Black and Blue:What Not To Do
opens tonight at Milepost 5
Posted by: Lisa Radon on Nov 21, 2009 at 01:00PM
33 Comments
Oh, provocateur, do not look so surprised when your art provokes.
Victor Maldonado tries again. His Funny, Dirty, Wrong hallway exhibition at Milepost 5 (900 NE 81st Ave) of dirty or politically incorrect jokes on blue note cards penned by students in his Art, Ethics and Transgression class at PNCA was closed down as being inappropriate for the venue, or more properly it was moved into a room.
“Get a room!”
Now it is a group show called Black and Blue:What Not To Do. Walter Lee, Alicia Gordon, Sarah Johnson, Allison Halter join Mack McFarland and the artists of Art, Ethics and Transgression for a visual art exhibition about “what wounds us.” Opens tonight, 6-9 PM, at Milepost 5 in room 208 at the Lofts.
“By appointment only with limited viewing hours for the extent of its run, difficult to access works of photography, drawing and installation riff on holy terror, economic meltdowns, beat down and broken forms and the unspecific objects that fuel our divisive ism and phobia cultures. It’s difficult to leave your door and be confronted by things that are obscene and appalling. This curatorial intervention also continues to experiment with Live/work residencies as ritual spaces that promise to create a critical nexus of all types from our creative economy for all types in our creative class. Sometimes the violence in the hall is so loud and physical that you can hear it in every room-even behind closed doors. Managing and controlling the random forces in life can be difficult for some. For some the difficult forces help manage random life.” —Victor Maldonado
Odd thing, provocation. As an accidental provocateur, I was taken aback by the reaction of some of the 10ft pole drawings. That is, I was aware of the charged nature of words like nigger, faggot, and the symbol of the crucifix, (though it should be noted that only the first of these caused one of the old stand by reactions to provocation, removal from sight and mind,) however my gesture of rendering images and language on a 4×6″ area with a piece of graphite on the end of a 10ft pole was an action made in solidarity, (see wouldn’t touch it with a 10ft pole) not an attempt to get one’s goat. That the reaction has been one of instigation, with a rise in the blood pressure, it has generated many wonderful conversations, some angry with me, others encouraging of the work. This has now thrust me into a direction with my work that I would have never predicted exploring in such great detail an nuance.
Thanks for letting people know about this show Lisa. The original show was designed to experiment with a hallway art space and was an attempt by me to organize around the theme of blue humor. This was my first attempt at focusing around work that carried significant social implications. I have come to realize that the hallway at Milepost 5 is no place for dark humor. I have also come to realize that freedom of speech is conditional and depends on the audiences freedom to listen. The original works in the show were right on target and the live, opening night performance/performance by Sean Joseph Patrick Carney, said it all and then some in his Social Malpractice Handbook. jd White, another of the original artist, also created work about what happens when things we say stop being funny and start being violent. In the end the mimetic violence, no matter how creative or contextualized is still violence. Though it is true that some of the residents deemed the shows innapropriate enough to sensor other residents continued supporting my curatorial intervention. There is a line of sight we expect to see and find art in and when it falls out of that 56’ center on the wall it becomes invisible to many. That’s exactly why I asked Mack to join this second version-to provoke and ultimetly challenge how I view works of art. Allison Halter’s fabric Brick Wall I think best captures the spirit of Black & Blue by allowing us to “touch the art” we can access a level of intemacy and becomes protection from the incendiary humor of the blue note cards. Lazy looking wounds me and provokes me to ask more from my experience with contemporary art. Cliché, I know. Fear no art.
