I really have no words for how blatantly and vacuously you have failed to understand the message of this art. Oh wait, it's "art". This reminds me of a blogger I once read who was criticizing Lord of the Flies for a negative portrayal of fat people. Turns out literalists aren't very good at interpreting art.

I think it does exactly what good art is supposed to do. We aren't supposed to go "oh, what a pretty picture." Art is supposed to touch something human, start a dialogue, a really good piece is political, social, and human all at the same time.

I think it does exactly what good art is supposed to do. We aren't supposed to go "oh, what a pretty picture." Art is supposed to touch something human, start a dialogue, a really good piece is political, social, and human all at the same time.

I remember Rudy Giuliani closing down an art exhibit that featured a work that many Catholics found insulting. He was widely criticized on First Amendment grounds, as well as having no artistic bone in his body.

I am unsure if this exhibit flirts to dangerously close to incitement to violence, which would be a legitimate reason to shut it down as opposed to mere political distaste, but I am wary of censorship in any form.

I believe that the best response to objectionable speech is more speech (from the opposing point of view) rather than less speech.

But I no fan of art which is exploitative, either.

david

I really have no words for how blatantly and vacuously you have failed to understand the message of this art. Oh wait, it's "art". This reminds me of a blogger I once read who was criticizing Lord of the Flies for a negative portrayal of fat people. Turns out literalists aren't very good at interpreting art.

And do we need to grab a dictionary for you so you can look up the different definitions between "assassination" and "character assassination"?

Whoa, those are some awful pieces of "art." I don't see how they're anything other than the large scale portrayal of offensive stereotypes. Ugh.

*goes to scrub eyes*

Whoa, those are some awful pieces of "art." I don't see how they're anything other than the large scale portrayal of offensive stereotypes. Ugh.

*goes to scrub eyes*

That is really messed up. How can anyone seriously put this up in a public place and call it art? It is very very dehumanizing. The noose is a symbol of hate and they seem to glorify it. The giant penises and the "Once you go Barrack...." it's all really really offensive. Calling little girls nappy headed hoes is terrible. While all of this is offensive he has the right to freedom of speech as do we but what he is doing is just slander. It's sad that people call that art!

When will everyone learn that feeding people's basest bigotries back to them isn't thought-provoking? The images shown from this exhibit are hateful and hurtful.

Imus had said (and allowed to be said) a lot of racist and sexist shit before the Rutgers comment; it was only the work of Coach Stringer that put this in the spotlight.

Therefore, the picture of Senator Obama's daughters is a juxtaposition; they are about (God willing) to occupy the White House in a country where a large percentage of the population listens to and defends Imus.

In short, I am not a fan of the critique proffered in the main post.

Tofu.mon.amour...

It's a good message - I think it's important to address and discuss the racism and sexism in the media surrounding the current election.

But the artist went about this all wrong. How is labeling Obama's children "nappy headed hos" sending a positive message? The artist claims that he was reflecting how the media is portraying these political figures, but I cannot recall once seeing major media channels calling Obama's children "nappy headed hos." So where is this phrase coming from? Because it certainly has not been "portrayed in the media" like he claims.

Also, I understand it was about character assassination, but the artist did not clarify that on the front of the building that he held his exhibit in. It simply said, "The assassination of..." And the word "assassination" is extremely scary to a lot of people, especially during the current election when a black man and a woman are in the spotlight. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I have to wonder if he even stopped and thought about how this would make others feel.

GOOD art shouldn't rely solely on shock factor or invoking fear in people. a GOOD artist doesn't have to throw out scary words and paint giant black penises to get a message across. GOOD art makes you think about the message behind it... but what does this do? It offends people. It outrages them. It perpetuates stereotypes that he claims came from the "media" but really came from his own head. He claims that there's a deeper message behind this, but I don't see it.

When will everyone learn that feeding people's basest bigotries back to them isn't thought-provoking? The images shown from this exhibit are hateful and hurtful.

Tofu.mon.amour...

It's a good message - I think it's important to address and discuss the racism and sexism in the media surrounding the current election.

But the artist went about this all wrong. How is labeling Obama's children "nappy headed hos" sending a positive message? The artist claims that he was reflecting how the media is portraying these political figures, but I cannot recall once seeing major media channels calling Obama's children "nappy headed hos." So where is this phrase coming from? Because it certainly has not been "portrayed in the media" like he claims.

Also, I understand it was about character assassination, but the artist did not clarify that on the front of the building that he held his exhibit in. It simply said, "The assassination of..." And the word "assassination" is extremely scary to a lot of people, especially during the current election when a black man and a woman are in the spotlight. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I have to wonder if he even stopped and thought about how this would make others feel.

GOOD art shouldn't rely solely on shock factor or invoking fear in people. a GOOD artist doesn't have to throw out scary words and paint giant black penises to get a message across. GOOD art makes you think about the message behind it... but what does this do? It offends people. It outrages them. It perpetuates stereotypes that he claims came from the "media" but really came from his own head. He claims that there's a deeper message behind this, but I don't see it.

sorry but i'm with tofu.mon.amour here. art is supposed to start a dialogue and this one does. the artist is making a statement about the treatment of the candidates in the media with regard to race and gender. these images are SUPPOSED to disgust you. it's shocking, yes, but i also think it can provoke a meaningful discussion of these issues. i think maybe a lot of commenters here either don't see a lot of contemporary art, are interpreting this from far too literal a viewpoint or both.

i think that it is really hateful and hurtful, but i think that is the point. it actually does come from the media, amy - he is referring to the Rutgers/Imus incident and connecting that to political character assassination. the artist is showing that calling black women on a basketball team hateful terms - which maybe people have defended - is no different from calling innocent, beautiful young children those same hateful terms. it is meant to shock and shame Don Imus, who first said it, as well as the people who justified his words. the image hurts to see - but i think the artist wants people to hurt as they look at it and to think twice before they shamelessly slander political figures and their families based on race and gender. "feeding people's bases bigotries back to them" by showing the implications of those bigotries - especially when they haven't thought them through - can actually be very thought-provoking.
at the same time, i hate to think of how those kids would feel to see this. i know they will have to face a lot of racism in their life, and certainly already have, but such strong terms applied to children is so painful. i guess that is the artist's point. and it has certainly succeeded in drawing outrage, which was undoubtedly the idea.

If good art is supposed to touch you then this is just that. I looked at the picture of his kids and the label and cried. I am not a teary flake. That picture made me incredibly sad.
good art but what a price. They are kids for God's sake.
Incredibly sad....

The first ammendment has it's limits.

What kind of dialogue is this supposed to incite? A gigantic penis is art now? Calling children "nappy headed ho's" is art? Nooses are art? What isn't art then?

I don't know what the artist's intent was, but he went to far. Perhaps, of course, that was the intent. If this exibit had not been shut down, would as many people be talking about it right now?

Maybe he intended to incite outrage, but it's too dangerous to try to predict people's reactions to work like this.

The artist has very definitely failed here in that the message and context are so unclear. I looked at those images unable to decide if the artist is reducing obama to black stereotypes, or trying to criticize the media for reducing to stereotypes. His comments seem to make me think he intended the latter, but he obviously failed to make that point coherently enough, so it really comes off as him just doing the stereotyping himself.

Basically, he either sucks because he's a bigot, or he just sucks really bad as an artist.

This is the thing about art- what is it exactly? or what isn't it? I took this particular exhibit as a satire- I believe it was meant to be a satire. Of course it's going to be over the top and offensive- most satires are. I think this exhibit is largely misunderstood from what I've seen posted here.

There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" art. If you try to stop what you think is bad art you're not only supressing free speech but also supressing art. Next thing you know they'll be stopping feminist artists that use mestrual blood. And since shock values = bad (apparently) then tough luck for anyone who makes and or enjoys shock oriented art. If you don't like it then don't go see it. It's that easy.

I'm actually kind of surprised by this post. I feel there's a big "missing the point" going on here.

I understand that this is art and I do think he is trying to make an interesting point here...Barack Obama is a public figure, and free speech is free speech. but...putting his young daughters up there with that headline just seems really crossing the line. They're just kids. I dont know, but personally it offends me.

sorry but i'm with tofu.mon.amour here. art is supposed to start a dialogue and this one does. the artist is making a statement about the treatment of the candidates in the media with regard to race and gender. these images are SUPPOSED to disgust you. it's shocking, yes, but i also think it can provoke a meaningful discussion of these issues. i think maybe a lot of commenters here either don't see a lot of contemporary art, are interpreting this from far too literal a viewpoint or both.

