'Inappropriate' art removed from Denver airport

[zimv20]

link (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3075442,00.html)


'Inappropriate' art removed from DIA

After six workers complain, city pulls 3 pieces from display

By Noelle Leavitt, Rocky Mountain News
July 30, 2004

City officials removed three pieces of art from a rotating display at Denver International Airport this month after six employees complained about them.

The art was deemed too stressful for passengers and workers to view in light of the heightened security following 9/11, said Lindy Eichenbaum Lent, communications director for Mayor John Hickenlooper.

The contemporary art display called "The Luggage Project" was organized by Max Yawney, a New York artist. Yawney asked artists from around the world to make suitcases into art.

One of the banned pieces was created by artist Madeleine Hatz, who lives in New York. Her suitcase is splattered with glossy red and black paint and contains bricks. A bumper sticker inside the suitcase reads, "Blood for oil. Billionaires for Bush."

Billionaires for Bush is a satirical group that opposes President Bush.

Hatz says she's been censored.

"Art is controversial, and we have a right to freedom of speech," she said.

"I'm showing that there's a connection between blood spilled and oil spilled," Hatz said.

Another banned suitcase was a piece of luggage with a Dalmatian print and a handle made from a box cutter.

A third piece showed a yellow case containing small toy planes and missiles.

It was later reinstated after Vicki Braunagel, co-manager of aviation at DIA, decided it was only "borderline offensive."

Braunagel said she found the three pieces "inappropriate" and pulled them July 9 - the same day the exhibit went up - after consulting with Hickenlooper's office.

"Inappropriate" is a scary word to apply to art, Yawney said.

"Who's to say what's inappropriate?" he said.

The airport doesn't have a written policy defining controversial art, but is considering developing one, Braunagel said.

(more)

[skunk]

Slippery slope...

[zimv20]

anyone familiar with "Degenerate Art?"

[skunk]

I remember it well. THOSE were the days :D

[Krizoitz]

Slippery slope...

No one is banning the art altogether, they are just saying its not appropriate for this particular setting. Nothing slippery about it. Alot of people have apprehension about flying, the last thing they need to see are images in an airport to compound those fears. If the artist wants to display the art, I'm sure there are lots of places where she can.

[zimv20]

kriz -- what role does art play in your daily life?

[mkrishnan]

Hmmm, and there are first amendment concerns if art that's publicly funded or placed in publicly funded venues is partisan. I have a problem with the overt anti-Bush aspect, if its in an airport. But I think the idea is actually very cool in general. Someplace like the Hirshorn in DC should totally pick this up (blatant plug for my favorite museum in the world :))...and I would totally go see it there. Or, erm, the Museum of Modern Art in Jacksonville, FL? Because, ummm, it's closer to me? But then the Hirshorn. Mos def the Hirshorn. ;)

But outside museum and other art venues, I think there are concerns that become legitimate that are not necessarily censorship of art.

I don't know if I have a problem with the other two in an airport or not. I have mixed feelings. Mostly the only part that bothers me is the anti-Bush program hi-jacking a public art display. OTOH, those kinds of things probably should also be spelled out up-front.

[Neserk]

I can see not wanting the images in an airport. I know that they don't put magazines etc. in airports (or at least they didn't use to) that talked about plane crashes... I would prefer it to have been a decision made by the artists, though... censorship is NOT a good thing...

Hopeuflly they will find a gallery that will take the art.

[takao]

anyone familiar with "Degenerate Art?"

ahh what a nice warming fire out of books ;)

when the "degenerate art" point is reached i would recommend leaving the country

but this suitcase story ?
what is so offensive about them ? it's not even real blood (from animals) they used...

i wished this story were as amusing as the "prozac in tap water" one

[skunk]

Gotta prevent people from making connections. If they start doing that, we're ALL in trouble....

[3rdpath]

Gotta prevent people from making connections. If they start doing that, we're ALL in trouble....

airport...people making connections....a clever pun?

[IJ Reilly]

I don't know about slippery slopes. This looks to me more like yet another wacko mountain. What ever happened to looking the other way?

