Astonishingly bad taste at the Skirball

[Chris Aguilar]

(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).

Well, strawman here on your part. I never claimed curatorial discretion to be censorship. I'm aware of (and have said) that they're distinct.

However, if the curator bows to a group of people wanting to keep something from another group of people contrary to their (the curator or potential viewers) original choice, then it's indeed censorship.

It doesn't matter if it comes from a curator being forced into it or if it's gov't action. Censorship is censorship.

All else is is semantic wrangling/wankery.

[Kardova]

All else is is semantic wrangling/wankery.

Wankery, ha, I like that word. Not all historians are wanks are they?

Just like magicians need patter to fill up dead time and justify their tricks, don't historians need something intelligent to say to write books and articles?

Is wankery and patter synonymous?

[Chris Aguilar]

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.

Well, no.

Your "all or nothing", black and white definition simply doesn't work for me.

Matters of practical access lend credence to the censorship argument. If the access is impeded (but not necessarily completely cut off) to the point that it's no longer practical (or sometimes even possible) for me to enjoy a certain work, then yes I'd say that's a form of censorship.

It would be like my saying, "Gee, I'm going to get that piece removed from a museum even though I know the author won't (or perhaps can't) easily display it elsewhere in so public a fashion. Clearly I would be disenfranchising some who would otherwise be able to enjoy the art. For the most part, I've removed (and pretty much censored) their ability to access the art in a practical way. And once again, this isn't about curators desires, But rather about one group controlling what another group can see or hear based on some sort of ideology.

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.

It's caving to pressure from a certain group because a portion of one's audience can't handle certain material.

It's one group telling another group "Hey we don't like this, so we're going to restrict your access to it". It's not what the curator thinks that's important to me but rather final result.

Often these would be censors don't even see the piece in question, but simply ask for its removal on ideological grounds. Sometimes it's a tiny (but often very loud) group that gets material removed that might be acceptable to those in the majority who perhaps do not shout as loudly.

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

Again, I did not, no matter how much some might wish to flog that particular scarecrow.

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.

Disagree. I don't care about agencies, taxpayer money, etc. here. I'm making the point that removal of access is often censorship (no matter what tortuous rationalization is given to imply otherwise).

Huck Finn is (to me) a valued part of our culture, a classic that I think should be part of just about anyone's education. A kids parents might never take them to the library or bookstore. They might never run across it otherwise. Their best chance of exposure to this classic might be at school. To remove that sort of easy access is censorship to me no matter how you (or others) prefer to wank around and flog semantics.

Talk of government agencies, taxpayers money, private/public agents, curators/blah blah is just a way of avoiding the actual topic.

[Richard Kaufman]

Now that everyone has had their say, discussion of censorship is FINISHED. Please.

[Jim Maloney]

Wait. Are you censoring our discussion of censorship?!? ;)

-Jim

[David Byron]

if the curator bows to a group of people wanting to keep something from another group of people contrary to their (the curator or potential viewers) original choice, then it's indeed censorship.

If the access is impeded (but not necessarily completely cut off) to the point that it's no longer practical (or sometimes even possible) for me to enjoy a certain work, then yes I'd say that's a form of censorship.

Nonsense (for the reason explained below).

this isn't about curators desires, But rather about one group controlling what another group can see or hear based on some sort of ideology.

Consider two cases

(A): For ideological reasons, a group persuades a curator to reverse her decision to include Artwork Alpha in a show.
(B): For ideological reasons, a group boycotts a shoe manufacturer until it reverses the decision to market its latest sweatshop-produced sneaker in Baltimore.

Action (a) is persuasion by discourse. Action (b) is persuasion by discourse plus boycott.

The latter is significantly more forceful than the former: (a) is persuasion by reasoned expression of opinions; (b) is persuasion by expression coupled with economically salient action.

Do you regard boycotts as censorship? The boycott is a paradigmatic case of free expression in the marketplace of ideas and direct action to produce change. If a boycott is not censorship, how must less would mere verbal persuasion be censorship?

See, Chris, your error is that you're trying to hook the definition of "censorship" to the question of whether the curator takes action under pressure. You're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you insist that you honor curatorial discretion (saying "I never claimed curatorial discretion to be censorship. I'm aware of (and have said) that they're distinct."). However, you also want to call an exercise in curatorial discretion "censorship" if it's a response to external persuasion.

In other words, you're pro-choice right up to the moment of conception. Once the show has been fertilized, the curator is not allowed to abort it. Discretion gives way to some absolute factor that (in your mind) trumps the curator's freedom.

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.

It's caving to pressure from a certain group because a portion of one's audience can't handle certain material.

When faced with further pertinent argumentation, an open-minded person is open to changing his mind. Why do you oppose revising one's views on further reflection? If the curator is sincere in regarding the change as warranted, why does that count as "caving" in your view, when the exact same decision on the part of the curator before opening night would (as you grant) fall within the scope of her discretion?