Also, consider the title: Character Assassination of: Obama/Clinton. He has already stated his focus- he wants to illuminate what the media has done to both of these candidates. His images and subject matter are racy and tasteless- he goes to the lengths the media wish it could go to. The media has been public enemy number one in this election cycle, when it was always meant to be the defender of democracy. I think his exhibit is an excellent commentary on the degradation of our media and free press and what we can expect in the future if we don't stand up and demand change.

jro, well put!

Um, whoever is complaining about this art being offensive has not been exposed to five minutes of the NYC art scene. Huge black penises? Yawn. Murder? How passe. Juxtaposition of childhood and profanity? Might pass for profound in high school, but otherwise is pretty toothless. There's so many worse (real) things out there to be offended by that one crazy broke-ass "artist" is not going to get the job done for me, no matter what taboos his images violate.

Still, just because the art is schlocky at best is no reason to call the thought police. Once you start saying people shouldn't write "assassination" on a wall, then you get people being arrested for using the word "bomb" at the airport, for being Wyclef Jean and/or for distributing anarchist punk rock show flyers.

Art doesn't have to be good to be protected by the 1st Amendment. Art isn't "supposed" to do anything. Artists don't have to be good people who care about other people's feelings, and usually, they aren't. I don't have to like, say, a statue of the Virgin Mary covered with excrement, but if it's being presented as a result of the artistic process, then it counts as being worthy of subjective appreciation. Just because you or I don't have that appreciation doesn't mean it should be shut down.

And BTW, those stereotypes do come from the media. How many times has the nappy headed hos thing been reported? Whether or not stereotypes also inhabit the artist's head is irrelevant. The point of the 1st Amendment is not to allow only clean scrubbed PC minds to express themselves, but any filth that exists.

Hooray for filth, and feminism, and scary words, and stupid art, and the people who are outraged by it.

Um, whoever is complaining about this art being offensive has not been exposed to five minutes of the NYC art scene. Huge black penises? Yawn. Murder? How passe. Juxtaposition of childhood and profanity? Might pass for profound in high school, but otherwise is pretty toothless. There's so many worse (real) things out there to be offended by that one crazy broke-ass "artist" is not going to get the job done for me, no matter what taboos his images violate.

Still, just because the art is schlocky at best is no reason to call the thought police. Once you start saying people shouldn't write "assassination" on a wall, then you get people being arrested for using the word "bomb" at the airport, for being Wyclef Jean and/or for distributing anarchist punk rock show flyers.

Art doesn't have to be good to be protected by the 1st Amendment. Art isn't "supposed" to do anything. Artists don't have to be good people who care about other people's feelings, and usually, they aren't. I don't have to like, say, a statue of the Virgin Mary covered with excrement, but if it's being presented as a result of the artistic process, then it counts as being worthy of subjective appreciation. Just because you or I don't have that appreciation doesn't mean it should be shut down.

And BTW, those stereotypes do come from the media. How many times has the nappy headed hos thing been reported? Whether or not stereotypes also inhabit the artist's head is irrelevant. The point of the 1st Amendment is not to allow only clean scrubbed PC minds to express themselves, but any filth that exists.

Hooray for filth, and feminism, and scary words, and stupid art, and the people who are outraged by it.

Persephone - the first amendment does have limits, and suppressing art is DEFINITELY not one of them.

CalliopeJane - What are we supposed to say to this? The meaning of this exhibition isn't at all unclear, and the picture posted at the top of this page should send your irony radar shooting off the charts.

A lot of people here have commented that this exhibit is nothing more than a racist artist's glorification of stereotypes. Even if this is true (which it clearly isn't), discussion of stereotypes is much more complicated than "we need to ignore them". Racial AND sexual stereotypes have some basis in reality and the only way to come to terms with them is to start a discussion on it. Irony, even if it is "shocking", is an excellent way to begin that discourse.

>>

um, well, jasper johns, robert rauschenberg (r.i.p!) and marcel duchamp taught us all that the THING or the representation of the thing isn't the art, but instead the thought of the object created/appropriated by the artist. therefore, yes, this is art. (now, whether or not it's interesting, thought-provoking, ground-breaking...all of that is up for debate—however, no one's talking about that).

this is such elementary art theory/visual culture. as an art lover and creative person, i am finding these critiques merely one step above "my kid could fingerpaint that!" in their level of intellectualism. why the artistically uneducated find it no problem at all to declare "THIS ISN'T ART!" is beyond me....after all, i don't go around saying "THAT ISN'T BRAIN SURGERY!"

>>

um, well, jasper johns, robert rauschenberg (r.i.p!) and marcel duchamp taught us all that the THING or the representation of the thing isn't the art, but instead the thought of the object created/appropriated by the artist. therefore, yes, this is art. (now, whether or not it's interesting, thought-provoking, ground-breaking...all of that is up for debate—however, no one's talking about that).

this is such elementary art theory/visual culture. as an art lover and creative person, i am finding these critiques merely one step above "my kid could fingerpaint that!" in their level of intellectualism. why the artistically uneducated find it no problem at all to declare "THIS ISN'T ART!" is beyond me....after all, i don't go around saying "THAT ISN'T BRAIN SURGERY!"

As someone who makes political art, I can say that there are a lot of people who are over-reacting and/or not understanding this work.

Yes, you SHOULD be offended, however the source of your offense should not be the artist, but rather the media that he(?) is quoting. Be angry, say "hey! that's racist!" but don't get mad at the artist because he had the audacity to point out and make blatantly obvious the kind of messages that are being relayed far more subtly in the media. The artist isn't calling Obama's daughters "nappy headed hos" he's quoting someone who is a known racist and making the connection between young black girls and the Imus quote: something that most people aren't going to do on their own.

The thing about art is that it shows the viewer a new perspective. So while a lot of people are getting upset about this show, they're also being forced to confront a perspective (blatant racism) that they don't see everyday. Just showing someone a message doesn't mean that the messenger agrees with what is being stated, and that is especially true for political artwork. Quoting someone doesn't mean you agree with them.

This show is offending people for the wrong reasons. They're getting offended that someone would just come out and say in a blatant way the things that the media has been saying in a polite and subtle way for the last 16 months. This is something that often happens with political art, people get upset because the images say something that isn't supposed to be said OUT LOUD, but only thought quietly in the privacy of one's own head.

Oh! And a sidebar here - a coworker saw this picture and I told her about the exhibition and she said that she "wouldn't disagree" with the assessment of black women as being, well, nappy-headed ho's. But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around. So maybe their is a need for this shocking but kind of pedestrian art if people are that blatantly racist.

I'm not sure how to feel about this, really.

On the one hand, I think it is important for art to be controversial and invoke a strong reaction in its audience. I also think the reaction to this exhibit was over the top, interrogating the man? Really? I know we live in a post 9/11 world, but I just can't agree with that kind of response.

On the other hand, I would not say this art is very effective. It isn't saying anything new. It's lacking another layer of commentary to make the pieces truly thought provoking. As someone else said, taking the stereotypes already present in the media, distilling them, and throwing them back at us... not so much.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

??????

The "nappy headed hos" is juxtaposed with a picture of his two beautiful, smiling daughters who are so obviously anything but that the point isn't very subtle. The artist is trying to show how stupid these stereotypes are.

But the big dick thing was just.... well, stupid.

I'm interested to see the Clinton stuff

I'm really appalled at the hubris applied in some of these comments. The exploration of these attitudes, whether the exploration is deep and insightful or facile and cartoonish, has value. You don't have to like it, you don't have to approve of the medium, but who the hell are you to determine what is art for everyone else? Don't like it? Don't go to the gallery. Talk about why it's a bad installation. But this "it should be banned" attitude is dangerous and narrow minded.

Assassination is a real -- not a theoretical -- threat.

Well, shit, so's rape: Clear the Met of all those old masters' renditions of the rape of Danaë!

And um, what exactly is a theoretical threat, anyway?

I have to agree with whoever it was that said they were suprised by the post. I also think its missing the point a little. Also a little surprised by the comments I guess. But its a good lesson that just because you agree on certain things like reproductive rights, doesn't mean you'll agree on everything.