Victor Maldonado
Despite the fact that Gavin’s residents specifically targeted my work and asked that it be removed from the first installment, I’m quite satisfied with the outcome of the exhibition. The work that I created was intentionally provocative, socially irresponsible, and vulgar. Milepost 5 has been an endeavor of which I’ve been quite suspicious since the very beginning. When Victor approached me and asked me to create something politically incorrect for the show, I saw an opportunity to push some major buttons and ideally expose the facade surrounding Milepost 5 which claims that it is a creative living space for creative individuals. I think that we can all agree that it is, first and foremost, a for-profit real estate venture. Who purchases those condos makes absolutely no difference to the people behind the project; they need to sell condos to make money to pay back the loans that they took out. This means that if a wealthy, art-hating Republican wanted to purchase one, he’d have the ability. Claiming that there is some kind of curatorial nature to the way that you put occupants into your building is, pardon my language, bullshit. When my work was removed, there was a certain vindication that I felt. A relief, almost, that I was actually not a jaded individual who simply couldn’t understand or see the great benefits that Milepost 5 could give to Portland. And I’m never hesitant to play the necessary pariah in order to expose that which I feel should be exposed. What we learned from this exhibition is that throughout the brief history of Milepost 5, they have been exceptionally willing to exploit young artists in order to give their property a hip feel (The Manor of Art show, for instance). Attractive, ostensibly bohemian artists from Portland seem really neat to people who can afford to buy a condo, and Gavin knows that. This was never more apparent to me than when I was asked after the opening by a “Milepost 5 advocate” who I will not name to take brochures and purchasing information with me when my job at PNCA has me travel to Graduate National Portfolio Days. I work for a non-profit, and I’m not going to fly around the country trying to scam profits for your pockets by lying to young artists that they’d actually ever want to live in such a ridiculous place. What is interesting is that the moment that the people with the money decide that the artists might be just a little too bohemian, he’s their lapdog and cuts out anything that might ultimately dent the bank account. If all it took was a zine with liberal use of the word “faggot” to make this scam public, I’m proud to have been the man xeroxing it. I also like the phrase, “liberal use of the word faggot.”
Yep, Carney’s right.
Well, gentlemen, that’s a lot of comment. Good. I’ll say this about button pushing: it seems awfully easy. Too easy, particularly for one who has the luxury to “play pariah,” i.e. one who has never, perhaps, had the misfortune to be treated as one for real. What is more interesting, I find, is work that makes you question whether your button was just pushed or not, or better yet, work that questions the button, what underlies it (valid/invalid), what external forces shape it and how, etc. :::::::::: Regarding your feelings about Milepost, SJPC, I have mixed feelings…yes, art is here used to provide a saleable patina of artiness to the building, but I have said before and will again that artists need a multiplicity of venues in which to show and to reject out of hand opportunities for free space for exhibition is short-sighted. I, for one, would have regretted not having had the opportunity to see TJ Norris’ group exhibition, Grid. I think productive partnerships between curators, institutions, and developers can be had. ::::::::::Mack, I don’t think removing something from sight removes it from mind, and that’s probably one of the more interesting aspects of this. To what end do we bring up/make visible words that are painful epithets, for example? Yes, we don’t see them all the time, but don’t think that anyone who’s ever been called “faggot,” is going to forget it. I think this is critical…you were, as I understand it, personally addressing through this ongoing series words that you either or uncomfortable with or do not endorse…hence the 10-foot pole between you and image. Missing are the speakers and objects of these words. What are their proximities to the words, one might ask? How much distance can one who’s had to hear those words put between himself and them? Is 10 feet enough? Too, once the works go up on the wall, there’s a sense that either university or condo owner condoned them, and how do you explain that to the little African American kid who happens past them? Worth asking. :::::::::::: Victor, I think a fundamental point here is that when we view art in an art context (rather than a public/non-art context like a hallway or a street corner), we viewers essentially buy into a set of ground rules that is akin to the theatergoer’s “suspension of disbelief,” which is to say we know art is being made here and understand that we are to respond to it as such. Any time art moves out into the world, it has to understand that some will respond to it as art, and others will respond to it as whatever in the non-art world, it most closely resembles. So it is, for example, that I have mistaken Ariana Jacob’s art on the window of the Ford Building, as clever real estate advertisement (sorry Ariana!). I also think that I for sure might not fully appreciate the implied threat and feeling of lack of safety being surrounded by words that are used to denigrate and threaten. So your point about my being able to listen…or not…is right on. Freedom of speech does not imply a requirement that I listen.
Calvin (and Sean) have you ever lived in towns where there are few places to show? You two have just been in art school with its opportunities to show and get feedback regularly. Portland has a healthy number of venues, but I have definitely lived in places where places to show (from warehouse to gallery) just don’t exist in as great of numbers for a variety of reasons. Calvin, you curated a show at HOMELAND, a space subsidized by the owner of the Ford Building. And Sean, the institution for which you work, PNCA, has agreements with three buildings where lobbies have been turned into exhibition spaces for the exclusive use of PNCA artists…one of them is a condo building. Don’t you think that that condo building is using the same strategy of integrating art into its fabric as a way of attracting a certain buyer? It is perhaps in a more sophisticated fashion, but still. Howl not so loudly, friends.