Why do you oppose freedom and choice?

One possibility is that you imagine that the public has a right at stake. Perhaps once the show has opened, the public is entitled to see whatever the curator put in that show (before being stripped of his discretion ;) ). In that case, the curator would have a corresponding duty to support that right rather than thwart it.

I do not know whether you hold such a view, although it would go far toward explaining why you think removing something from a show could count as "disenfranchising some who would otherwise be able to enjoy the art".

In any event, this is clearly nonsense (except in relation to state agencies) for precisely the reason mentioned earlier in the thread-- the reason you labeled semantic wankery: you, a member of the public, enjoy no such right. You don't have a right to govern the artist's conscience, and you don't have a right to govern the curator's conscience. You lack this right up to the moment of (artistic or curatorial) conception; you continue to lack this right after that juncture.

(If it were a show sustained by your tax dollars, then perhaps you'd have such a right, although even that case is by no means clear.)

If some group (say, an ideological faction) differs in opinion from you, and manages to persuade a curator to change her mind, you want to label this "censorship". In the spirit of freedom, choice, and expression, why would you not, instead, counter the groups discourse with discourse of your own and attempt to dissuade the curator from revising her decision?

The fact that someone disagrees with you about what a show should include does not make that person a censor. The fact that a curator might disagree with you about the merits of that objection does not make the curator a censor. And the fact that your views, rather than those you oppose, might prevail in open debate does not make you (vis-a-vis your adversaries) a censor.

It's one group telling another group "Hey we don't like this, so we're going to restrict your access to it". It's not what the curator thinks that's important to me but rather final result.

So? Why do you assume that you (or anyone) enjoys a right to have access to that artwork in that venue at that time?

Hey, I think I'll declare that we all have a right to see the Grim Game. Now that we all enjoy this right ex cathedra, shall we storm the Weeks household and overturn his discretion? (Of course not; we answer with discourse while granting the right to make decisions with which we disagree!)

Often these would be censors don't even see the piece in question, but simply ask for its removal on ideological grounds.

So? Nearly everything worth doing is done with an ideological inflection -- including the act of opposing (or even the act of misunderstanding) censorship!

Sometimes it's a tiny (but often very loud) group that gets material removed that might be acceptable to those in the majority who perhaps do not shout as loudly.

If they care, then what prevents them from expressing that fact by shouting loudly? If they're not shouting loudly enough to be persuasive, why suppose they care?

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

Again, I did not, no matter how much some might wish to flog that particular scarecrow.

As shown above, you (a) grant curatorial discretion for the sake of lip service, but (b) neutralize it as soon as the show opens, so that the curator's decisions are effectively immune to revision. Sorry-- no clear thinker is going to buy that line.

I don't care about agencies, taxpayer money, etc. here. I'm making the point that removal of access is often censorship (no matter what tortuous rationalization is given to imply otherwise).

"Censorship" should not be defined as "making choices with which I disagree". The choice to remove access is unconstrained, unless you envision some "right to access" that it contravenes. What is that right, and where does it come from?

Talk of government agencies, taxpayers money, private/public agents, curators/blah blah is just a way of avoiding the actual topic.

Accusing others of avoiding the topic -- a rhetorical tactic to which you've repeatedly resorted -- has little persuasive value. In truth, the relevant distinctions and pertinent argument are on display, and you have (thus far) failed to rebut them.

Here's another opportunity.

[David Byron]

Now that everyone has had their say, discussion of censorship is FINISHED. Please.

Sorry. I replied to the message above yours before encountering yours.

Pity this forum isn't deemed an appropriate place for such a discussion.

[Chris Aguilar]

I will respect Richard's wishes (unlike Mr. Byron) and forgo any detailed reply. (Especially the sort of annoyingly long "point by point" rebuttal that others have rightly criticized me for in the past).

However, I will note that I continue to find Byron's take (posted conveniently nearly two hours after RK asked for no more discussion and then weakly explained away) completely unconvincing as he continues to repetitively flog and depend on (rather anal) semantics, bad analogies and straw man slaying to the point that logic and common sense get tossed out the door.

Peace.

[Dustin Stinett]

Ive forgotten what the argument was aboutoh wait, now I got it.

There is this picture at an art exhibit

You know, Richard goes bonkersand rightfully sowhen we are at Disneyland and I let an F-Bomb or some other colorful but unnecessary metaphor drop. After all, there are little ones all over the place. But, unlike a museum or art exhibit where an adult can control what their little ones see, they have no control over what spews forth from my gutter-mouth (inherited from my sainted mother who could make a truck driver blush). Only I can control that and I should. And its not censorship: its just common decency.

Let thy conscience be thy guide.

Dustin

[Naphtalia]

I've volunteered as a docent at a museum that was largely marketed to families. My mother continues to act as a docent at the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana.

I think someone planning a school trip or a parent planning a family outing should be provided with advanced information that some material may be offensive or inappropriate for certain groups.