I don't think there should be any limits on first ammendment rights outside of yelling "fire" in a theatre where you have a very clear and solid example of why that is so dangerous.

That said, I feel like I see what the artist is going for. Especially with the "Nappy Headed Hos" example. Applying it to those children only highlights how awful and ridiculous it was for Imus to think it was an okay and normal thing to do to apply that term to those Rutgers students.

The only thing I will nitpick is that from what I can see I think its called "The Assasination of..." not "The Character Assasination of...," the latter of which, were I his teacher I might have said was a better title, not only for clarity but because talking about the assasination of anyone who has secret service protection is not a smart move.

I have to agree with whoever it was that said they were suprised by the post. I also think its missing the point a little. Also a little surprised by the comments I guess. But its a good lesson that just because you agree on certain things like reproductive rights, doesn't mean you'll agree on everything.

I don't think there should be any limits on first ammendment rights outside of yelling "fire" in a theatre where you have a very clear and solid example of why that is so dangerous.

That said, I feel like I see what the artist is going for. Especially with the "Nappy Headed Hos" example. Applying it to those children only highlights how awful and ridiculous it was for Imus to think it was an okay and normal thing to do to apply that term to those Rutgers students.

The only thing I will nitpick is that from what I can see I think its called "The Assasination of..." not "The Character Assasination of...," the latter of which, were I his teacher I might have said was a better title, not only for clarity but because talking about the assasination of anyone who has secret service protection is not a smart move.

You guys might want to put a NSFW warning on that link...

I'm with Amy and la pobre here. Just because an image is disturbing doesn't mean it's thought provoking. I'm so sick of the it's art/satire defense. Simply throwing out a bunch of stereotypes with no critical commentary isn't clever, it's offensive.

I'm also tired of the "it's free speech" red herring. An artist's right to free speech has nothing to do with a discussion on whether or not that art is offensive.

The image isn't thought provoking _because_ it's offensive. It's thought provoking because it's a minimalist reflection of a pervasive and acrimonious strain of thought in modern society.

The only way you can argue that this is promoting misogyny or racism is if you truly believed that the artist was acting out of racism or misogyny. If so, that's fair, but I would have to argue that you are missing the point.

The pictures are not pretty. They are not comfortable. They are offensive and provocative. Much like life--nobody needs to remind us of this.

And I have to disagree with WheresTheBeef. The Free Speech invocation is important here. As individuals in what is supposed to be free society we have no right to censor expression. If it's offensive, then look away.

Much as I dislike this art, I dislike more that the artist was led away in handcuffs! Good lord!

But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around.

Excuse me, you just got unintentional irony all over my keyboard.

When I first skimmed the picture and the post, I thought this was going to be something positive about the art exhibit. I got the message right away. Then, I was surprised that it was so misunderstood (IMO).

The pic included in the post made me sad. Imus was referring to women who did not fit his standards of beauty. However, when I heard the words he said, I immediately thought of the impact that hateful speech would have on young black girls. It's like when my grandmother starts telling me "those people" don't work hard (or whatever). She's speaking in generalities, but I'm immediately thinking of my friends who she has lumped in with whoever "those people" are supposed to mean. I'll bring this up, and the response is, "Well, I don't mean her."

This is similar. When Imus made the comment, it resonated. And while he may not have meant the Obama girls, they're still lumped into that hateful speech. It's shocking and sad for me to hear that kind of racism because my mind pictures the total impact. This artist seems to react similarly and wants to create something that provokes shock in people who wouldn't normally think of two lovely girls as being lumped into the phrase Imus used.

As for the rest of the exhibit shown. Meh. I'm not nearly as provoked as the picture included in the post here.

it is kinda silly to be so offended by artistic satire, when REAL hate crimes happen everyday.

"I'm also tired of the "it's free speech" red herring. An artist's right to free speech has nothing to do with a discussion on whether or not that art is offensive."

The artist should not be legally restrained from making such statements. Period.

Whether it should be said or not is a different question.

But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around.

Excuse me, you just got unintentional irony all over my keyboard.

But she is Native American, who I've learned from working here tend to be about the most racist group around.

Excuse me, you just got unintentional irony all over my keyboard.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten that only individual white people are racists.

To quote Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, "I don't know art, but I know what I hate." And I hate this exhibition. It's unspeakably offensive. However, I support the right to free speech. I don't support whatever genius gallery manager saw this and thought it was worthy of sharing. Personally, I wouldn't call it art, but this a**hat has as much right to say what (s)he thinks as anyone else.

Misspelled, why is that ironic? From what I've been told by Native American friends, many Native Americans are very racist - against each other at least.

I agree with several other people's assessments, that getting upset at the artist is silly and missing the point. Art is a reflection/refraction of the greater culture as distilled through the viewpoint and capabilities of the artist and then interpreted by the audience; there are any number of steps in the artistic process that can be evaluated negatively here, but it is incredibly simplistic to say it is racist and misogynist and therefore sucks, period.

Of course you're offended. That's the point. But you're also supposed to think about why you're offended, and why these things would be seen as offensive, who would find them offensive, where they come from in the first place, etc. It's not the artist's fault if you stop at the first reaction.

I would add that I do think this is "bad" art - the meaning is so blatant, it's boring, and the art itself isn't interesting or creative enough to save it - but to suggest that it's bad art because you don't like/understand/agree with the artist's methods of getting his point across is silly.

Don't minors get any protections from their images being used as such?

And the other "shock" elements from the rest of the display, e.g. the nooses and the big black cock, are tired tired tired. I guess the only consolation is that this imagery isn't being marketed as masturbatory material or as part of a video game plot.

For fuck's sake. Racist is racist, and statements like, "I've learned from working with [ethnic group] that they tend to be [characteristic]" ARE RACIST. "But my personal experience told me so!" and "But they say it themselves, all the time!" are not legitimate defenses.

This isn't a new or complicated idea. In fact I seem to recall learning something very like it in elementary school. So I don't really see where the need for explanation comes from.

Here's the thing that (I think) is so difficult about being a compassionate liberal: you want people to squeeze every possible liberty they can out of the Constitution, but it pains you when such liberties are legally manifested in ways that aren't nice to other people.

If you look at what makes speech not okay, it's not your personal views, but a bevy of Supreme Court precedents. In Miller v. CA, we see that it's up to communities to determine obscenities. This exhibit would not fly in a really conservative community, like my home of Williamsburg, VA (probably the big penis would be the tipping point) because people would feel that it has no artistic value. New York City, however, is a pretty progressive little town.

This art doesn't seem to be inciting imminent lawless action, per the precedent of Brandenburg v. OH. Despite what some people have said in comments, the art is neither libelous nor slanderous.

(I'm really skimming over a lot of case law, but I just wanted to give enough to get the point.)

It simply shouldn't be censored! It is painful to look at some of the parts of this exhibit: the nooses, the juxtaposition of Imus' comment and Obama's daughters, etc. But that's the point!

I think that the artist would be really interested--probably pleased--to see us debating this on a cool website.

"If you don't like it then don't go see it. It's that easy."

No it isn't. One could say that about life. Or what offends feminists. What are people doing visiting Urban Dictionary, anyway, when they know such sites have been tainted by (organized) misogyny? Do not see: Donkey Punch, a link to Bronco Ride.

"There's so many worse (real) things out there to be offended by . . . "

Ditto. "Nappy headed hos" is not REALLY offensive, cuz there's worse. Nice. I must simply be imagining things, cuz I'm neither female nor African-American.

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" atangonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racsim ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialouge. Isn't that dialouge what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

This art exhibit is offensive, and intentionally so, but it's also pretty good.

The juxtaposition of media portrayal of Hillary and Barack with the stereotypes and phrases used either consciously or subconsciously to describe them in order to make this portrayal more visible and blatant is a terrific goal. I thought most people on this site were offended by campaign coverage of the two candidates.

Well, this exhibit shows just that, albeit in an artistic manner. The "nappy headed hos" thing has already been explained, and the nooses seem to show latent hatred against African Americans. The "once you go Barack" thing is a portrayal of how sexualization of black men is ingrained in our culture through stereotypes ("once you bog black", etc.), and that this influences how people view Barack, whether we like it or not.

All in all it's pretty thoughtful and thought-provoking. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Feministing, even if you missed the entire point.

The title is offensive, sure, and it's meant to be, in order to make us consider the tragedy that is character assassination through media portrayal. It can literally change how we perceive a human being, which in a way can be killing at least parts of a person.

