, slightly less lonely, something magic-related that I can go to while I take a break from magic (lol). No hard feelings, no intended insults to anyone's worldviews and opinions. Just an honest attempt to communicate,connect, and talk shop.

ep

[Chris Aguilar]

Chris Aguilar, did you read anything I wrote? Nothing you wrote in your response to my quoting you makes any sense whatsoever, and has nothing to do with what I have been saying. You're arguing with things I did not say, endorse, or even imply.

I respectively disagree.

As some of what you wrong made little sense, perhaps you could be a tad less cryptic.

[John Lovick]

I know you are, but what am I?

[Chris Aguilar]

Well John, then how about re-clarifying for me then?

Do you or do you not have a problem with the exhibit in question?

And if so, why?

[John Lovick]

You wanna know my opinion about the exhibition? Re-read my posts. They are crystal clear and make perfect sense.

My interaction with you began when I pointed out that a "right" you made up does not exist, and your response was: "Eh, so what?"

[Chris Aguilar]

John,

My response to you was equally clear when I addressed your rather pointless comment about "rights".

I'm fairly convinced that you and I define "censorship" so differently that discussion of it between us is pretty fruitless.

There are different definitions of censorship, but it only really makes sense if we are talking about government action.

There are dozens of works of art that are on display in this exhibition and MILLIONS that are not. The millions that were not chosen were not "censored". Choosing what works to include (and not include) is what curators do. It has nothing to do with censorship.

If, because of controversy or complaints, the "offensive" piece were now removed form the show, it would be unfortunate, but it would not be censorship.

I would also suggest that you re-read my initial responses to this.

But the upshot here, in case I wasn't clear, is that I can't take this seriously because when something is removed under duress (as normally is the case in these museum censorship issues) it most definitely fits the definition of censorship. The censorship in question still exists, but the curator is having it forced on him/her. It remains one group of people taking something out of circulation (that other groups might still enjoy) simply because it doesn't suit their sensibilities.

I made no claim that art not chosen for an exhibit constitutes "censorship", so that's a nice straw man that you're taking aim at there. I'm talking actual censorship, where something is on display and then forced to be removed (censored) because of pressure from people it might offend. This is akin to copies of "Huck Finn" being in libraries for years and then having some would be censor remove them from the shelves. Your analogy is frankly pretty apples/oranges.

Your mentioning censorship only making sense if it's "gov't action" seems like kind of an non-sequitur to me.

[Terrence]

No spoonerism of "Huck Finn" would ever hurt me -- the harm generated from naughty words seems mainly to be self inflicted.

[Bill McFadden]

Maybe it's because I live on the east coast, but the words, "Skirball Center" are as much fun to say as they are to read. Yeah, Skirball . . .

[Kevin Connolly]

Me too! And it's fun to play. I love rolling those wooden balls and watch the tickets come out. :grin:

[Jonathan Townsend]

There are few steps missing in the argument being made as regards the item in question.

You see the words "[censored] God" on a cartoon.
You imagine children.
You imagine some cognitive process happening in the children.
You imagine some affect/shift happening in the children.

Okay.

have you verified there is any such perception, affect response, shift in attitude or behavior based on this or similar stimuli?

Do we really need to remind folks that other mythologies have mortals having offspring with gods? I leave the syllogisms informed by Freud leading to the "social problem" (as he did put it) to those who've reached the age of reason.

One of my psych professors did work on "internal audiences" and manipulating internal audiences. For the curious - it's about recognizing what used to be shown on stage by a Greek Chorus.

[Chris Aguilar]

Jon,

It's my opinion that the whole "Please just think of the Children!" rationale is a often a convenient way for adults to project/promote their own biases.

[Jeff Eline]

It's my opinion that the whole "Please just think of the Children!" rationale is a often a convenient way for adults to project/promote their own biases.

But it's not the only rationale possible.

[Jonathan Townsend]

It's my opinion that the whole "Please just think of the Children!" rationale is a often a convenient way for adults to project/promote their own biases.

But it's not the only rationale possible.

For pity's sake - there is no limit to "possible" rationalizations.

Once you know you are rationalizing it's time to discuss, in private, with those who you trust to explore your motivations.

[David Byron]

(a) Curatorial discretion is not censorship, just as editorial discretion is not censorship. Folks who confuse selectivity with censorship (as happens repeatedly in this thread) fail to differentiate private acts from public ones (i.e., the deeds of a foundation in contrast to the deeds of a state).

Many works that might've been included in the show were excluded; were they therefore censored? Of course not. Thus, if this work had been excluded, it also wouldn't be a case of censorship.

(b) As an art historian, I found that some of the artistic works included in the show enhanced it, some detracted from it, and some made little difference to me. On the whole, a work that tries (in a somewhat 80s way) to be controversial or edgy or "challenging" by way of the intersection of vulgarity and blasphemy may have its place, but I find it hard to recognize how this show is that place. But then, it seems that any connection to Houdini, however tenuous or unimpressive, was deemed sufficient to bolster the case for his continuing cultural relevance.

Seems to me that the case for his continuing cultural relevance is weakened, not strengthened, by the whiff of desperation. Casting a wide net is one thing; shallow discrimination is another.

(c) That said, the conceptual piece involving a non-returned library book was brilliant in a late 60s/early 70s way. As one who depended in his youth on public libraries to feed a Houdini addiction, I could totally relate.

[David Byron]

But the upshot here, in case I wasn't clear, is that I can't take this seriously because when something is removed under duress (as normally is the case in these museum censorship issues) it most definitely fits the definition of censorship. The censorship in question still exists, but the curator is having it forced on him/her. It remains one group of people taking something out of circulation (that other groups might still enjoy) simply because it doesn't suit their sensibilities.

If you're in my living room, and you behave in a way that prompts several other guests to complain about you, and I eject you for this reason, that's not censorship; it's management, and it remains so even if two or three other guests were, inexplicably, delighted by your malfeasance.

It rises to the level of censorship if, and only if, you are deprived not merely of this venue for your antics but of any venue, and this not by social pressure but by official coercion.

When people talk an editor or a curator into revising his former judgment, that's not censorship; it's responsiveness in the open marketplace of freely flowing ideas. You're free to make controversial art (for any reason that pleases you); I'm free to display it, or to decline to display it, or both in that order (for any reason that pleases me).

Again: it is a fallacy to equate editorial/curatorial discretion with censorship regardless of the reasons for its exercise.

This is akin to copies of "Huck Finn" being in libraries for years and then having some would be censor remove them from the shelves. Your analogy is frankly pretty apples/oranges.

Wrong. Libraries are public, taxpayer-funded institutions. The discretion appropriate to a public agent, even in a library, is different from the discretion appropriate to a private agent.

Your mentioning censorship only making sense if it's "gov't action" seems like kind of an non-sequitur to me.

John's right. It appears that you simply haven't pondered the issue thoroughly.

[Kardova]

Thanks David & John: I must humbly confess and admit that my mind is less cluttered now than when I first entered this thread. Thanks again for the clarifications and succinctness of response.