This story reminds me of another failed attempt to introduce artworks into an airport. A couple of years ago Los Angeles International commissioned artists to design artworks for the terminals. One of the designs, placed on the pavement inside a concourse, was a takeoff on Da Vinci's drawing of a man in a circle (no doubt someone will be able to supply the real name of the original). The contemporary artist instead used the figure of a woman, which had (gasp!) breasts. Artistically suggested, of course. Very tastefully done, I thought. But a few other people were so offended, the impure image had to be covered until the airport could figure out what to do. I don't know how the airport resolved it.

So, now we know -- it's become politically incorrect to display Leonardo Da Vinci in a public place in the good old USA. I hope people outside of the US don't take away from these episodes that we're all completely nuts.

[zimv20]

i'll assert that by the time you make "art" that offends no one, it is no longer art.

can anyone name a piece of music that is universally loved? along the same lines, how many of us go out and buy the muzak that is piped into supermarkets?

[takao]

One of the designs, placed on the pavement inside a concourse, was a takeoff on Da Vinci's drawing of a man in a circle (no doubt someone will be able to supply the real name of the original).

"Uomo vitruviano" aka. "virtruvian man"

(i had to look up the spelling for the vitruvian part)
but i know it because i took a leonardo da vinci course in the history of arts faculty of our university just for fun

[yellow]

Slippery slope...

Damn right.

[Taft]

No one is banning the art altogether, they are just saying its not appropriate for this particular setting. Nothing slippery about it. Alot of people have apprehension about flying, the last thing they need to see are images in an airport to compound those fears. If the artist wants to display the art, I'm sure there are lots of places where she can.

Ahh, I see. We should probably ban any 9/11 imagery from newsstands, right? I mean, the last thing a person would want to see before a flight is a "9/11 remembered" collectors magazine showing one of the planes hitting the WTC.

:rolleyes:

This is a joke. 9/11 imagery is everywhere. Every "news-magazine" out there shows violent pictures and scenes, many of which deal directly with terrorism. This is not about protecting passengers from "inappropriate images." (WTF is that, anyway? Who defines it? Do you really want public officials do define it?) This is clearly about the message this particular piece was sending.

Just so I'm straight on this:

If 9/11 is invoked in a "patriotic" way, I'm free to use it any way I want. But if I invoke it in an "unpatriotic" way, then I'll be censored.

Does that sound about right to you?

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

"Uomo vitruviano" aka. "virtruvian man"

(i had to look up the spelling for the vitruvian part)
but i know it because i took a leonardo da vinci course in the history of arts faculty of our university just for fun

Thanks. I'll bet you didn't know that in America, some people consider it to be pornographic.

[friarbayliff]

Just so I'm straight on this:

If 9/11 is invoked in a "patriotic" way, I'm free to use it any way I want. But if I invoke it in an "unpatriotic" way, then I'll be censored.

Does that sound about right to you?

Taft

The problem is that nobody here can figure out exactly what "patriotic" is.

The other issue is that an airport generally exists as a different sort of social atmosphere, especially here in the US. For some reason or another people like to travel with as little human interaction as possible. As soon as a simple political or social message goes up in an airport, people begin to get pissed off because it makes them think - something they apparantly don't like to do when they travel. The whole social thing sounds somewhat backwards considering that an airport is potentially one of the biggest venues for cultural and social interaction.

[skunk]

Thanks. I'll bet you didn't know that in America, some people consider it to be pornographic.
In Europe, some people consider America to be pornographic...

[IJ Reilly]

In Europe, some people consider America to be pornographic...

Ouch.

[Krizoitz]

This story reminds me of another failed attempt to introduce artworks into an airport. A couple of years ago Los Angeles International commissioned artists to design artworks for the terminals. One of the designs, placed on the pavement inside a concourse, was a takeoff on Da Vinci's drawing of a man in a circle (no doubt someone will be able to supply the real name of the original). The contemporary artist instead used the figure of a woman, which had (gasp!) breasts. Artistically suggested, of course. Very tastefully done, I thought. But a few other people were so offended, the impure image had to be covered until the airport could figure out what to do. I don't know how the airport resolved it.