Lisa you are absolutely correct. You can more often than not trace an exhibition back to a capitalist agenda. Being a designer to pay the bills, I am all too familiar with the way “art” can be used for profit. I actually do not care if milepost5 uses art to attract attention and then sell more condos. Hell I love money, and I wouldn’t mind if my art attracted more people so I could sell more art. For me, this was simply strike three against milepost5 in my book. Strike 1: Derek Franklin and I showed work there a little while back, and it was handled, and we were treated, very unprofessionally. Strike 2: We all know how I felt about the Manor of Art show… and Strike 3: the blatant censorship of an exhibition. Therefore, my complaint is not with them attempting to make money, rather it is about them presenting themselves as a strong, supportive home for artists, when they are actually a detriment to many artists that have been involved (a sheep in wolf’s clothing perhaps?). As you said Lisa, there are many venues to display work in Portland, and I would suggest avoiding milepost5. And the only thing I will say about my ties with HOMELAND is to Paul, Caitlin, and everyone else involved. You have all used real estate to the city’s advantage, and have strengthened the Portland art scene immensely. HOMELAND should be used an example of how to avoid what has occurred at milepost5.
I’ll side with Calvin on this. A large portion of art spaces do indeed receive funding and support from for-profit industries, organizations, etc… And several of these entities have provided space and money that otherwise would not exist. My issue with a place like Milepost 5 is that despite numerous instances that point to the contrary, they’re desperately clinging onto this claim that it’s a community of artists and a place for creatives. It is not. I could use the same argument to describe my own neighborhood based on the fact that some of the people there happen to create music, write, or produce art. However, that would be inaccurate. Surely, Milepost 5 would prefer that ideally their residents did fit the description of being artists, but a far larger concern is the bottom line. When I contacted Gavin and asked him about the removal of the work, this was part of his response, “The dynamic of having owners changes the space and what it means in drastic ways. Suddenly the individual has a totally diferent (sic) buy in than in a rental building. The other variable is realestate (sic) brokers touring the building with potentail (sic) buyers. Some of these have little to no context of what is going on here at MP5.” And there you have it: the real estate brokers who are pitching and selling these condos have “little to no context of what is going on here at MP5.” The people that they’ve outsourced selling these units could care little about turning it into an artist community – they are looking to make their commission and little else. So, while I sincerely could care less if a condo building strives to make a profit, I find it absurd that one exploits young artists as a means to do so by being absolutely dishonest with them. Milepost 5 is not an opportunity for young artists, it is an opportunity for a group of people to profit off of free labor and design work. Now, in terms of looking a gift horse in the mouth, I do not find that paradox to be applicable to this situation. There are so many places in Portland that young people can show their work that I would encourage them to maintain a distance from Milepost 5. There are ample opportunities at Worksound, Everett Station, Gallery Homeland, Appendix… the list goes on. Few of these places are looking to exploit in the fashion that Milepost 5 is. And, Lisa, while I’ll acknowledge your counterargument that PNCA is currently involved with different apartment/condo/architecture buildings that have provided space for exhibitions as relevant and well put, I’d respond that these buildings are not pretending to be something that they’re not. The spaces that they’ve donated are “art spaces,” but they are not lying to us that the entire mission of the building is to be one as well. Further, the space at 12 West is run by PNCA and has legitimate oversight managed by our college that creates accountability with the building owners – they cannot just simply use the students and toss their work out whenever they like. And, they’ve been transparent with their occupants regarding the role of the gallery space. Gavin & Co. seemingly didn’t even mention what was going to be happening at Milepost 5 as a resident of the 3rd floor came out of his apartment during my reading and asked a colleague of mine if somebody was having a house party. Finally, I’ve indeed lived in cities that had little opportunity for showing and am thankful that Portland has such an abundance of support. My argument is that we kick to the curb those places posing as opportunities and call them on their bullshit. Know’m sayin?