This art exhibit is offensive, and intentionally so, but it's also pretty good.

The juxtaposition of media portrayal of Hillary and Barack with the stereotypes and phrases used either consciously or subconsciously to describe them in order to make this portrayal more visible and blatant is a terrific goal. I thought most people on this site were offended by campaign coverage of the two candidates.

Well, this exhibit shows just that, albeit in an artistic manner. The "nappy headed hos" thing has already been explained, and the nooses seem to show latent hatred against African Americans. The "once you go Barack" thing is a portrayal of how sexualization of black men is ingrained in our culture through stereotypes ("once you bog black", etc.), and that this influences how people view Barack, whether we like it or not.

All in all it's pretty thoughtful and thought-provoking. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Feministing, even if you missed the entire point.

The title is offensive, sure, and it's meant to be, in order to make us consider the tragedy that is character assassination through media portrayal. It can literally change how we perceive a human being, which in a way can be killing at least parts of a person.

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" atangonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racsim ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialouge. Isn't that dialouge what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

The viciousness in which the artist displayed the racism/sexism is refective of the media and public. The artist did not create the "nappy headed ho's" comment, he took it from the media. He took it and used it in a way that forces us to realize how utterly innapropriate it is, and how we cannot forget that commments such as that are part of our daily lives.

"And I have to disagree with WheresTheBeef. The Free Speech invocation is important here. As individuals in what is supposed to be free society we have no right to censor expression. If it's offensive, then look away."

You're not getting what I'm saying here. If I say, I don't like this exhibit and I find it offensive, it doesn't make any sense to respond with, "Well thats the artist's right to produce it." What does the fact that the artist has a legal right to produce this work have to do with my liking it or not liking it?

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" antagonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racism ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialogue. Isn't that dialogue what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

The viciousness in which the artist displayed the racism/sexism is reflective of the media and public. The artist did not create the "nappy headed ho's" comment, he took it from the media. He took it and used it in a way that forces us to realize how utterly inappropriate it is, and how we cannot forget that comments such as that are part of our daily lives.

so i think i'm going to catch some disagreement here..but hear me out..

I like it. And I will tell you why. Many of us have spent the past couple of months attempting to draw attention to the sexism and racism that has existed in the presidential primaries. The "iron my shirt" antagonists, the controversy surrounding Obama's church and the allegations of reverse racism ect. This display, though it may be uncomfortable, exposes stereotypes in a way that forces us to create a dialogue. Isn't that dialogue what some of us were seeking?

I'm not trying to take an "ends justify the means" type of stance. I'm just trying to say maybe there can be positive effects. Someone stated the display is dehumanizing. THAT is the point; sexism and racism are dehumanizing. Every stereotype shown in that display is something that we are all familiar with, why not name it? Why not turn the disgust into motivation for action?

The viciousness in which the artist displayed the racism/sexism is reflective of the media and public. The artist did not create the "nappy headed ho's" comment, he took it from the media. He took it and used it in a way that forces us to realize how utterly inappropriate it is, and how we cannot forget that comments such as that are part of our daily lives.

"Here's the thing that (I think) is so difficult about being a compassionate liberal: you want people to squeeze every possible liberty they can out of the Constitution, but it pains you when such liberties are legally manifested in ways that aren't nice to other people."

Mmm. My frequent comments about freedom of choice. Even with comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception and legal abortion, people are free to make family planning decisions (or have a form of sexual expression) you may not agree with. Abstinance? Five abortions? Five kids? Single mother on the dole? Not my business.

err...sorry for the gazillion posts..

In case anyone is wondering what the Clinton ones look like...go to http://www.theassassinationofhillaryclinton.com/

and keep pressing next on the link above....

You know what, I liked what I saw of the exhibit from these images.

Yes it's unpleasant, and yes it's offensive and triggering. But it makes people think and question things. No one wants to admit it, but there is an image many people get in their mind when they hear the phrase "black man", and it's usually prefaced with the word "black" and it's usually not a well-heeled guy like Barack. These are the deep-seated stereotypes and unquestioned passing thoughts the exhibit tries to address. (I can offer as a personal anecdote that, after acquiring a boyfriend that was black, I got asked by so many people, "so is it true what they say?" As sad as it is, this is what people wanted to know, this is what they saw of this person who had so much more going on than the junk in his pants.)

Now, this kind of art isn't meant to make you feel good. I mean, it's entitled "The Assassination of", right? But to shut something like this down can serve to perpetuate all kinds of stereotypes that we might never even question otherwise. Additionally, I think we're much more at risk of this happening precisely because it's so un-PC and off-limits to even address race, that many times, discussions never get to happen.

I'm curious what they had up for Hillary.

I'm an African American woman who feels insecure about her hair and who is offended by how women of color or repeatedly sexualized and dehumanized. I do not take offense to this at all. It is akin to the riot grrrl movement where women scrawled "slut" on their bodies and clothing to force people to face all the characteristics and reality of the people they were labeling.

The only thing that I disagree with is that children were used for the artist's message. Like a "This is someone's child who you are calling these names" message. Adult African American women are adults; this shouldn't make them less protected.

I know people on this site are above telling me that I should be offended. I would like them to ask themselves if they would be offended if an African American woman were the artist.

I can understand where people like MissMay12 are coming from. And I can comprehend what Tofu.Mon.Amor is saying in their "Hello, it's art!" message.

I'll preface this with the notion that I know art is what one makes it and what one interprets it to be.

That being said, however, I must side with folks like Amy, and say that this particular exhibit doesn't make me think, it makes me wonder if the artist put thought into what s/he was concocting.

To add to a conversation, one must not simply repeat what has already been said. That's all that has happened here, to an alarmingly disappointing extent.

Take Nappy-Headed Hoes, which is simply a caption for a photo. Make it more than just a photo of Obama's daughters (and I thought Michele getting pulled into the media spotlight was bad enough. Geez). Make it them winning an award (if there is such a photo), or at school. Anything to make the caption ironic.

Or take "Negro President" and make that exhibit something that makes people aware how few African American leaders we have had (no clue on numbers). It would be a greater impact if I walked into a hall entitled, Great African American Presidential Candidates, and saw one photo on a large blank wall.

It's what's not there that would make me think.

Wow, this really pisses me off. I'm not sure how I feel about the exhibition because I cannot say whether I think it was done well from a collection of pictures.

What I can be pissed off about it a bunch of people trying to tell me that if it's art it's sacrosanct. Get fucked. If I think art is actually glorified fucking racism then I'm going to have a problem. No, I wouldn't close it down. But I would be disgusted and it wouldn't be for lack of "getting it".

P.S. tofu.mon.amour? Quotation marks do NOT represent emphasis

this particular exhibit doesn't make me think, it makes me wonder if the artist put thought into what s/he was concocting.

I agree with this statement. It (IMO) doesn't seem like the artist is drawing attention to what the media has done with the campaigns or the candidates, but is joining in on snickering at Clinton and Obama in a really derisive way. Especially the framed "Would you have sex with her...Neither would Bill." part of the installation on Cllinton's side of the exhibit. That could have been an uncomfortable jab at how we think of women and politics and women in politics, but the execution changed the context for me. I felt the whole exhibit could have been much cleverer, and just didn't hit the mark.

Hmmm. The sexism and racism involved in media coverage of the presidential contest should be challenged and resisted IMO. However, I'm not convinced this art exhibition is the way to do it, given the openness to a variety of interpretations. It's good that it's generated some criticism, but the criticism seems to be more of the art than of the sexism and racism in the media and responses to the candidates. The art seems to be drawing attention to itself as much as the issues.

Also it seems to perpetuate the media focus on personalities and 'race' and/or gender identity rather than on the policies and capabilities of the candidates. By focusing on the candidates as "characters" it shifts the focus from the fact that one individual cannot, on their own, change the system that they operate within. There's a whole team working with each candidate, they have to work with and within the political system and powerful organisations that dominate US politics.

