Tumbling Woman?

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Life is more important than art and love stronger than hate.

Everyone cannot have everything. Maybe artists' rights to express themselves are not really all that important. As Monet said, "...we are after all, just craftsmen."

[Timothy C. Tyler]

If I stated how I feel about this, yet another outrage in the name of art without exerting some self-censorship, I would be disallowed to be part of this Forum. Is this a form of censorship? Obviously.

Yet we here very carefully and politely defend others' holy right to say whatever they want however they want.

[Steven Sweeney]

[QUOTE]You can have Fischl; I

[Michael Fournier]

Just for clarity, I did not say if the Fischl statue was removed it was censorship. Only if it was forced to be destroyed or was stopped from being created. But if the owners of the Rockefeller center felt they wanted to put this piece on display in their lobby forever, it would be well within their rights to do so. And forcing them to remove it would be censorship.

Even if I choose to make a public statement, as long as I don't ask for public funding or support, it most definitley is censorship to stop me.

Now here is clearly a case were many feel offended or disturbed by a image that they feel disrespects the memory of those who died on September 11th. And I agree the right to object to its public display is as equally protected as the artist's right to create it. And in this case it may serve no greater good to disturb us but that is not always the case. And who is to decide?

There are many governments around the world who have been given the ability to censor words and ideas and the free expression of artists, and it is a much worse evil in my opinion. What if this was a piece of art to bring attention to a lynching of a black man in the southern US during segregation and it was allowed to be censored because the majority were too disturbed by its image, or wanted to deny the act it depicted ever happened?

Or if it was a piece of art to bring public attention to a act of genocide in Bosnia. By the way, there is a movement that is claiming all such acts never happened even though we have photos of mass graves. Now who is to make the distinction between a display of photos of mass graves in Bosnia that brings world attention to persecution of Bosnian Muslims, and a statue we feel is in bad taste?

Sometimes a majority can use censorship to oppress views, that if brought out, could have a positive outcome, even if the message used is a disturbing one. We often do not want to see the dark side of human nature but at times seeing it in all its horror can open one's eyes to what we would rather choose to ignore. I do not like Fischl's statue as a memorial, or even feel it truly represents the horror of that day, since without any caption, it would not have any meaning beyond a nude tumbling woman. But do I feel we should stop all art that is deemed disturbing? Or limit art only to subjects that depict the beauty in the world? No. That would be far worse then the disruption caused by Fischl's statue.

We all know the horror of Sept. 11th now because we were here to see it happen live on national TV or in person in NY. But what of people 100 years from now? Will they know people jumped to their deaths because the fire was so hot it drove them to the broken windows to leap? In the light of history will the events of Sept. 11th still loom as a huge tragedy? Yes. Even one life is precious and 3,000 lives is a tragedy but in comparison to the mass deaths in history, the death tolls in the major wars, it is not a huge number.

Of US Servicemen alone, it pales in comparison.
Civil War Battle deaths: Union army 140,414
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (Union) 224,097
World War I 53,402 non-battle deaths: 63,114
World War II battle deaths: 291,557
Other deaths in service: 113,842
Vietnam War battle deaths: 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater): 10,788
America's Wars Total battle deaths since revolution: 650,954

And by comparison the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has stayed between 16,000 and 17,000 annually since 1994. And In the past 10 years 250,000 people have died in alcohol-related accidents. Now that makes 3,000 seem pretty small. No disrespect intended, for I feel even one senseless or preventable death is one too many. But maybe this disturbing reminder is really needed so history will not forget those who leaped to their deaths on Sept. 11th? After all, how often do you think about how many have died because someone had one for the road? If we can forget 17,000 deaths a year when we decide to drive after maybe one too many, maybe history does need a reminder of the horror of 3,000 deaths like this statue? I don't know, but maybe once in a while we need to be disturbed and feel the horrors of life to appreciate the beauty when we see it.

[Jim Riley]

Censorship?

I'm missing something! Who has imposed or suggested any form of obvious "censorship"in this Forum while, at the same time, defending the right of others to say what they wish? There seems to be a contradiction here. I for one would hope that short of bad behavior, language, or the like, participants should be able to present their full arguement. I can handle it.

I like Monet's quote: "we are after all, just craftsmen". It is my belief that so to are Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, and most all professions for that matter. And conversely, as Mr. Henri suggested in my earlier post, "art is the province of all human beings". Why suggest that "an artist rights to express themselves are not really all that important"? My training as an artist served me very well in the corporate world where my opinions were given more than fair consideration. As fine artists, I would hope that each of us would do our best to bring a larger perspective to events large or small and even tragic.

The observation that a public display of art/sculpture gains a differing response than a piece introduced in a gallery/museum is interesting. The response to Fischl's work of course was immediate and comes from a public grouping not predisposed to weigh its intent or value. On the other hand it does seem to be the advantage of major public works that it does reach many more than the relatively small numbers of people who visit our sometimes musty archives known as museums.

[Marvin Mattelson]

In our society each of us has the right to communicate (freedom of speech). This means that an artist is free to produce anything he desires and call it a work of art. It also means I have the freedom to bemoan the lack of intelligence it demonstrates and call it a piece of garbage or worse. I can also deride those who admire, praise, commission or buy the garbage. I also have the right to define what I think should be called art. Anything less would be censorship.

The fact that Fischl is now a household name just goes to prove my original point: if you can

[Michael Fournier]

Yes, Marvin you're right; I did not intend that anyone was wrong in not liking Fischl's statue. A big part of free speech is being able to voice your opinion for or against. I personally don't love it ether. And if it was not for its context I would not even give it much thought ether way. But In I also feel many hate it more for its context then its design. Rodin's work was no more defined or detailed then this statue; it is the implied meaning of a falling woman from the tower that is the problem, not the style of the piece.

[Lon Haverly]

If he has a right to display it, we have a right to say it stinks. I think we should define the world by our beliefs. Why do people abandon their beliefs? I do not expect or require anyone to agree with me. But I do not compromise my values for the sake of being intellectually acceptable.

[Chantal Sulkow]

I don't think this has anything to do with censorship. I haven't even had an opportunity to see a good enough photo of the statue to know if I absolutely don't like it, based on artistic quality or merit alone (though, so far, I don't care for it). Most people are traumatized by the television images of people jumping from the towers, so a statue of a victim on impact would be equally traumatic, not to mention too grotesque and violent for a young child to look at.

People go to specific places to mourn. Last year a gallery in New York opened temporarily displaying photos and videos from the 11th. Each image was extremely disturbing, but each person viewing the photos made a choice to go inside and deal with what they saw. Regardless of whether I like the statue, it may have a place in a different setting - just not in public where people who lost loved ones on 9/11 pass on the way to work every day.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

I totally agree.

If you want a license to do anything today- just declare yourself an artist.

Someone recently pointed out that people cutting music CD's are artists, people putting junk into speciman jars are artists, movie scriptwriters are artists, people digging holes in museums floors are artists. The only people who are still not artists these days are illustrators-yikes!

Then, once you become a holy artist everyone must allow you to do anything because creativity is sacred. I happen to think that woodworkers and florist are creative. Why are these people so well behaved? Maybe they didn't learn as art majors how important their creative impulses were.