Tuesday the Secret Service photographed possibly upsetting artwork at a student show at the Art Institute of Chicago. Go here for details.
Is this an infringement on ideas or a necessary step to protect our nation in a time of war?
Hmmmm?
Um, they weren’t very secretive about it were they?
And, IMHO, I think it’s quite scary that anyone who dares to question/criticise or mock the leader is regarded as suspicious. I’d like to think that a mature society would regard such diversity of views as inherently healthy.
I don’t know what else they asked about or took pictures of, but I’m honestly not worried or even surprised. The image showed in the article titled “patriot act” showed a gun pointed at President Bush’s head. It’s the job of the secret service to protect the president so they showed up to find out if the picture meant anything more, or if the artist had any sort of history they should be aware of.
No art was removed. No artists were threatened. They showed up, asked some questions, and left. This doesn’t endanger anything, except maybe artistic subtlety and that’s the artists fault. :rolleyes:
While this is related to the arts, I think it’s more appropriately a political debate, and so I’m moving it off to Great Debates.
I realize that this is an area of potential overlap, it could be argued to fit in either forum, but I think you’ll get more discussion in Great Debates.
Drawing a gun next to the president’s head does not put his life in danger. Nor would drawing a little bullet coming out of it. Nor would a graphic image of his blood and brains (ok, blood anyway) being blown away.
How different is this than hanging someone in effigy? That’s a time-honored way to show contempt for someone. This posed no threat to Bush whatsoever, the Secret Service must be overstaffed if they can waste time on this. I have no problem with them investigating and prosecuting genuine threats to Bush’s life, but this is just silly.
Just to clarify, the show isn’t a student show, it’s a traveling exhibit of professional artists. Also, it isn’t at the Art Institute, it’s at a gallery owned by Columbia College, my alma mater (just down the street from the Art Institute).
But the question is not whether an artist can draw such a picture. The answer, unambiguously, is yes. The Secret Service did not take the picture, order it covered up, arrest the artist, shut down the exhibition, or take any action that would prevent the public from seeing the art. There has been no governmental interference with this artist’s freedom of expression.
Instead, the question is whether the Secret Service has to actually investigate threats or potential threats to federal officers before taking action. By investigating, in situations like this, the Secret Service can figure out that this is not a legitimte threat to the presidency but is, instead (IMHO), a puerile yet effective means to get publicity. Besides, if they don’t even investigate, how are they supposed to know whether something constitutes a threat.
Much ado about nothing, if you ask me.
But what requires an investigation? Under what possible circumstance would a work of art pose a threat? If there is no possible circumstance, then they don’t need to investigate. This stifles artistic expression in that other artists may be intimidated by the possibility of the Secret Service breathing down their back every time they make a piece that isn’t flattering to the president.
That was my question as well.
If I painted an image of myself bonking Bush over the head with a bat, I can’t see how that would be constituted as a threat, unless the title of the painting was, “This Is What I’m Gonna Do Next Friday.”
It’s my understanding that a threat is the statement of intention to do harm.
You don’t think the SS saying ,“We’re watching you!” interferes with anything? How do you feel just reading your paper with someone looking over your shoulder? This artist now has the Secret Service looking over his. They aren’t tying his arms or taking his art supplies, but expression is hardly free under a magnifying glass. This was art exhibited in public, not some everheard clandestine conversation about ways and means to kill the President.
This was no investigation.
An investigation is where you go out to obtain information, and to obtain it in such a way that the process of obtaining it doesn’t muddy up the waters (e.g., tipping people off).
This was a high-profile intimidation maneuver.
Endangering artistic freedom is the purpose of the maneuver.
I have to agree with BobLibDem and the rest. This may not have been an investigation, but it was definitely an intimidation tactic. It’s very, very sad to see a nation which is supposed to be the pinnacle of democracy (though I don’t necessarily believe that) stamping on one of the most fundamental aspects of a free society - freedom of expression. An artist should be free to create whatever art he or she wants, with no threat of “investigation”, unless of course the art itself were dangerous to people directly (like installing a sculpture of a working gun that fires into the street every ten minutes). No matter what the art expresses, there is no threat involved to others. It is the words and actions of the artist (or any individual) that determines that. Not the art.