I have to agree with tma on this one - some of the best art I have seen has been that which utterly disgusts me, such as Dali drawings of knives cutting off breasts. Truly disgusting, I wanted nothing more than to withdraw my eyes and pretend I'd never seen it before. Instead I took a photo, because true art is intended to provoke reaction and thought. That's exactly what that piece of art in the photo is doing, it's taking a photo that most of us would go "aww" at, then putting in an extremely racist headline in order to make those who might have those views stop and go "hang on, that's not what I meant!" and then think about what they're doing when they say something racist/sexist. Personally speaking, for those of us that do not hold racist/sexist views, the art reaffirms our position, it doesn't stand against it. This artwork SUPPORTS our position AGAINST racist and sexist labels, it is intended to point out how harmful they can be and how they can affect the young. As well as that, given the context of the exhibition it's also a statement on the use of children and sexist/racist stereotypes against a political candidate and his family, where obviously none should exist (in an ideal world).

Basically, I completely disagree with Ann that this perpetuates stereotypes. It does quite the opposite. This art is bringing out into the open a lot of the slogans and lines used mainly by conservatives against the democratic candidates. The artist didn't think up these lines by himself, he's reflecting that which has already been said and done and putting them into a context where people can see how derogatory they can be when amalgamated. Basically the exhibition is acting as a physical space for that which the artist sees to be the mental space, our brains. As we hear each racist/sexist line or joke, it gets put away in our subconscious. This is a way of bringing it all out and showing what a harmful and disgusting ideology it is which uses these lines to get into our heads.

I have to agree with tma on this one - some of the best art I have seen has been that which utterly disgusts me, such as Dali drawings of knives cutting off breasts. Truly disgusting, I wanted nothing more than to withdraw my eyes and pretend I'd never seen it before. Instead I took a photo, because true art is intended to provoke reaction and thought. That's exactly what that piece of art in the photo is doing, it's taking a photo that most of us would go "aww" at, then putting in an extremely racist headline in order to make those who might have those views stop and go "hang on, that's not what I meant!" and then think about what they're doing when they say something racist/sexist. Personally speaking, for those of us that do not hold racist/sexist views, the art reaffirms our position, it doesn't stand against it. This artwork SUPPORTS our position AGAINST racist and sexist labels, it is intended to point out how harmful they can be and how they can affect the young. As well as that, given the context of the exhibition it's also a statement on the use of children and sexist/racist stereotypes against a political candidate and his family, where obviously none should exist (in an ideal world).

Basically, I completely disagree with Ann that this perpetuates stereotypes. It does quite the opposite. This art is bringing out into the open a lot of the slogans and lines used mainly by conservatives against the democratic candidates. The artist didn't think up these lines by himself, he's reflecting that which has already been said and done and putting them into a context where people can see how derogatory they can be when amalgamated. Basically the exhibition is acting as a physical space for that which the artist sees to be the mental space, our brains. As we hear each racist/sexist line or joke, it gets put away in our subconscious. This is a way of bringing it all out and showing what a harmful and disgusting ideology it is which uses these lines to get into our heads.

Hey Fenriswolf: "Get Fucked".

Hey Fenriswolf: "Get Fucked". Am I using them correctly?

Hah, and has anyone read the comments on that truthfighters page? That group is 100% fucktard at its finest.

Do you really find this offensive? The artist is clearly anti-racist and anti-sexist, and nothing's there that hasn't been bandied about during the primary process. You might disagree with the mode or the aesthetic, but it's totally off base to accuse the artist of being an uncritical racist. I think we should be focusing much more on the ghoulish shutting down of an art exhibit by the police. Gestapo much? You can see the whole exhibit here, along with press release: http://www.theassassinationofbarackobama.com/. As someone noted above there is also http://www.theassassinationofhillaryclinton.com/.

I am reminded of an old anti-smoking flyer. It had a picture of an old, wrinkled, yellowed man with bad teeth and a cigarette. Underneath it said, "Smoking is sophisticated." I got the irony, and I was 15 at the time. I see the "nappy-headed hos" poster as anti-racist and anti-sexist.

it seriously offends me that any of you are suggesting that this should not have been allowed to be created just because you disagree with it.

fascism is fascism, i don't care if it's in favor of equality or whatever or not.

and also, to say that this is racist is to miss the point.

"Do you really find this offensive?"

Yes. And I was 11 or 12 when I saw the same antismoking posters the last poster mentioned, and was also able to see the irony. The one I remember is "Smoking is very glamorous," featuring an elderly woman apparently without teeth.

"The artist is clearly anti-racist and anti-sexist,"

The exhibit or its merits can be debated, regardless of the intentions of its creator. A racist and sexist could just as well put out the exact same thing, and some have.

"and nothing's there that hasn't been bandied about during the primary process."

So people shouldn't be offended if insults are repeated? So why should people be offended by sexist cliches such as women allegedly losing their attractiveness as they age (see the gallery of the Assassination of Hilary Clinton exhibit - ha ha), since these cliches been around for so long? Why can't one be as offended by nooses hanging in an art gallery, as by nooses hanging from a tree in Jena high school where students of color "dared" to gather despite it allegedly being a gathering place for white students? Why be offended by the N-word or the words bitch and ho, since I hear them used so often in entertainment by members of the black community on each other?

It is art, if you got so offended by it that you shut down then it wasn't for you. That doesn't mean you need to scream about it, label it "bad", or support shutting it down. It probably made someone think more critically about some relevant issues, you alone are not the litmus test for a statement.

It is art, if you got so offended by it that you shut down then it wasn't for you. That doesn't mean you need to scream about it, label it "bad", or support shutting it down. It probably made someone think more critically about some relevant issues, you alone are not the litmus test for a statement.

It is art, if you got so offended by it that you shut down then it wasn't for you. That doesn't mean you need to scream about it, label it "bad", or support shutting it down. It probably made someone think more critically about some relevant issues, you alone are not the litmus test for a statement.

As far as I can tell, all the artist has done is call out the media for their bullshit. He's made explicit what has been said in a million coded ways on cable TV 24 hours a day for months. And yes it's horrible, but nowhere near as horrible and insidious as Fox News--which, let's face it, says precisely the same things, but pretends not to.

I can understand disagreeing with the way it was presented: he doesn't explain how you're supposed to feel about what you're looking at, and that's really uncomfortable. But that, in my opinion, is what makes it successful art. We wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't.

But even if you hate it: can you really say that you're HAPPY that the artist was led away in HANDCUFFS? Really? That's not a world I want to live in.

Also, I hope those of you who are angry and upset have also read Yazmany Arboleda's blog, http://www.theassassinationofart.typepad.com/, where he has done a lot of thoughtful writing about how the media has treated the candidates.

To those who so strongly object to this, I have to ask, have you ever seen anything by artists like Cindy Sherman, Barbara Kruger, or Linder Sterling?

It's a little heavy-handed, but ultimately I think the artist is making an excellent, excellent point.

It reminds me of a woman who did a piece in my video art class in college. The video was to the song "We Love These Hoes" by Outkast, and the first few images were of Black women shaking their butts, strutting around in music videos in gold bikinis, etc, with the words "HA HA HA WE LOVE THESE HOES" scrolling on the screen. Gradually, the filmmaker began interspersing images of Black mothers, Black daughters, Black female doctors, scientists.

Against the song, it was incredibly jarring. The frequency with which Black girls are referred to as bitches and hoes was really brought to light and the juxtaposition of those words with images of strong, beautiful, yet vulnerable Black women and girls made the whole thing seem so absurd and disturbing.

Obviously the artist was attempting that same juxtaposition - showing the absurdity of it. I don't know how I feel about it as art, but it seems the artist is challenging Don Imus and all the other bullshit bigots, as if to say, "Try calling these girls nappy-headed hoes. Just try."

"But that, in my opinion, is what makes it successful art. We wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't."

There is a lot of successful art Feministing readers do not talk about, such as lesser known or recently rediscovered works of Picasso or van Gogh. The act of stirring up controversy, does not immediately make something art, or successful.

"It probably made someone think more critically about some relevant issues,"

I seems Feministing editorial staff and most readers were perfectly capable of picking up on the issues of sex and race during the campaign, prior to this exhibit. If it is really no worse or no different than what already came up during the campaign, how necessary was it?

"you alone are not the litmus test for a statement."

And the enlightened ones who can appreciate art apparently are. Interesting. And are you enlightened enough to accept all claimed creations of art or self expression as such? You do not support laws against say, child pornography or virtual child pornography, which creators claim to be artistic?

When a person claims sexual harassment, the sole determining factor is, the person says it was harassment. The perpetrator's claimed intent (say, Sen. Obama making habitual use of the term "sweetie" in public, or some people claiming to being "friendly") is irrelevant. I can accept that. Why is this exhibit any different? If people are offended, it is offensive.