Let the art stay, but let those bringing groups know.

When I gave tours, it was not possible to show groups every item. I chose those on which I wanted to concentrate. I sometimes gave different tours depending on the audience.

The issue to me is not about inappropriate art, but lack of communication about content.

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, now ... perhaps we can return to a discussion about the exhibit.

[magicam]

I haven't yet seen the exhibit, including the artwork in question, so can only go on what I've read here and on the Skirball website.

The Skirball website has this to say as part of its promotion of the Houdini exhibit (bolded text is my emphasis):

Featuring more than 150 objectsincluding film clips, stunning period posters, dramatic theater ephemera, rare photographs, original props (including a straitjacket, milk can, and Metamorphosis Trunk used by Houdini), and the work of select avant-garde artiststhe exhibition reveals Houdinis legacy as an iconic figure, both in his time and in ours, who has inspired artists today to reconsider his role as a daring persona.

Since the work of avant-garde artists was explicitly contemplated as a part of the exhibit, the obvious defense to cries of poor taste etc. about Pettibon's art is that such criticisms are often leveled at avant garde artwork, so to the critics the message would be get over it!

IMHO, however, everything has a context. Pat Culliton has noted that the brochure has a beaming curly blond eight year old girl taking up a third of the front page, as she enters the Skirball to 'See the Magic.' If that's the case, then I do see a disconnect between the appeal to a segment of the target market and the Raymond Pettibon rendering at least by my standards. I also see that the Houdini exhibit is part of at least two promotions which are included in the For Families portion of the website. Perhaps this is only a minor problem, but it's an issue nonetheless and goes to the heart of an institution's raison d'tre. Along those lines, here is the link to the Philosophy of the Skirball, which is presumably its raison d'tre: http://www.skirball.org/general-info/ph ... e-skirball. Critics and supporters alike can read it and judge for themselves how well the Skirball has followed its own precepts with the Houdini exhibit.

But my primary objection to Pettibon's art isn't based on its appropriateness for a family-oriented exhibit. It's based on the perception that his artwork simply doesn't belong in the exhibit, on virtually every level that I can imagine. If his piece is supposed to be avant-garde or if he fancies himself an avant-garde artist, I question whether it really is avant-garde and just how creative Pettibon really is. Newsflash to Mr. Pettibon: using "F%%k God" in your artwork is not avant garde it's been done for a long time and countless times before you. B O R I N G. This is your idea of being creative? Of pushing new boundaries in art? No sir, this is (to use another French phrase) de rigueur for controversial art, which is anathema to the very essence of avant garde. Yawn

Moreover, assuming Houdini is supposed to be represented in Pettibon's drawing, I question the relevance of Houdini's use of that specific phrase. Here, it may be unfair to criticize Pettibon, because I'm not sure he created that piece specifically for the Houdini exhibit. Instead, perhaps the criticism should be aimed at the folks who designed the exhibit, and they should be asked, is that really characteristic of Houdini? It's certainly not, based on all that I've read about Houdini. I'm all for new ways of interpreting or understanding historic figures -- even "avant garde" ways -- and in fact that seems to be one of the goals in this exhibit, to reconsider [Houdini's] role as a daring persona. But whatever deep artistic or interpretive arguments can be made about Houdini's propensities to defy God with his escapes, wouldn't it have been far more clever to convey that concept in a manner which is consistent with Houdini's personality?

In summary, I question the inclusion of Pettibon's piece because it seems to have been put there with little thought about Houdini's character or the purposes of the exhibit about him, other than perhaps for purposes of shock value. But really, the shocking part is that Pettibon's work was apparently judged the best piece of art to convey its message whatever that was.

P.S. It's lovely to read all the abstract arguments about censorship on this thread, but of course anyone who is actually familiar with the history and primary contextual meaning of censorship understands that censorship has little to do with the debate about whether or not Pettibon's piece belongs in the Houdini exhibit. And that's all I'll say on that.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I agree with magicam about the inappropriateness of including that work when marketing to children. As with showing the old cartoon of "Houdini's first escape" - IMHO it's irresponsible to put shock/adult content out for unguided children. If they wanted to add the work to the tour perhaps it could be either discussed or passed over as the tour guide saw suitable for the group but to invite children to see works unattended where they don't have the background to even put the material into context seems disrespectful to the audience. IMHO what we're discussing is not censorship but a simple matter of presentation.

I'll leave matters of creativity, novelty in art and the "avante guarde" as being outside the basic concern of this discussion.

Even South Park is shown with a disclaimer and not during primetime.

[Burt Sperber]

THE ART IN QUESTION IS BEEN DOWN TWO DAYS LOTS OF GREAT STUFF ONLY ONE BAD FOR 100s GREAT THINGS NOT BAD

[Jonathan Townsend]

Burt, it's not a matter of "bad" - just (IMHO) without obvious merit for target audience.