This exhibition deserves much dialogue in light of its obvious nature, short-comings, false start and sense of all things intra. As the instigator (organizer) of the show I invited both artist/curator Todd Johnson (whose show ‘Blue (Velvet)’ is still on view through year end) and Victor Maldonado to design separate exhibitions based on nothing more than the open-ended theme of ‘blue’ (blueness, blacknblue, consumer woes during the holidays as we face deeper recession, depression, seedy culture). These men are indeed fine artists and both respected teachers and each are represented by top-notch galleries in the Pearl. It seemed appropriate as my first attempt to enliven the hallway exhibition spaces to invite two venerable thinkers into an arts condo building (and also my home/studio – though moving on soon). I had already pre-scheduled the work of Matthew Haggett (Butters Gallery) months prior – and he wanted to further embellish the theme with his own work, presented in the MP5³ lobby space I have curated since the beginning of the year, with ‘Spherelab’ which was a perfect compliment. We had also discussed a public forum or round table, and potential ‘blue’ performative work.
None of these men had met prior, and each had a different ‘take’ on the open theme, which made the process of organizing a full-steam ahead ideal for me. But when the work went up there were initial grumblings that I had received from only one resident, and I attempted to address both the resident, and the curator (Victor) who was more than willing, and advocating for a dialogue with the residents at MP5. On the second floor of the building were placed blue notecards upon the hallway floor, below our feet (beneath us) and they ranged from jokes to obscure references to ugly truths and stereotyping — I love that they have been re-configured into a bathroom space, but they seemed portable all along as they were not taped or tacked down on the floors – residents could have moved them, turned them over, torn them in half in disgust…even though, granted, there were no ‘instructions’…I think the curator would have welcomed any form of response (hence his malleability for allowing the removal/re-vision of the show) – and that’s why I felt certain that this was something of an open space for this type of show. But something, somewhere, threw a hefty curveball into the lengthy space, and the room for thought became bare within a week’s time. Hopefully there is some reclamation in this remix of the show for the viewer.
THE NEW FENG SHUI:
That month we had two brand-new residents (and to my knowledge, also practitioners of feng shui) and it was primarily these newbies who had not been here for prior programming, so they were experiencing a new building and new programming (that was agreeably edgy, or at least chat-worthy, on all accounts). The timing seemed askew to rotating building meetings as well and the opening performance by SJP Carney seemed to ruffle some feathers. Though it was very much in context with the exhibition statement, and as he played orator (and spoke his mind from the printed word – he read his entire zine!) some were not aware of this context. Though all residents were invited, and there was wine and munchies provided by an in-house catering phenom, things seemed ‘obvious’ to me as to fingers being pointed at just about every demographic you could imagine….and hey, I’ve been both censored myself (banned in Boston!) and pointedly called some choice names and it hurts for real – but this all had a clinical, above bar feel to it, almost a mirrored parody, a take-back-the-night flavor. So, I was completely down for it.
Community for Creatives (branding?):
There was an incredibly lengthy and healthy (and telling) discussion that followed via an MP5 in-house e-list, and in some ways it helped to define where people in this community stand on certain aesthetics, opinions, etc. It was pretty intense (ask Victor). I got lost in the quagmire as simultaneously I was asked, as one of the few renters in the building, to start considering my move elsewhere as the unit I occupy will be up for sale. So, after a solid year of curatorial programming things will change and I will move on.
As I move on there is the call to witness of so many of the above comments, and I agree with many in favor and in opposition, honestly, this is worthy of real debate. As a critic I feel some of the work in the show very strong, in fact one of the photographic pieces of a woman tossing her head back with a white milky splatter really was genuinely provocative – as was the coy work by Derek Franklin (nice) and the cleverly ‘hidden’ piece entitled ‘dirt’. However, other pieces were a bit lacklustre and you’re gonna get that in every show…there’s just this thing I might flippantly call the “I just saw this cheaply hobbled together thing in Artforum so I’m gonna toss this off and try and sell my soul” aesthetic that swims upstream from the basis of craftsmanship that lined the hallway…hey, I’ll cut students some slack here and not go further. Though, all in all, this was a transgressive show, for the sake of it, and perhaps one end-result, one potential outcome, could in fact have been intentional censorship – not self-censorship, but the type that is attached to a cheshire cat…ya know?