Actually I accidentally visited an exhibition at the Los Angeles Hammer museum which confused and horrified me. The artist was Kara Walker and it was called "My Complement, My Enemy, My Oppressor, My Love" and it depicted really violent acts (on black men and women). I had to walk out but I know that the artist was intentionally showing this to make people see the ugliness and feel the pain. It was very clear.
http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/137/

With this exhibition I think the problem was that the things the artist depicted were not considered negative or ugly by everyone yet (including those people who say them on TV). and that's why maybe 30% of people who walk in might not understand the point and even cheer him on to be racist and sexist!

I totally think the artist is meaning to be anti-racist and anti-sexist though. But he seems to think his point is more obvious than it actually is. His position comes across as vague.

Despite all this I would appreciate someone explaining the interpretation of the section about sexism as clearly as you explained the sections about racism.

"If people are offended, it is offensive"

Indeed. Which is why we're lucky that it's not illegal to be offensive. Because if there's one thing I've learned in my days on Earth it's that virtually everything you ever do or say has the potential to offend someone.

I see this as not particularly brilliant art... perhaps even a bumbling attempt at best. But art, nonetheless.

"Which is why we're lucky that it's not illegal to be offensive. Because if there's one thing I've learned in my days on Earth it's that virtually everything you ever do or say has the potential to offend someone."

And oddly, people here are not as dismissive of people's experience when sexism or sexual harassment alone are involved. But when it's ART, well, even regulars will say there are "real" problems to be concerned with, or allegedly more offensive artists. Yes, I know there are more important issues, or more offensive works. I can't describe "work" I've seen legally published or distributed, but I wager they'd make a good number of readers cry, vomit, or seek counseling, as well as risk immediate arrest in a number of countries. Are they art, too?

I've studied art at university. I also have recognized talent in 3-D and 2-D, as well as writing, and have been published as well, being the number two seller in one publisher's genre in my very first effort. But could someone please define "art" for us instead of simply sniffing at those who don't "get it"? I could shit on the sidewalk in public, say a pile of elephant dung is the face of the Virgin Mary, leave horse remains out to rot on a gallery floor, eat a fetus while intermittently puking in a bucket, behead rats with a guillotine, photograph myself with the handle of a bullwhip up my anus, recreate a post sex bed, fill an OPEN AIR basin on a gallery floor with HIV positive blood*, simulate sex with a real severed horse's head, tie a dog in a corner of a gallery to starve to death, impale live four legged animals on a wire fence to die on a wall of pain, empty buckets of paint at a wall (or better yet, into the wash of a jet liner engine onto a canvas), nail action figures of Superman or Spider-Man onto miniature crosses (and demand $10,000 for each), engage in bondage and suspension on a stage, make hours or days long videos of a sleeping man or the city skyline, put myself into a zoo enclosure for a month, live in a department store display window, put a crucifix in a jar of old piss (followed by pouring milk onto a bust), or voluntarily remove parts of my own body such as my entire penis and scrotum or an entire arm (then have it grafted onto my identical twin brother), and call it all art.

* Comment by one Japanese attendee to his girlfriend: "If I stuck a knife in there and cut myself, I'd get AIDS." Sweet.

"With this exhibition I think the problem was that the things the artist depicted were not considered negative or ugly by everyone yet (including those people who say them on TV). and that's why maybe 30% of people who walk in might not understand the point and even cheer him on to be racist and sexist!"

And well over 30% of the general public, including other women, may fail to be offended by issues which get feminists up in arms. For example, we have had Republican Presidents or Republican controlled houses of Congress, as well as conservative Supreme Court Justices. So why should the public consider those unacceptable or even incomprehensible, as many feminists do?

Your point? People who are offended by art are thin skinned or don't "get it" because maybe 70% of other people aren't bothered? Odd people shouldn't be allowed to invalidate the concerns of offended feminists or people of color, lest they be met here with "FUCK YOU" or "Get. The. Fuck. Out." even by other regulars, as well as risk being banned.

Whoops, sorry. The twins story which I read years ago was published as an April Fool's Day joke. Damn. Great story.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A10101/addsub/

There being a community of men who are voluntarily castrated or people who have other amputations for body modification art or personal reasons is quite true, however.

I have seen some very "interesting" photos. Even I continue to cringe at them.

A male, if there is one thing that art does, art is always open to interpretation. Art is full of symbolism and symbols never have an inherent meaning; they have culturally-accrued meanings but those meanings come across differently to different people even in the same culture because not every person in a particular culture experiences the same things.

I can accept the fact that you find it offensive, and can even see why you would think that, but that's your perspective. You seem to be saying that that is the only way to interpret it and that those of us who don't see it that way are not only wrong but shouldn't be able to express the fact that we don't see it that way.

And please don't compare this to abuse and sexual harassment, which are NOT open to interpretation like art is.

Of course people can "not like" this exhibit; of course they can be "offended" and of course art is not sacrosanct, but nothing more or less than the artist's expression of their insight into an aspect of our society.

That's what artists do. To the extent that this exhibit made us think about these issues, the work succeeded.

I am not sure it is the goal of an artist to simply "offend" people, but more likely to use the emotional outrage as a catlyst causing people to look outside of their comfort zones and question their own received opinions.

The issue, imo, is not whether this art is "good", "offensive", or "worthwhile" those are all subjective value judgments about which we will all have differences of opinion.

The issue is whether we wish to live in a society that is open and tolerates this kind of exhibit or whether we prefer a society in which the state can suppress messages it thinks are offensive.

david

This thread is infuriating. There are many people who didn't like the exhibit, and I don't recall any of them saying that it should be shut down or that it should never have been allowed to be created. However, those same people were called fascist by others in this thread.

People posting here seem split on their interpretations of what is being portrayed in the installation, yet several people who loved it keep saying "Clearly it's [enter positive message here.]" Clearly, it's not clearly anything since people so passionately disagree.

There are several people who keep implying that those who don't like the exhibit are unintelligent. The references to the "artistically educated", and being able to get irony at the age of 15, etc. Just because someone interprets the display differently than you does not make them stupid, but insisting that it does is pretty ridiculous.

Art is by its very nature subjective. Being appalled at the installation is just as valid a response to it as applauding, and I suspect that it's creator expected both reactions. Throwing out "uneducated" and "fascist" because someone else has a visceral, negative reaction to the pieces in the installation, or because someone thinks it was executed poorly is reactionary and, quite frankly, a fairly despicable response.

I think that if a blog post talks about how incredibly offensive and tasteless and wrong a piece of art is, and links to a site that clearly states that the artist was dragged off in handcuffs, and offers no opinion about the matter of the artist's arrest, the implication is that the blogger approves. Simply because there are so many millions of people who *do* approve of arresting artists who produce works that offend them, or shutting down artistic exhibits that are offensive. A lot of First Amendment supporters and people who found themselves moved by this particular piece may be reading into Ann's original post or into the comments by people who are opposed to the art a sense that it was okay to arrest the guy. This is probably where the "you're all fascists" comes from.

Let me state my own position for the record. You can legitimately consider this art the most offensive thing you've seen ever, but if you approve of the artist's arrest you are a fascist, and if you believe the police were right to shut the exhibit down you are a fascist. (Which would not be the same thing as calling for the owner of the gallery to shut down the exhibit. Censorship is the *state* restricting what you can say; you, a private citizen, can say what you want, and you can say it to a gallery owner who is also a private citizen and can do what he or she wants, but as soon as the cops come in it's unconstitutional.)

The reason the cops were brought in is probably because of the ill-chosen word "assassination", but I think any dumbass can look at the exhibit and see that it is not calling for assassination anyplace. It's like shutting down a movie and arresting the director because the movie portrayed a fire, and you're not supposed to shout "fire" in a movie theater.

Art is not protected because it is good art, worthy art, or art done the way you would have done it. As soon as a person uses symbolism to make a statement they have created art, and even if it's *trying* to be racist, like the Turner Diaries (which I don't think this piece is), it is still protected speech. The guy had the right to exhibit it in any gallery that would actually accept it, and it *horrifies* me that an artist was dragged off in handcuffs and all people want to do is argue about whether he was right or wrong to create the art in the first place.

This is an assault on civil liberties that no feminist should approve of, no matter what they think of the art in question. When "community standards" or "obscenity" laws are enforced against art, it's very often feminist or progressive art that gets dragged down.

