May 27, 2005
The First Amendment
We're going backwards: North American art, as a political act and an individual form of self expression is not nearly free of the influence, stature and control of American right wing politics and religion. You'd think the censorship battles would have mollified at least slightly after James Joyce's landmark case over his sexually and politically charged Ulysses. The battle still rages, full force. You may have the vague notion that artists are only exiled, shot, hung and imprisoned in places far across the sea, in the middle east. Let's avert our eyes from Rushdie (with all due respect, he's gotten enough by way of press, coins and prestige for his unfortunate circumstances in any case) for a moment and focus them on Michigan artist, Edward Stross. In February, of this year, Stross was sentenced to thirty days in prison and fined 500 dollars for a mural he painted on the wall of his own art gallery. He was ordered to alter the painting until it was found suitable for public eyes by a district judge. For me, this forced alteration of Stross's expression is perhaps the most heartbreaking fact of this story. In America, you can't paint what you want to paint.
What was the offending image of? It was Stross's version Michelangelo's Creation of Man. Stross's adaptation depicted Eve. Evidently, Eve's bare breast was just too much for dwellers of suburban Roseville to, well, bear. Here is a photo of the man with his mural; the photo appeared in an article about the incident, while it was still in the process of escalating, in the Detroit Free Press:
Well then, that woman in the orange dress, American flag in tow, sure is some fairly pornographic stuff there. Wooo-iiee. I sure as hell would pay to download that hardcore shit from a members only site. And what about that Holy Orgy going on behind her? Heavy, man--I should charge a per-minute fee to view this damn sexy entry. God save our precious children. Save them from all the wardrobe malfunctions and mammary glands in the world.* This reeks of the Taliban's zero tolerance policy on depiction of the human body in art. Remember what they did to those ancient Buddhist Statues about four years ago? Blew them right up, shot them right down. How is this any different?
How is this:
less "appropriate" and more offensive and harmful to the public than this?:
I guess a gun baring male is less frightening than a breast-baring female. Now, I ask you: which one of those would you rather have in your face?
Apparently, the State considered Eve's breast to be genitalia, which, in 1997, Stross was told, by way of a variance, not to include in the yet to emerge mural. Those who have even the most rudimentary grasp on Art History will have a sense of what parts of the female body, rightly or wrongly, tended to be covered with the classic fig leaf in art's timeline. Where, children, was the most likely place for that fig leaf? Can I see a raise of hands?
What about the bi-otches getting thar sugar's smacked in MTV videos? Why are there no court orders against 50 Cent's "art"? What line is his ass on? Who is more demeaning to woman, 50 Cent or Stross? Who has more influence over and is more dangerous to our children's minds? An oldie of a point, but still well worth mentioning, under the circumstances. Since, you know, it seems our rage and disgust at nudity and artistic portrayals of the human body are purely circumstantial. A highly commercial artist that reinforces countless degrading stereotypes seems to have free reign, as long as he keeps the industry happy with the mullah he rakes in. A left wing artist with multiple sclerosis, like Stross--well, I think you see the picture. The writing's on the wall. Multiple sclerosis and acts of controversial, political art, just aren't sexy enough to win the public over:
* ("ma-me-mory II" as performed by mathew b of combat furniture) Posted by caroline at May 27, 2005 6:30 PM
dang, way to make your point!
his own f@$# gallery wall, he had to change?
unbelievable!!
Caroline: you'll be getting fuller comments later, but oh my, it's nearly 1 a.m., and I'm still listening to this ridiculous song by your friends over and over again and laughing my head off. it's priceless. i've sent it to a couple friends of mine that i write music with, because it's going to so bring back memories for them of some of our own latenight, um, *creations*... pass my compliments to your buddies. i'm still laughing. i never stay up this late. i gotta stop. oh gawd, i gotta stop.... too much nipple, oh no, too much...
Posted by: el robbo at May 29, 2005 12:45 AMEVE's breast is pornographic? She was supposed to be the first (no, wait, third) woman, before Good & Evil. Ironic that she has to be clothed because her story is about the reimagining of the body as indecent.
Posted by: ben at May 29, 2005 12:17 PMquestion... were you (caroline), personally offended by the 50 Cent song?
i ask because although i realize the content is unconscionable from a moral standpoint, in its context as a piece of art it does not offend me. it's a style i never listen to and don't spread around. it occurs to me that perhaps the inescapability of the mural as a part of the neighborhood might have some bearing on all this.