Personally I am looking forward to moving on, and I wish MP5 success in selling space, however, though I like the ‘live’ part – the ‘work’ part has some shortcomings and I am looking forward to my displacement by re-charging myself in a big garage outside the skirt of town. Happy holidays y’all!
Carney, can we please have a social practice house party? You’ll turn on the boombox, then I’ll shake up an Old English 40 and spray it on you. Then you can call me a faggot like you do, and then spray me with a 40. Then we can end it with smokin some endo and sippin some gin and juice. Cranberry juice though, orange juice hurts my tummy. An appearance will be made by Kid n Play.
You can’t get the same feeling of pariahship simply by mimicking the voice of someone who actually fills that space. I found the show to be a bit obvious and not really “politically incorrect” but more of a knee-jerk of what might be considered not pc. For folks with privilege it’s easy to image that you feel oppressed by institutions, a non-profit no less, but the material wasn’t really owned by the artists (I’m guessing). It just comes off as heterosexist, but not in that challenging sort of way, it’s flippant and easily dismissible which means it’s not taken as a real critique. I’m sure the artists could come up with categories that are the real ist or ism that they deal with daily. As far as censorship goes I’m still totally up in the air on it.
Lisa, I do think that the saying “out of sight, out of mind” has some truth with it, tired as it maybe. Think redacted text and book burning. If Tropic of Cancer is not on the shelf then the likely hood of coming to it decreases greatly. As for those who use these words, well there is such a wide range. Red Fox and Richard Pryor come to mind right away as folks whom the 10ft could be put away for. The healing from words or being denied due to race, gender, sexual preference, or class is something the work does not address up front, but am so happy that it does come up. I’m not in it for the button pushing, and have no illusions that this small project of mine cover all the bases of the issue, what I hope it does is provides space for a conversation to happen. Surely no one reading this thinks that racism would end if we banned all the ethnic slurs in the world. Right? And I know look like a 100% pure privileged WASP, but lets talk about what all individual experience, to date I have not rendered a term with my 10ft pole that I have not been called, and no I don’t forget that.
Your last point Lisa is the one that really makes my brain hum, in regards to the PSU, MP5 and other censors shows in “public” space. I would love to have a conversation (rather than typed monologues) about appropriate use of these areas and the endorsement factors they bring for institutions. Does a library endorse Communism if it holds the The Communist Manifesto?
I feel like such an annoying egghead chiming in with, ‘have you guys heard of this philosopher?’, but; have you guys seen this Simon Critchley talk about jokes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZLl5e1HfWc
I think he has a really good take on things, and he’s such a gentleman! ‘We should laugh less.’ he says. (On the minus side, it turns out jokes aren’t funnier when a philosopher explains them.)
Gabe flores: word.
Provocateurs, shock and self consciously transgressive art are overplayed and overdone in our culture, especially in the navel gazing and self referential art world. Work in that realm should aspire to something deeper and more original than poking people with a stick. Which is unfortunate for many young, emerging, kneejerk, or jerkoff artists, me included, as most of us haven’t reached that level yet and some of our attempts are a little naive.
Shooting fish in a koi pond is easy even when you’re commenting on the act of shooting fish as I assumed Carney and Maldonado were trying to do. Hoping to shock viewers with racist jokes or making fun of social practice and graduate school come off as desperate gasps for attention. May as well throw a dead salmon in a 5 gallon bucket and see how your shotgun works at close range. Was anyone shocked besides the new tenants?
MG – I’m certainly aware that making fun of something is not difficult by any standards. And yes, saying intentionally abrasive things is an easy way to get attention. However, I’d like to point out that while a surface, knee-jerk reading of the work I submitted might allow one to dismiss it as being only intended to skewer or be offensive, that would be a lazy reading indeed. The critical survey of Social Practice that I did was thoroughly researched and said what many think or only say in trusted company. To call the work easy seems awfully dismissive; I’d welcome specific critical feedback as opposed to a generalized blanket critique so that I could respond accordingly. I’m also confused about your calling out of self-consciously transgressive art. How exactly might an artist actually transgress inadvertently? That would be an accident, and not a transgression, right? Just sayin’. One final general note: the assumption that the white male artists in this show are privileged is contextually ironic and quite funny.
WORD!