You are not a fascist if you disapprove of this art, dislike it, find it offensive, find it without artistic merit in your opinion, or think the artist should have done it differently. But you are a fascist if you approve of ARRESTING THE GUY. And when all you talk about is how wrong his art was AFTER HE WAS ARRESTED FOR IT, I find it hard to imagine that you are really concerned for the First Amendment implications of the fellow's arrest.

For goodness' sakes. The whole point of the "nappy headed hos" piece is to show how that phrase dehumanizes people. Many white people had no problem with Imus demeaning a group of dedicated, upstanding, young black women. By putting that phrase below a photo of two adorable girls, the artist is underscoring how disgusting that phrase is. Why is it ok to say that about adult black women when it's so disgusting to say it about black children?

I love this. Justaposing Imus' comment onto these beautiful children of two upstanding citizens is poignant and highlights how ugly the comment was.

The "Once you Barack" piece is a very positive and hopeful one for me: we are almost there - a black president! Once we have made it there, we will only move forward as far as race relations are concerned. Hopefully, we won't go back. We will be (hopefully) leaving behind the stereotype of the black man and and his out of control sexuality.

"Your point? People who are offended by art are thin skinned or don't "get it" because maybe 70% of other people aren't bothered?"

A Male,

I think you completely misunderstood my point. I have no comment on the thickness of people's skins. I am only trying to look at whether or not the artist was successful at doing what he seemed to be meaning to do (which is to bring light to the racism and sexism in the media). If this was indeed his objective it seems that he did fail because his point was not clear. In fact it was so unclear that many (30% is a lot of people) could interpret it completely the opposite and be encouraged to be sexist and racist. So in my opinion he failed and it wasn't good art (unlike kara walker's works).

(this is assuming that he had those intentions)

kissmypineapple, just to clarify, i don't think the people who don't like this exhibition are unintelligent. i do, however, think persephone's comment about "the first amendment has its limits!!!" because she's offended that this is a photo of kids is unintelligent. yeah, the first amendment has limits....you can't incite imminent lawless behavior in the populace. that's a limit.

since a website like this one couldn't exist without all of us being guaranteed the right to say some potentially offensive things regardless of how offensive they are or aren't, i consider bitching on this site about the first amendment's limits to be hypocritical in the extreme.

and, yeah, i'll also stand by my comment about the artistically educated. though i don't expect that everyone here is a fan of the visual arts (though i would be willing to bet most people on this site go to movies or the occasional museum), most of the complaining about "THIS ISN'T ART!" is merely rehashing outrage that's been part of the art world for decades, if not centuries. and with a community college-level art history class, ANYONE WOULD KNOW THAT. why does it bother you to assert that people should have the slightest knowledge of what they're talking about before they go and open their cakeholes? (and i wasn't saying that i consider those who don't like this exhibition uneducated. i consider the people who don't recognize that this is art uneducated.)

i personally don't find this exhibit particularly offensive and enlightening....someone else mentioned kara walker, who i believe has explored these issues in a much more interesting way. but comments like "when someone takes a shit on the sidewalk....do you think that's ART?!?!" um, yeah. again, anyone who had even wikipedia-level knowledge of the issues explored in 20th century art wouldn't subject us all to that kind of B.S. there's plenty of things i don't know much about, but when i come up against one of those issues, i think it's a far more mature and measured response to observe those that DO know or to ask questions or to research on my own time before making idle pronouncements.

the more interesting question is: "when someone takes a shit on the sidewalk, WHAT IDEA DOES THAT COMMUNICATE TO YOU?"

and before anyone gets their panties in a twist, NO, i am not advocating that people who i consider stupid be censored. just that they voluntarily shut the fuck up. ;)

Thank you Kissmypineapple:

This thread is infuriating. There are many people who didn't like the exhibit, and I don't recall any of them saying that it should be shut down or that it should never have been allowed to be created. However, those same people were called fascist by others in this thread.

People posting here seem split on their interpretations of what is being portrayed in the installation, yet several people who loved it keep saying "Clearly it's [enter positive message here.]" Clearly, it's not clearly anything since people so passionately disagree.

There are several people who keep implying that those who don't like the exhibit are unintelligent. The references to the "artistically educated", and being able to get irony at the age of 15, etc. Just because someone interprets the display differently than you does not make them stupid, but insisting that it does is pretty ridiculous.

Art is by its very nature subjective. Being appalled at the installation is just as valid a response to it as applauding, and I suspect that it's creator expected both reactions. Throwing out "uneducated" and "fascist" because someone else has a visceral, negative reaction to the pieces in the installation, or because someone thinks it was executed poorly is reactionary and, quite frankly, a fairly despicable response.

Kissmypinapple, thank you as well.

Yeah. I have a problem with the fascist label being thrown around too.

The artist was arrested for questioning by the secret service for crying out loud!

Last I checked the secret service is not in the business of censoring people. They are in the business of protecting people.

This is according to the NY times article. Once they found that he meant no actual threat, had no weapons on him, etc. they let him go. They asked him to cover up the title on the window front. Boo hoo, what a violation!

As far as I can tell the evil government had no issue with the actual content of the exhibit.

If the gallery chickened out or caved under community pressure it's still not a free speech issue. The artist is free to explore other venues.

I hate to burst the first amendment bubble, but it appears from an article in the NYT that the main reason the exhibit was shut down was because the "artist" used the term "assassination" in reference to two federal employees. Any threat made to a federal employee is investigated and the individual is arrested or detained for questioning. You can't shout fire in a theater etc. If anybody can legally make Arboleda take down the exhibit, it's the people he rented the space from, not the police.

As for whether it's art or not, I don't think we get to decide this sort of thing anymore. It's like comparing "real" writers to bloggers. Blogging is a legitimate form of literature/writing, and you can't really say what's more legit than what anymore. If Tolstoy had a blog, you'd better believe Anna Karenina would have been a lot longer cause he was getting paid by the page.

I didn't like the image (try it), but I did like the, once you go Barack message. Ha ha. Immediately recalled Undercover Brother.

"Why is it ok to say that about adult black women when it's so disgusting to say it about black children?"

It's not. One important question for me is, for all the people saying this artist/exhibition made people think about sexism or racism, how many percentage points increase in the disapproval rate for sexism or racism do you claim because of this exhibit or the nationwide coverage it is receiving? I don't need shock or disgust to "teach" me, and as a nurse, writer, and former teacher, I suggest coming straight out with your intended message if you want it to be best understood. People might not get it if you e.g., simply enlarge and display anti-Clinton messages from bumper stickers or T-shirts on the wall. People might get the impression you are promoting those hateful messages, regardless of intent, because hey, they don't "get it." Ditto the nooses for Obama.

I was also unaware at first posting that the exhibit was shut down within minutes, or that the artist was arrested. My only impression is it is because the word "assassination" (as opposed to say, "CHARACTER assassination," or a less provocative title) was used in association with the names and images of two leading presidential candidates. Like it or not, such associations tread very shaky legal ground in the US. The Secret Service or FBI would probably want a word with me or actually break down my door (it's happened to some school kid, all the way in Finland recently) if I even make an offhand remark or *intended* joke anonymously online about wishing or approving harm done to President Bush, and I cannot even joke about possessing weapons or bombs at an airport security checkpoint without violating federal regulations. In high school (early 1980s, not post 9/11), one of my comical classmates learned this the hard way at a local airport when he joked he had a bomb in his carry on. Yes, that was stupid. Perhaps he should have claimed it was performance art, or pulled out his representation of the "bomb," such as a bundled pack of vibrators with remotes. (In fact, he actually BECAME a full time designer and artist after high school, as planned. How dare they censor him.)

And before you call me a fascist for allegedly wanting to limit free speech or artistic expression, my thoughts on expansion of hate crime or hate speech laws to include such as displaying nooses in association with black people or to intimidate or threaten them, or yes, including violations against women as hate crimes because of women's current position in society (I forget which poster turned me on to that) is ONLY in the interest of protecting those people's rights or wanting to reduce future harm to those communities, not some petty desire to shut up or punish those I personally disagree with.

"You seem to be saying that that is the only way to interpret it"

No, it is art lovers who appear to be doing so, while sniffing at those who don't "get it."

"and that those of us who don't see it that way are not only wrong but shouldn't be able to express the fact that we don't see it that way."