Then you can join them in being wrong. The Secret Service was doing their job, nothing more, nothing less.
Huh? So Eliot Spitzer is not investigating AIG because he told them he’s investigating? Your statement makes no sense.
Here’s an exercise: Suppose the law were amended to specifically prohibit the Secret Service from taking action if an alleged threat reported to them turned out to be an art installation. Someone calls in a threat. The Secret Service goes out to the gallery, takes a picture or two, confirms in an interview that the “artist” intended to make art and not a threat and then they throw the pictures and the interview into a file along with a note that says “We didn’t take any action because on checking out the alleged threat we learned that it was an art installation protected under the First Amendment and as described in our authorizing legislation. This file contains proof that it was art and not an actual threat. The End.”
How would that be different from exactly what they did here?
The Secret Service looks into every perceived “threat” to the President, no matter how unlikely it seems that someone will act on it. That’s called due diligence, and it’s their job. It has nothing to do with the fact that Bush is in the White House - if it were John Kerry, they’d be acting in exactly the same way. They ascertain if the threat is a credible one, and move on if it aint.
Any “artist” who gets scared off by a few questions has no business calling himself an artist.
Perhaps my standard for “intimidation” is different from yours. Mine is based on the law, including legal precedent, and the Constitution. In this instance, does the artist have a “claim” against the Secret Service for looking at the picture and speaking to him? Based on what I’ve read, no. No civil rights were violated. Consequently, if there is no claim that the government has invaded his civil rights, should we nevertheless create an amorphous “intimidation” claim?
We could theoretically call this some kind of tort (IIED? NIED?), but as you know, there is likely a qualified immunity for the Secret Service agents who (a) were doing their job, (b) in a reasonable fashion/based on a reasonable belief that their actions were lawful, and (c) conducted themselves in such a way that a reasonable person would not be disturbed.
So, lacking a basis in law to claim that the Secret Service did something wrong, we are left only with the possibility that, having drawn a picture depicting a threat to the POTUS, an artist had to answer some questions. I have not seen any claim that their questions were intimidating, or that there were “custodial interrogations.”
So where are we? We have: no claim against the Secret Service; no laws broken; no constitutional violations; a few questions asked; and the art remains available to the public (with, cynically, greatly increased attendance). No intimidation or stifling of artistic freedom found. (Instead, ironically, this art has now reached a broader audience than it otherwise would.)
But you’re missing the main point: until the Secret Service investigates, they don’t know whether the art is created by a fellow like Brandtler, likely a harmless soul only looking to make a buck, or whether it is the tip of the iceberg for a looney fellow like, oh, John Hinckley. Until they conduct an initial survey, as they did here, they can’t simply “write this off” as art. They need to make sure there isn’t something deeper.
We should always question our government. That is one of our fundamental rights as Americans. And if our government crosses a line, we should hold them accountable for that. Here? I just don’t see it.
Once again, this is all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Bullshit. It was a piece of art, not a reasonable threat. They were fools if they thought it was anything else. Though I agree it’s probably a tempest in a teacup
Again, how could this have conceivably be perceived as a threat? Honestly? I can see manhattan’s point of view from the post above yours, and if this was as he described then perhaps it could be reasonable. But by what was reported in that story, it sounds like they were there because of the contents of the picture. There was nothing in there about the artist having expressed any anti-Bush sentiments before, or being on a Secret Service watch list or anything. Sure the curator was suspectedof something from the past, but it seems to have little to do with this or with US national security. So why would they have any reason to see this as anything other than yet another inane attempt at artistic protest. I think they erred here in that they investigated something that should never have raised there hackles in the first place.
their hackles. Damn, I’m making this mistake too often lately
If there was precedent for people making art depicting people they intend to murder, I might go along. But I’d like to see at least one example of someone that committed murder after developing a piece of artwork about the victim. If you mean to harm the president, you don’t telegraph your intentions through art. Again, what is the essential difference between the pictures of Bush at gunpoint and burning Bush in effigy? Does the Secret Service investigate every time a president is burned in effigy?
So someone calls the SS and tells them there’s this picture of a guy pointing a gun at the president. And you’re telling me they should just ignore such a notification, not even send an agent out to take a look and make sure it’s nothing?
In today’s ago of CYA, that would be completely foolish.