…Lisa, thank you for more of your trademark, mindful, great writing. I agree that when art leaves a venue where visitors are willfully entering it as an art venue, the response to that same art will be different, and for many reasons. Perhaps the frustration is a mis-understanding of what Milepost 5 is, and nothing more than a definition problem that can be better managed when understood by all? I see nowhere that MP5 promotes itself as a non-commercial art gallery. In its own words it is “an intentional community centered around creative individuals engaged in creative pursuits”… Doesn’t say anything about untethered-expression, does it? Doesn’t even say its a venue limited to only artists, or am I missing something here? Should it allow with supportive, joyful glee an exhibition of shit trailing up and down the halls in order to fit the nay-sayer’s definition? I thought not, so why would you expect anything short of that, say, like the public floors of peoples homes covered with incendiary and intentionally offensive messaging? To be a community-home which endeavors to be ‘centered around creative individuals’ does not mean you should expect to shit on their floors with welcome. And they never claimed to be non-commercial – they are peoples homes, for chrissakes! Just because they are ‘creatives’ doesn’t mean they have to like walking through your messaging daily. Have you never show in a coffee-shop or restaurant? Would you expect this work to be allowed in those venues? And are these same coffee-shops who afford a venue to you young artists month after month, year after year to help launch confidence and careers somehow now all of the sudden be anti-arts too for not showing your work? I’m sad to hear, CRC, that you were treated badly by MP5. This does explain, however, the fervor you spewed at the Manor of Art show…I mean, come on man – that show was beautiful and helped some 100+ young artists become exposed to thousands of new eyes to their work! Your dismissing this support of MP5 to the arts community as nothing more than a commercial effort to sell condos is as shameful as those who dismissed your Homeland curation as the self-indulgent attempt of an over-confident recent grad without considering the actual work involved… We all know that if those condos don’t sell, then the Studios don’t get built – and then how many artists will be deprived of affordable space in what promises to be a truly community-driven arts ground-zero? Give them some credit for what they try, and get better at each time. Things will evolve, mature, and get better with time…just like all of us. Oh, SJPC, which white males in America aren’t privileged? You? Try telling that to all of those on your cards whose lives you so thoroughly researched (when not spraying 40’s on CRC and calling him faggot, “like you do”.) Good thoughts shared here, and I’m glad for both MP5 and this column for affording venues to self-expression…neither of which anyone should expect to ever be absolutely free of all censorship in any case whatsoever…
Joe,
Well put counterpoint on MP5’s goals, you’ve got me thinking here – but I would point out that I didn’t make the cards with the jokes on them. Those were made by the students in Victor’s class. I made a book and did a reading.
It’s not correct for me to comment on all of this because I didn’t see the show but my reason was that I thought it would be exactly what you describe and that all your points are valuable to a certain degree and than they fall short of really being comprehensive like all arguments. Of course now I regret that decision and would like to see it.
It makes no sense to blame MP5 the organization because they allowed the show
it was the people who found it offensive and this deserves respect.
MP5 offers a great deal too creative’s to be owner of a place and even help you with getting it instead of wasting the same amount on a rental
but this is about the Art not MP5 and to shift the argument in that direction or dig out previous exhibits is of no value to this discussion.
As artist we also have to be reminded that we have to respect others and many of the comments and the Art presented indulges in disrespect for the feelings of others no matter how you paint that pole.
The reason I didn’t go was because I knew it was intended to be bluntly offensive and we’ve been there done that but my concern was more on how I would react to it.
There was nothing to like there which creates a dilemma because in away the artists wanted to be padded on their shoulder for how righteous they are in their incorrectness .
I f I had been there I would have been forced to tell them what I think about that show and obviously I am more interested in using artistic talent in new productive ways and I am frankly bored with being confronted with this kind of use of our freedom of expression
because I am old enough to know what’s old and stale but still has sting enough to insult me.
I am equally insulted when women, white man, blacks or gays are still used in an insulting way to make a point about censorship.
In away I am happy that they had the guts to censor the show it shows they still are not that desensitized and understand what this moment in time calls for.
It doesn’t call for more provocation and separation and artists have to wake up to the new economy of living together using their talent for solutions starting to point the finger in their own direction.
again Lisa thanks
for being a cathalyst because the local art scene needs it badly
Richard I wish you would of had the courage?, time? and/or respect to see the exhibit, and then make pointed comments and feedback to the artists, or about the work, rather than these blanketing generalizations about all the show and its artist and works.