So, now we know -- it's become politically incorrect to display Leonardo Da Vinci in a public place in the good old USA. I hope people outside of the US don't take away from these episodes that we're all completely nuts.

Regardless of how tastefully done it is, some people feel that nudity is innappropriate. Its not a matter of being prudish, its a matter of respecting other peoples views. If you want to fly you have to go to an airport right? So what you are saying is that these people have the choice of either having to look at art YOU consider fine but they don't or not flying. Isn't it a better choice to place that art somewhere else, like an art museum? No one is saying that the art in that case or in this oen shouldn't be seen at all, just that its not appropriate in THIS particular location.

Imagine how you might feel if instead of the suitcase or the da vinici piece it was the a big painting of Jesus? Or how about the Confederate flag? What if they put up a painting of a man with multiple wives? Its not about censorship, there is a time and place for the art, a highly public place like an airport just doesn't seem to be one of them.

[skunk]

Regardless of how tastefully done it is, some people feel that nudity is innappropriate.
Inappropriate? :confused: There's that word again!

Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand NAKED.

[zimv20]

Its not a matter of being prudish, its a matter of respecting other peoples views.
because it's nigh well impossible to make any piece of worthwhile art which will offend no one, you must be suggesting that it's inappropriate to place art anywhere except in places where people specifically go to seek it out.

is that your position? if so, do you find that to be inconsistent w/ the ubiquity of other aspects of daily life, such as advertising? should we relegate advertisiting to rooms where people seek it out? and what happens when an advert incorporates a piece of art, or someone sees that advert itself as a piece of art?

i'll ask again -- what role does art play in your daily life?

[IJ Reilly]

If we want art in public places, I guess it's going to have to be restricted to Thomas Kinkade paintings, pictures of puppies and kittens, and possibly Elvis on velvet. Then only people who actually care about art will be offended.

Oh boy, I'm I ever going remember this discussion the next time a conservative rants about liberal political correctness.

[Colirio]

Well, interesting to me is who can be the final judge of what is considered to be "offensive?"

For instance, let's compare this incident to the ruling about the statue of the ten commandments having to be removed. In that case, the director (judge) was holding onto something that some people deemed offensive and was ordered to remove it. In this case, the airport director deemed this art to be offensive and thus removed it. Should people be legally forced to keep something they believe to be offensive (due to free speech laws) and yet be forced to get rid of something just because others might believe it is offensive?

While some might argue that one is a religious statement and the other is a political statement, both instances were considered "art." Isn't art simply defined as the expression of one's beliefs?

Just a thought I had about this case...

[IJ Reilly]

No. This is a phony-baloney argument. The most recent Ten Commandments case had everything to do with the Constitution and nothing whatsoever to do with offense.

[zimv20]

For instance, let's compare this incident to the ruling about the statue of the ten commandments having to be removed. In that case, the director (judge) was holding onto something that some people deemed offensive and was ordered to remove it.

please point me to the case history where art was used to subjugate a people, where people were slaughtered in the name of art, or where a person's feelings about art were used to deny them rights.

[Krizoitz]

No. This is a phony-baloney argument. The most recent Ten Commandments case had everything to do with the Constitution and nothing whatsoever to do with offense.

How is it any different? Its one group claiming that their views are better than anothers.

[zimv20]

How is it any different? Its one group claiming that their views are better than anothers.
well understood: separation of church and state
never mentioned: separation of art and state

kriz -- please please please tell me what role art plays in your life.

[IJ Reilly]

How is it any different? Its one group claiming that their views are better than anothers.

How an argument could miss the point more completely, I can hardly imagine.

[Krizoitz]

because it's nigh well impossible to make any piece of worthwhile art which will offend no one, you must be suggesting that it's inappropriate to place art anywhere except in places where people specifically go to seek it out.

is that your position? if so, do you find that to be inconsistent w/ the ubiquity of other aspects of daily life, such as advertising? should we relegate advertisiting to rooms where people seek it out? and what happens when an advert incorporates a piece of art, or someone sees that advert itself as a piece of art?

i'll ask again -- what role does art play in your daily life?

What does what role art plays in my life have to do with anything?

