Re: Talk of interest to visual studies folks (2 responses)

From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <[email protected]>

I agree with the solution that the answer to free speech is more  
speech, not
suppression. Anyone is welcome to point out the flaws/defects in the
original posting. But to appoint a moderator to suppress political  
views is
anathema to democratic and academic practice.

--------

From: jeffrey masko <[email protected]>

In response to Prof Shulte comments:

  As far as politically motivated murals, are we to say then that Diego
Rivera's murals should have been discounted because they were  
unabashedly
pro-union (and more)? What about the rest of the New Deal artwork,  
should
we begin removing them? Or are we going to use the criteria of abstract
aesthetic value to delimit that we find politically offensive?

Note the reduction of the objects into something not worthy: "Having
compared pictures of the murals to Taylor's other work, these murals are
lifeless and look like they were done by a 2nd year high school student
with some talent. They do not compare to her portraits, figuratives or
landscapes, which show her mature talent."  So what if it doesn't  
approach
her "mature" stage? Would the political message be more acceptable if  
the
formal qualities were up to the standards of Professor Schulte?  Who  
then
gets to choose what qualities and aesthetic achievements are appropriate
for the public?

Finally, I thought the day where the idea that art and politics can  
ever be
in isolation from each other had passed. The sheer fact that the murals
were commissioned by the Department of Labor should clearly point to the
political sphere that envelops such a project. Whether it is explicit
(Partisanship) or implicit (Neutral, meaning the influences and bias
encoded so as not to be superficially apparent), the political nature of
works of art, public or private cannot help be read within the text.

Jeffrey Masko