Prove it.

"And please don't compare this to abuse and sexual harassment, which are NOT open to interpretation like art is."

Someone calls woman, "bitch." Sexual harassment or no?

Now prove it. I'll provide details later.

BTW, you first need to establish what art is, before you say it is not open to interpretation.

Wait. I thought the claim was "art" IS open to interpretation.

Person shoots their spouse dead. Abuse or no? Details later.

I didn't say art wasn't open to interpretation, I said it WAS.

Also, thank you for taking part of my sentence out of its context. If you actually read the whole thing, you would see that I said it SEEMS like that's what you're saying. Both sides in this debate SEEM to be telling the other side that they are stupid for believing as they do and need to shut up; it doesn't mean it's absolutely true but that that is how it is being interpreted by the other side.

And finally, you're the one who is claiming that this art is equivalent to sexual harassment and abuse so YOU need to prove why that would be the case.

Hey Fenriswolf: "Get Fucked". Am I using them correctly?

No, why don't you prove why abuse or sexual harassment are not subject to interpretation? Who will be decision makers in matters of law and punishment, if not juries of lay persons, or judges, or elected officials? "Radical" feminists (which numerous regulars identify as), or just you? Is the rest of society and the world simply supposed to accept the word (as if there were a single voice or view) of feminists concerning issues affecting women, or the guilt or innocence of the many accused? I have never listened to R. Kelley. I wouldn't be able to identify a photo of him. He sounds like a woman hating pedophile, and I personally believe the accusations which have been made against him. However, under the US legal system, I am not surprised by the outcome, for the various reasons raised, reasonable doubt being the most legally relevant among them. So what would all these offended posters have done to R. Kelly to keep him from continuing life as usual, feeling publicly vindicated, with the support and love of millions, since we are all so convinced he is actually guilty? Don't be shy. Tell us all why the readers of Feministing are better, and better informed, than a jury being force fed alleged facts for days on end under the watchful eye of legal professionals. (Recall, I am not defending R. Kelly or his character.)

I am not claiming anything I have mentioned, including my own submissions for university which were ALL evaluated as 100 point perfect or extremely near so (IIRC 95 was the lowest), are "really" art. As a matter of fact, as stated elsewhere, I deliberately created "works" which *I* considered bullshit and threw together say a day before the due date, because I was deliberately yanking the instructors' and teaching assistants' chains as a test (they ALL worked in abstract or conceptual art). I would visit their offices for my grades and feedback, and be laughing inside. My "self portrait" as a 2-D cray-pas rendition of a gold sphere on a totally featureless blue/green background, when practically everyone else was going for photo realism (some going so far as to apparently pay some Waikiki street artists), was the classic and set the tone for the rest of my experience.

I have asked posters to provide or establish a definition of what "art" "really" is, so we can start discussion from there. Why don't you prove that this exhibit, or these works are "art"? I don't need to prove or even claim that it is not "art".

For example, what WAS (or may still be) openly displayed in galleries or sold in bound volumes, or kept in libraries and collections as "art" is today legally considered child porn in many countries, or treading a dangerously thin line, even if no actual or implied sex acts are depicted. Popular opinion may consider even the currently accepted and legal "art", or simulated and virtual representations to be child porn regardless, as in this child/teen model phenomenon. No, I am not the one claiming they are art.

I have heard time and again over the years that something is sexual harassment if the victim says it is, regardless of intent. e.g., it may be all right for some female friends (or feminists, as I have seen here) to call each other "bitch", but no one else ever can; or it may be acceptable for these friends (or feminists) to do so as a term of endearment (or empowerment), but if used in anger, e.g., "Shut up, bitch!", it may then "become" sexual harassment, even for them. The same is sometimes considered the de facto standard for e.g. racial discrimination, like in the controversy over the word "niggardly" which actually means "stingy," and has nothing to do with race or color, though jobs and careers have been put in jeopardy, because contemporary Americans do not recognize the validity of the word, mistaking it for its ugly near sound-alike and reacting accordingly, filing formal complaints or demanding resignation other redress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly

I can accept such policy when applicable, as in the workplace, I've been through two job orientations for two zero tolerance employers in two weeks, and I simply try to be as careful as I can, though I do slip up at times. This is the first time in my 39 years I have ever used the word "niggardly," and I would never do so in "real" life, because I consider it archaic and today, simply too controversial, despite its valid origin and usage. (I was extremely embarrassed on the set of "Tropic Thunder" when a young coworker was horsing around with me, and I for some reason - I have not used the word in any form since IIRC the 1980s when I was a serious asshole in real life - suddenly said in a normal voice, "You fag!" Onlookers (all young males) did not appear disturbed, but I felt like my stomach fell out. And my apologies to the LGBTQQ community and those who support them. I had considered myself a supporter.)

So - you, among others are claiming art is [always] open to interpretation. Precisely. So be it. An exhibit like this (IF art - oh, my personal standard for art includes the implication that the work is not something seemingly anyone can do or copy - put my signature on a urinal, or deliberately abuse or kill animals in full view while legally getting away with it cuz it's ART! - oh, please), or works like these; will be considered offensive by many. Numbers and percentage points, or whether or not they constitute the majority don't matter, as it is not being put to the vote, we are not on a jury, and we are not elected lawmakers. It WILL be considered offensive by enough people for complaints to be made or heard, as in this case. Perhaps the offended people, as those who hear the word "niggardly" or ANY usage of the word "bitch" when applied to ANY human being, are interpreting the message or its intent (ultimately unknowable, as we are not mind readers) incorrectly.

However, I will not be the one to invalidate the offended parties' experience or hurt by calling them simply overly sensitive, or what have you, which is how much clearer offenses of sexual or racial discrimination have been excused. (It sickens me to say that it IS subject to interpretation, e.g., by a jury, even in the ugliest, most blatant examples.)

I am not African-American, but I am a person of color, a member of a community which has experienced acts of hate and hate crimes, and have myself been subject to actual harassment and threats of violence by racist gangs (try giving me examples of socially acceptable ways to refer to Asian-Americans in anger as "JAP" or "fucking Jap" if you think I am imagining it, like some question my wife's accounts of multiple rapes and repeated sexual assaults (or my truthfulness about them) - no, I do not consider use of "Jap," "as bad" as N_____, nor is this the Oppression Olympics), and I don't need to listen to people probably from mainstream culture middle or upper class, or Caucasian, suggesting I simply ignore or accept the image of dangling nooses used in association with African-Americans (Asians have also been lynched by hanging in the US) or their images; or to view how successful "art" makes others talk or think about relevant issues, as if sex or race have never come up or been debated countless times in the 2008 campaign.

Someone could call in to a live nationally televised broadcast like a debate between the old Democratic candidates and announce "this is the Assassination of Hillary Clinton." When federal authorities come kicking down the door, they won't get away with calling it performance art, an effort to make people think about how Clinton being female would affect us likely more greatly than if she were a man, or in contrast to simply accepting as a part of history that a number of male Presidents have been killed. Theoretical person has no desire to actually commit, promote, or condone such an act. Would it be art, or not? Would and should they get away with it like those who actually abuse or kill animals in the name of art?

Your reaction, the other 100 or so comments, the reactions of people on the street passing by and those who walked into the exhibit is what the artist was probably going for. Sometimes art is offensive. Some artists go for the shock, some for shlock...It's for the viewer to perceive. This artist doesn't seem to have the depth to do any more than regurgitate what we've already had in the media.
The photos of the exhibit are lame, but, I support the right to exhibit even art that I think is cheap, bad, offensive or in poor taste.
I wonder what this will do for his or her career?

"I wonder what this will do for his or her career?"

My guess is amazing street cred, for being shut down and arrested. Oooh, a *controversial* artist who tests the bounds of what is accepted as art! If Mapplethorpe were a mere hobbyist or a photographer with a private collection instead of putting himself in the public eye, he'd likely be considered a simple pervert (if we ever heard of him), instead of having the artist label tacked on most of the time.

I wonder how many others will test the limits of the law or personal freedom by involving Presidents or Presidential candidates in their work, by doing such as I mentioned, to e.g., use shock to make the American public "talk" and "think" about whether or not they can "really" accept a woman in what has so far been a "male" role. President of the United States has proven, on a per capita basis, to be one of the deadliest occupations that exist in the US. Even being one of the President's personal guard is statistically safer.