…Thank you, SJPC, for correcting me – and I apologize for my error. I’m sorry I missed your reading, and look forward to your next. My point there stands as written, nonetheless. MMc, I don’t think Richard was speaking pointedly to the works themselves, but rather generally about the generalizations we’re all discussing in this thread. I think anyone who has seen hundreds or thousands of shows in a life dedicated to the arts can securely make his point from the discussion here with confidence, and knowing Richard he didn’t make his comments without insight. I’m a bit saddened for the need, but glad he reminded us all that this isn’t yesterday anymore – and for the arts and artists to survive and thrive, everyone has to understand and embrace the fact that this BS in-fighting is not furthering the arts, but only dragging it back into the mis-understood and un-funded muck where so many believe it belongs. For evidence, just watch the cackling, bobble-headed Republican politicians pissing themselves with laughter over how the Democrats are handling their rare vast-majority… And watch those same folks jump with glee when the efforts of our own CAN crashes in burning flames because this towns’ art community can’t even seem to rally around something designed to HELP them! We need to work TOGETHER, support each other, and reach out to bring NEW people into the fold of supporting the arts here and everywhere, or all that will be left to help you are those coffee-shops…maybe…
Maybe the problem is that we are ridiculously idealistic and cannot see past our own arguments. In our world, censorship is tantamount to treason. We also know that to others censorship is a way of life, a way of protecting ‘people’. Blanket statements about provocateurs are really scary and they seem blind to the fact that provocateurs are often the ones who spur change.
I would differentiate, Anna and Ryan, between the agent of change and he who is satisfied to épater le bourgeois. And what do you mean, “censorship is tantamount to treason”?
We’re not really prepared to tease out what and who is classified as bourgeois, we do know that art is mostly directed at people that can afford (time & money) to contemplate it. Just because a work of art or writing or performance attempts to shock a particular audience doesn’t mean that it has no agency for a more widespread change. We are specifically speaking here about SJPC’s book and reading, which while designed to be brash, shocking and politically incorrect actually had a lot of valid points about art and social practice.
What we mean by “censorship is tantamount to treason” is that censorship is the worst (ideological) crime. Censoring one thing starts us down an incredibly slippery slope and ultimately doesn’t make anything go away, it fuels a culture of neutered communication, passive aggression, pent-up anger and hurt. Often it really only reveals the flexing muscles of particular power structures. We acknowledge that we are being idealistic about this and we see that our position has limitations.
Perhaps, it will ultimately hurts us, but we can never look at PSU as an institution that encourages academic, artistic, or social discourse again, simply because they censored Mack. MP5 will now forever be remembered as a user, an organization that wants to take from artist but will not support him when he needs it. This is the same reason a lot of people refuse to participate on Port, because of their long history of censoring comments.
Thank you Artists, Victor and TJ.
No Guts/No Glory.
Darrell Williamson – a real faggot
Thank you, Anna & Ryan.
Anna & Ryan, you said “Just because a work of art or writing or performance attempts to shock a particular audience doesn’t mean that it has no agency for a more widespread change.” I’d say, “doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the possibility of creating more widespread change.” But at the same time, just because a work attempts to shock a particular audience doesn’t mean it will create change…or even that the artist has the will to do so. We all have known artists (or poets) who simply want to mess with people, and I distinguish between them and those who see their action as having the possibility to create change. Now, whether art can change anything but art is another matter. I’m looking forward to reading Sean’s piece. I haven’t. ::::: Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on censorship. I am struggling with the use of the word censorship in this context. Censorship, to me, implies the ultimate power, the state, preventing an expression. In that case, there is no other outlet for the expression unless the artist/writer is willing to risk jail or death. In this case, the artist is free to express himself, has many opportunities to do so. So here, I’m thinking of it more as an editorial decision…a venue electing not to present certain content. I think the difficulty here, then would be that the venues were not clear up front about the kinds of shows, the kinds of content they were comfortable presenting, and so chose to intervene in an already hanging show…which isn’t good for anybody. Surely we can’t force every venue to present anything. If I have a gallery, I’m certainly going to be choosy about what I present. And you wouldn’t call me a censor for making choices. I am still thinking this through.