As for worthwhile art not offending anyone, I'm not saying that, I'm saying we should use common sense. War images in an airport aren't appropriate because of the nature of the location. Its called being considerate.

As for the nudity one, personally it probably wouldn't bother me, BUT, some people feel that nudity isn't appropriate, especially for young children. You may not agree with that view but you could at least respect their right to allow to allow their children to see it when they deem it appropriate. I assume you wouldn't want them forcing their views on you?

Because thats what you are doing here. YOu are saying your view is dumb, there is nothing wrong with nudity so HAH in your face here it is. We are talking about a venue that is used by thousands of people of different beliefs. Its not about censorship, its about respect. Somebody wants to put up the art i a gallery, or a privately owned location, fine by me. But you should be considerate of other peoples beliefs too.

[zimv20]

What does what role art plays in my life have to do with anything?
because 1) i want to know where you're coming from and 2) i want you to think about it.

it's an interesting experiment. go about your daily life, and for every single thing you see, ask youself such questions as:
- is it art. if so, why?
- was it intended to be art?
- do other see it as art?
- does it enrich my life?
- would i miss that thing if it were gone?

the answers might surprise you.

But you should be considerate of other peoples beliefs too.
i am. it's very easy to say "that controversial thing shouldn't be seen." it's not so easy to question what role such controversy has in our lives, or why it's controversial and who finds it so.

i think sometimes we're too quick to protect others' sensitivities, so you should be willing to give people more credit. according to the story, 6 people complained. out of how many who saw it, and how many liked it, i wonder.

[IJ Reilly]

This rationalization is too cute by half. Admit it: shielding people from seeing or hearing anything that might offend their tender sensibilities is an exercise in political correctness, pure and simple.

[Krizoitz]

This rationalization is too cute by half. Admit it: shielding people from seeing or hearing anything that might offend their tender sensibilities is an exercise in political correctness, pure and simple.

No, its an excercise in courtesy.

[Colirio]

This rationalization is too cute by half. Admit it: shielding people from seeing or hearing anything that might offend their tender sensibilities is an exercise in political correctness, pure and simple.

Couldn't the same thing be said about banning religious symbols?

Honestly, though, I don't see how it is a violation of freedom of speech for the airport difrector to remove something that they think might be controversial. If they received complaints, it might be verifying what the director has thought all along.

Also, what exactly do you define as "art?"

[skunk]

While some might argue that one is a religious statement and the other is a political statement, both instances were considered "art." Isn't art simply defined as the expression of one's beliefs?

Just a thought I had about this case...
Both instances are undoubtedly political also. Good point. But wasn't there something about separation of state and religion in the 10C case?

[IJ Reilly]

No, its an excercise in courtesy.

And so you could say about every effort at enforcing standards of political correctness. It's exactly the same argument, no matter what you choose to call it out of convenience.

[skunk]

But you should be considerate of other peoples beliefs too.
Some people believe I should be killed. Should I be considerate?

[IJ Reilly]

Honestly, though, I don't see how it is a violation of freedom of speech for the airport difrector to remove something that they think might be controversial.

Fine, but I never made a free speech argument.

[takao]

if you take every thing that might be offensive out of art, what will be left of art ?
you can offend people with empty frames

edit: for the nudity example: if we would have to make all the art in public room or other places where it can be seen by children, "appropiate for children" (aka. 'covering every bare breasts') we would have a nice bunch of sculptures , _churches_,official buildings to cover

[Colirio]

Both instances are undoubtedly political also. Good point. But wasn't there something about separation of state and religion in the 10C case?

Absolutely correct. The trouble I see is in defining what seperates a system of beliefs from being a system of religious beliefs.

Is it a basis of origin? It can't be that due to the statue of the ten commandments not containing an creation or theory and yet it was ruled as religious.

Is it a code of ethics as in the case of the ten commandments? If so, then wouldn't any art suggesting a system of betterment fall into this category?

Is it merely a suggestion of Deity that creates this category? If so, then what does this suggest about those whose Deity is that of "Mother Nature" or some other form of non-Deity? And if so, does a message of a nonexistence of Deity fall under those rules as well? (It being a religious belief in itself.) Wouldn't art suggesting these beliefs fall into the same category?


