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

From: "Siegel, Andrea" <[email protected]>

Hi:

I think this says it nicely,

http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/2011/11/09/censored-maine-muralist-visits-jersey-city/

Again, sorry about the use of the words "Bonehead" and "Tea Party"...   
And thanks to the folks who stood up for free speech.

All best,

Andrea

-------
From: "Paul Schulte" <[email protected]>

In response to Professor Chakravorty:

Because of the length of your response, I decided to put my answer after
each of your questions or comments.


1. Is a work about history not inherently historical? Or if you'd  
prefer in
this instance, a mode of visual historiography?

Interesting point.  Would you say that The Birth of a Nation is  
history when it first came out?

2. Expressly political entities have long been involved, often in
complicated fashion, with art in all forms: see Dziga Vertov's work, for
example. In America, the impact of the Code on American cinema can  
hardly be
overstated. Mere involvement of a political organ such as a labor  
union does
not appear to me a reason to overlook the work of art involved.

First, The Code was not from the government but from self-regulation  
within the industry.  I will agree that it was created to head off  
government regulation. Previously local or state entities had censored  
films.  And with the Code, some of the greatest films in America were  
made.  Citizen Kane is often the best or next to the best film on  
lists of top films ever, yet it was made under the Code.

3. The artist's choice of pro-union work is worth discussing...why? Is  
an
artist/artistic entity not free to choose their subject?

He who pays the piper calls the tune.  I have no problem with the  
subject matter if the artist was working on her own or being paid by  
the SEIU, but when the tax payers pay for a mural on the history of  
labor, the majority of that labor is NOT union.

4. Even if the Dept. of Labor ought to represent 'labor' per se, I still
don't see the problem with hosting a work of art that shows solidarity  
with
unions. Are unions not a part of labor?

See my previous answer.

5. Arguing that a pro-union mural violates "neutrality" seems a bit  
vague.
See my previous point. If unions were not an intrinsic part of labor  
as a
concept, then yes, it would have no place on the premises.

The European history of Maine goes back to 1524.  The organized labor  
movement doesn't get rolling until the early 20th century.  To be  
generous, the history of unionized labor would be 1/3 of the labor  
history of Maine and therefore should be represented on 3 of the 9  
panels, not 5.  What those other unionized panels takes away from is  
other labor history of Maine.

Since it is, I don't see how it favors one sub-set over another. Would  
you
argue that a school where social diversity as a concept is emphasized  
in a
mural is enacting some form of reverse-racism?

I do not understand this statement.  I am sure you know what you mean,  
but I am confused. :)

6. The governor, in removing it, performed an explicit act intersecting
political power versus the work of art. The issues are very much
inter-related, as one becomes a response to the other.

The mural was paid for with public funds.  The governor did not agree  
with the politicized content of the murals and had them moved/removed  
(there seems to be some question as to whether they have actually been  
moved or not).  At least two articles I read said the murals were  
being moved to another place in the capital, but would still be on  
display.  Part of the problem seems to be if the governor has the  
power to have them moved/removed at all.

7. Yes, the dismissive word "bonehead" should not have been used.
However, academics are human beings, and as such, they have opinions  
just
like other people do. It is surely inappropriate to leak such personal
opinions into a professional exchange, but I do not think the author  
should
be condemned for the mere fact of having an opinion in the first place.

I am not condemning the author, but it should not have been used.   
However it was and it was used in a method akin to shouting fire in a  
theater.

8. I think that's a fairly large stretch. I don't think the naming of an
organization in and of itself constitutes a political act. I could  
point out
that your own broad-brush statement, "majority of academics are liberal"
similarly constitutes a pejorative/political voice.

Academics self-report as liberals over 3-1.  That makes liberals at  
least 75% of academia.

9-10. Valid.

11. As far as I'm aware, nobody affiliated with the Obama administration
went out of their way to exert their political apparatus onto a work  
of art.
However, your point seems to suggest that the fact that the campaign  
invited
artistic submissions is itself an issue worth discussion. This seems
somewhat pointless, as we already are aware that political organs and  
art
have always coexisted.  Therefore, a particular political faction  
requesting
support from artists seems hardly a novel concept.

There was a scandal early in the Obama administration in which lower  
level members of the administration tried to get artists at all levels  
to help them with their programming.  Kal Penn of Harold and Kumar  
infamy had his hot little hand in this. If you are unaware of the  
effort, the Obama administration wanted artists to make films, insert  
spots in TV episodes, create art, etc. that supported programs that  
Obama wanted.  Some of this actually occurred.  Of course, the  
administration would not pay for it, like a corporate sponsor would.   
Think of it as free product placement. Some of this will be coming to  
screen near you between now and November 2012.

Paul Schulte