We hear what you are saying Lisa and tend to agree on some points. Sometimes people do shock just for the sake of it. However, in the case of SJPC and McFarland we aren’t ready to believe that that’s what was happening. (Even if it was, we see nothing wrong with shock just for the sake of it. In fact we enjoy that stuff.) It seems like something such as Duchamp’s Fountain wasn’t exactly meant to do more than shock, or be a thorn in the side of a particular art community, but despite the level of his intention to make change, his Fountain and the rest of his body of work, have made a profound impact not just on an art audience but on an International populous. – Also, we would like to add that alternate opportunities for an artist to express herself seem irrelevant. These artist were asked to create a show and they produced work for said show—that is they labored for FREE and then after the work was all done the venue decided to take it down. This seems like censorship rather than editing because editing would have happened (hopefully) before rather than after the exhibition was finished and open. If one has a venue we want them to be choosy of course, it will make for more considered shows, but it seems like a certain level of transparency about the process of ‘curation’ ‘editing’ or ‘censorship’ should be called for, for the benefit of the viewers and the artists. We don’t know exactly how MP5 handled the situation, but in the case of Mack McFarland’s drawings it would have been nice for the institution to follow the protocol of a newspaper—to perhaps print a formal retraction and hang it on the wall, in place of the original work, to explain the original gesture and the subsequent complaints so that everyone can be on the same page about the issues involved. I guess we get heated on the topic because we expect artists to take responsibility for what they put out in the world, and so it seems only fair to expect the same from the institutions as well. Thanks for thinking about this with us.
I love online discussions, but I really love face to face so I decided to do discussion at the loft on Dec. 5th at 2pm to 3pm. It’ll be a way to primarily dialogue about censorship. If anyone has any questions about the group you can email me at pdxgabe@gmail.com.
Agreed, Mack, re thinking it through. I love the word “redacted” and think your application of it in PSU case is appropriate. Smart.
Regrettably, I am unable to attend the event that Gabe has put together at MP5, as this weekend is pretty hectic for me. However, I think that what he’s proposing is an interesting endeavor and am sorry that I will have to miss it. Would anybody be interested in trying to do some kind of conversation, formal or informal, regarding the topics addressed in this thread at some point in the future? I would personally prefer a site other than MP5 as I think that it might keep the discussion on the topics of work and general venue protocol, and less about that specific venue. Naturally, with the holidays approaching, people will likely be exceptionally busy. But I think that it would be a good thing for many voices to come together in person, as Gabe suggested. If people aren’t up for it though, no worries. Anybody who thinks it might be a good idea and is unable to attend on Saturday, please feel free to shoot me an e-mail and we can set something up: seanjpcarney@gmail.com
I live at MP5. I can tell you unequivocally that it’s a condo complex with arty affectations. Fascinating stuff has been shown here and will be shown here, despite the indiscriminate, greedy, unit-filling intentions of the developers. Pull the string in Brad Maslin’s belly and you’ll hear a stale manifesto about how “the Portland story” hasn’t been told yet, and how he wants MP5 to be instrumental in transforming Portland into a world-class art capital. Don’t listen too closely, or you’ll find years have passed and nothing he promised has manifested and his son has picked your pockets while you were mesmerized. The only thing more disgusting than corporate greed is wannabe corporate greed. Gavin Shettler may have good intentions in all of this, but the slumlords who sign his checks have reduced him to the role of Art Janitor. All this dialogue about the merits of transgressive art are rendered utterly meaningless when you pause for breath and realize that the space you’re fighting for has all the artistic intentionality of a department store. The recession took everyone by surprise. I don’t begrudge Brad and Ted Gilbert their decision to throw their alleged initial idealism out the window and present a different bill of goods to everyone who wants to move in here, filling units first and asking questions later. But the fact that anyone is still carrying on like this place means something is deeply insulting to those who’ve been tricked into living here by promises that have since been edited out of the brochure. If you care about Art, go make some. The fight for meaning, freedom, and relevance at MP5 is a lost cause. I repeat: MilePost 5 is a Condo Complex. MilePost 5 is a real estate venture. “Community for creatives”=“Coke is It”. It’s a jingle. MilePost 5 wants money. Art is just the bait.