I'm just asking here where you guys would draw this line.


From IJ Reilly:
Fine, but I never made a free speech argument.
No, it was someone on page one that made this suggestion and that statement was refering to them. I apologize for the confusion. :)

[iMeowbot]

please point me to the case history where art was used to subjugate a people,
Propaganda from many corners falls under that category.
where people were slaughtered in the name of art,
The Nick Berg beheading certainly wasn't intended to be a documentary.
or where a person's feelings about art were used to deny them rights.
http://www.bar-gera-museum.com/

[yellow]

please point me to the case history where art was used to subjugate a people, where people were slaughtered in the name of art, or where a person's feelings about art were used to deny them rights.

Couldn't propaganda be construded as a form of art? It has certainly played a major role at least two of the issues you detailed above..


EDIT: ACK! Note to self.. finish reading ALL posts before posting. [sigh] Sorry all.

[iMeowbot]

Is it a basis of origin? It can't be that due to the statue of the ten commandments not containing an creation or theory and yet it was ruled as religious.

Is it a code of ethics as in the case of the ten commandments? If so, then wouldn't any art suggesting a system of betterment fall into this category?
The commandments aren't simply a legal or ethical code. All versions contain in the #1 or #2 spot a call to believe in the supremacy of one particular deity. Courts are supposed to be impartial, and they do have to decide matters involving religious equality. It's a real problem to be taking sides like that.

[zimv20]

Propaganda from many corners falls under that category.
excellent. however, i'll point out that propaganda is merely a tool, and that the art itself isn't used as a justification for killing. for example, the futurists never took to the battlefield against the surrealists, whereas the christians killed a lot of muslims in the Crusades.


The Nick Berg beheading certainly wasn't intended to be a documentary.
interesting point. are there those who hold that piece of tape as art?


http://www.bar-gera-museum.com/
you'll see i brought up Degenerate Art in an earlier post. this actually supports my case, that the authority (here, the Denver airport authority) is punishing the artists, because it's the "wrong" kind of art.

i see i didn't word my third point very well, fwiw.

[zimv20]

here's the bottom line on the airport thing:

what happened is censorship. artists were given a forum to present their views and an authority deemed those views too controvserial and removed the art.

the question is: is this kind of censorship okay? several people have said "yes," because the forum was inappropriate. further, kriz suggested that art should be relegated to (my term) "safe zones," where people who seek art can see it, but those who don't will not be in any danger of encountering art.

this idea fascinates me, because art is everywhere. some art is made intentionally as art and is displayed in a public space. some art has some other utility or function, e.g. a building may have a frieze, or otherwise aesthetically appealing architecture.

art can be found in advertisting, music is piped into public spaces, perhaps the local park has a japanese garden, or is tended by a gardener who takes great pride in his/her display.

how do these definitions of art jive w/ the idea that art occurs only in a gallery space or a museum, where it's expertly hung are carefully lit?

what of performance art? last year's flash mob pheonomenon comes to mind. what was that if not performance art?

i get tired of this idea that art has to be stodgy and tucked away, lest "ordinary" citizens accidentally become challenged or confused.

in my next segment, we'll take a look at some art around chicago.

[zimv20]

in 1967, picasso dedicated a 50' metal sculpture, a gift to chicago. it's displayed in a downtown plaza.

it caused a lot of controversy then, but now it's pretty much universally accepted as a symbol of chicago. here is the piece in question:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/picasso/frontanglesm.jpg

[zimv20]

in 1999, chicago "borrowed" an idea from a swiss city (i forget which one) and offered Cows on Parade (http://www.chicagotraveler.com/cows_on_parade.htm). local businesses and individuals sponsored artists to decorate a prefab cow each, then the cows were displayed throughout the city.

it was low on controversy, but i know more than a few people who thought the whole thing was a waste of time. but a lot more thought it was great.

http://www.chicagotraveler.com/cowart/P7071002a.jpg

http://www.chicagotraveler.com/cowart/P7071005a.jpg

a friend of mine owns one of these.