Posted by: Chris at May 29, 2005 1:25 PMinescapability of ubiquity. shoved down the throat, pun intended. That’s what offends me. on all sides.
50 cent is just a foil. And NOT the perfect one for my point, I may ad(d), but there we have it. This entry could have been five times as long, easily. I could give a rat's ass about 50 fucking cent dime store change one way or the other. and I like underground hip-hop, which is different and inspiring. apart from the reinforcing of stereotypes, which I've already mentioned--no I am no offended in the least because I'm probably on of the hardest person in the world to offend--but I stand in my own ground and out of the context, OWNING it &tc. but I do rage, obviously, and there is a big difference. rage in terms of injustice.
ben:
you are fucking brilliant. Fantastic point!!!
but . . .maybe that's what they're afraid of . . . .ironically: I mean: BECAUSE it shows the body to be indecent., they want to hide what is shown as being evil because they are afraid of being inherently evil and indecent and dirty while still on this earth and breathing. It's all primordial and that point you made kind of freaks me out in the sense of when you do too many shrooms and start to see how one sentence makes a cause and statement for both sides at once and it goes on like that forever, held in place as it moves forward.
. . .
ahaha!!!
holy mother of shit.
:D
xoxoxo
rob-
we could ask for no higher compliment than the passing on of!
This is us, reading your comment: :D :D
(interchangeable faces, since both had like reactions).
& hmmm . . .how oh how would one know it was a *late night* " creation"?? haha!
!
I think the volume on the song needs to be brought up a bit . .I’m frightened that some parts can't be heard properly if someone has inadequate speakers.. And I do feel that it needs to be heard.
I'm *so* glad people are enjoying it. Damn straight on that point you kept on making about writing what you're passionate about. How else can creation possibly occur? And is it creation otherwise. Hmmm. ahmmm.
For a connector, consider how Lil Kim has been portrayed in her music videos, especially in those ones from before she was of legal age; she started at around 17, if I remember correctly - then connect that to Eve (the Biblical figure, not the other female rapper). How are those portrayals different?
It's interesting that Eve is reviled for the Fall of Man, but there's a failure to view nudity and respect for the human body as BENIGN and more importantly DIVINE - people revile Eve while perpetuating the Fall of Man, they feel the body is a temptation, when it is closer to their Edenic state. If you believe in Eden.
Lil Kim was - and probably still is, although I haven't seen any of her recent videos - put on display and I question whether or not she chose that route, displayed in "provocative" dress to, you know, titillate the viewer and encourage consumerism. In Eve's case I'd argue that the body is divine, in Lil Kim's case I'd argue that the body is a commodity. I actually don't see much of anything wrong with Kim using/portraying her body like that if she chooses to, but I somehow think the Record Company has more to say about it.
Oh, and re: album cover. 50 Cent wears a cross AND carries a big gun - nobody complained about that? Spirtuality mixed and used as an excuse for violence. I really honestly can't keep track of what actually offends the Religious Right or the "family values" people anymore.
Posted by: ben at May 30, 2005 7:58 PMtotally
Posted by: Chris at May 30, 2005 8:19 PMSi, si, who can disagree with all that indignation you throw at all that US crap? why does it come as such a surprise to you all? You all sound like you've never heard of Macarthy or the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam or Iraq or changing French Fries to Freedom Fries. Use your energy to resist that kind of crap in your own community. It{s your only chance.
Support your local fags, per ejemplo, which is as good a way as any to draw attention to the BODY.
Greetings from Lisbon.
Mose
Posted by: Mose Jourinho at May 30, 2005 10:10 PMSi, si, who can disagree with all that indignation you throw at all that US crap? why does it come as such a surprise to you all? You all sound like you've never heard of Macarthy or the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam or Iraq or changing French Fries to Freedom Fries. Use your energy to resist that kind of crap in your own community. It{s your only chance.
Support your local fags, per ejemplo, which is as good a way as any to draw attention to the BODY.
Greetings from Lisbon.
Mose
Posted by: Cristiano at May 30, 2005 10:12 PMhello whitecity,
no surprise. I'm rarely surprised by anything that comes in from the States. Bay of Pigs just recycles itself round-the-clock, which lends well to hardening, at least for some minds up here.
supporting local fags though, aye, that is actually where most of my energy goes. in life, maybe in death. :)