[zimv20]

i don't know the history of dubuffet's art brut piece, also in downtown chicago. when it was first unveiled, i thought it was ugly. now i really like it. and i'm pretty sure it's not the sculpture that changed...

http://chicago.about.com/library/graphics/sculpturesdubuffet03.jpg

[pseudobrit]

Cows offend me.
As a courtesy, could you please open up a "cow art" thread so I won't unsuspectingly view such material? I am scarred by these images.

[skunk]

Cows offend me.
As a courtesy, could you please open up a "cow art" thread so I won't unsuspectingly view such material? I am scarred by these images.
What a load of bullocks!

[Daveman Deluxe]

I think that art should challenge us and make us think. I think that it's a good thing when art is controversial, as it brings up topics that many of us often ignore.

That said, I can see some justification for the removal of the latter two pieces of art mentioned in the article. I say this because sometimes art can do more harm than good (hard though it may be to believe, for some), and in those cases, it may be right for an authority to choose not to showcase a particular piece of art.

I don't think the first piece should have been pulled. Although I don't understand what drives some people to take every artistic opportunity as an opportunity to make a political statement, I fail to see how her suitcase was inappropriate for the airport's display. Having seen a picture of the second one (the one with the box cutter), however, I see a potential reason for pulling it--I think it may have reminded people just how insecure our air travel system still is, and how easy it still could be for a terrorist to take control of an airplane. While that's a VERY IMPORTANT issue, I don't think it's the best thing to be reminding people of just before they step onto an airplane--at least not in that manner. As for the last piece, with the plastic airplanes and missiles, I have not seen it so I can't make an informed opinion there, but it seems from the description that it could go either way.

Also, isn't it the right of the proprietor of the venue (be it an airport, a museum, or your living room) to decide what will and what will not be shown? Yes, I know you'll have a field day with this one (along the lines of "OMG BUT THEY'RE PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THIS IS CENSORSHIP AND CENSORSHIP = NAZIISM" :p ;)), but I think it's an important point to raise and discuss.

Edited for clarity

[iMeowbot]

excellent. however, i'll point out that propaganda is merely a tool, and that the art itself isn't used as a justification for killing. for example, the futurists never took to the battlefield against the surrealists, whereas the christians killed a lot of muslims in the Crusades.
I understand what you're getting at, I just don't happen to agree with it. It would be nice if artwork was only capable of communicating truth or raising questions, but it's every bit as effective when used to communicate lies. It might not be nice stuff that's being created, but it is very much a creation -- that's what fabrication is, after all. If the "reality" people are presented that causes them to act a certain way doesn't exist outside of the artwork, then yes, they are quite literally acting for art. And of course, this is exactly why governments tend to be afraid of artists, or at least the ones who insist on acting too independently.
interesting point. are there those who hold that piece of tape as art?
Think about it, it has all the hallmarks. It was scripted and presented in a way that would invoke certain reactions in the viewer, and the reactions were certainly the purpose of the tapes. The same is very much the case with terrorism in general. It's exactly that element, the intention to cause people to think and feel in certain ways, that distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violence. In a very real way, it is performance art taken to nasty extremes (and much the same can be said of many tactics used in conventional warfare).

Yes, I'm fully aware that a display in an airport lobby isn't going to cost lives, but imagery of that sort can still harm people who are already afraid in that context. It's a very different type of interaction from, say, voluntarily going to see a scary movie. People's freedom to be left alone does have to be balanced against people's right to express themselves.

you'll see i brought up Degenerate Art in an earlier post. this actually supports my case, that the authority (here, the Denver airport authority) is punishing the artists, because it's the "wrong" kind of art.
There is a world of difference between losing a gig and having the works seized or one's professoinal affiliations severed. They can be shown elsewhere, and our country does have explicit rights regarding private property and peaceable assembly to enable their appearance at another venue.

[blackfox]

The phrase "don't shoot the messenger" comes to mind...

Art is by nature a subjective experience...it's meaning is defined by the viewer. So I must ask what is doing the "offending" here?

I would say it is not the art...

It would seem some people are so thin-skinned that it is as translucent as the real motivations for the controversy...