Someone decided to punch a San Fransiscan gallery owner for putting up paintings depicting torture by US troops in Iraq. The gallery owner, in fear, shut down the gallery.
Might it have been Ashcroft on vacation?
That doesn’t ring true for me.
I mean, it sucks that she was assaulted, and whoever did it should be arrested and prosecuted. But to claim that it wasn’t your *intent * to stir up some shit seems disingenous.
Sadly, it’s no surprise she was punched; it’s the folks who blow the whistle on the torture or call attention to it, not the actual torturers, who are the bad guys in a lot of people’s eyes.
I think her assertion that it was not her intent to “stir up some shit” (as capacitor summarizes it) should be taken at face value. She did not paint those paintings, she exhibited them. Clearly, she did not set out to be an activist. She set out to be a gallery owner. Gallery owners never ever dictate what a painting is going to be about or look like.
Most galleries are private businesses and virtually all gallerists who deal in contemporary art desire to rotate in exhibitions of work that is fresh and has some current relevance to our society.
And I doubt the artist who did paint them did it to “stir up some shit”. (Really this sort of accusation betrays a lazy-stereotype-as-truth perspective about art and artists and how artists work.) My educated guess is that those paintings are a reaction to the events at Abu Ghraib, and the glaring and ill-fortuned dichotomy it reveals about what America says it stands for and what actually happens in the “real world”. This exhibition was very likely booked months in advance, before the release of the prison photos, and the artist was provoked by the photos into producing this new work.
The fact that a few angry fongools from North Beach (a very conservative neighborhood in SF, such as they come) can’t handle this “real world” and need to lash out against art that depicts it, obviously they are just barbarians.
Begging your pardon, I of course refer to spooje’s comments and not capacitor.
Way to let fear run your life.
Dude, it is not some fear of something that might or might not happen; SHE GOT PUNCHED IN THE FACE FOR PETE SAKE!! I’d bailed out too if my life and the life of my children was in danger…
Welcome to America in the 21st century.
Although your assertions are indeed well thought out and agreeable for the most part, I still feel there is a certain level of intentional “shit-stirring” in the art world. The goal is to invoke emotions in the people viewing the work. Sometimes, controversial issues are used to get attention irregardless of whether or not the artist was personally moved and wanted to express their emotions. IMHO there is a big difference between an artist expressing their emotion in a painting and one who does it simply to stir the emotions of others to get attention. Nonetheless, one cannot assume any different motivation in the particular case, I am just saying that there are quite a few artists out there, especially young, not so good ones, that try to take the shocking way to fame.
Personally, my two most treasured peices of original art are ones in which I could feel the artists emotions when I looked at them. One of them left me staring at it for months before I felt I truly captured the thought of the artist. Thankfully, artists are still some of the most vital parts of our culture that always remind us that there is much more than the physical world to tangle with in modern society.
Oh, and since this is the Pit, the guy that hit her is an ass, irregardless of her motivations for using the paintings in the gallery (which are likely as stated by RTA- a contract with the artist booked well in advance).
Yes, because people that punch others in faces routinely kill. I doubt he just up and punched her, more than likely she got mouthy and he was a mysoginistic jerk and punched her. Letting some trogdolyte decide if your business is going to continue is letting fear run her life. There are hundreds of things to do in this case. I certainly would not have been cowardly and shut down my business I spent so much time investing into.
“Haigh said she did not think to connect it to the events at Baghdad’s notorious prison until people started leaving nasty messages and threats on her business answering machine. […] The answering machine recorded new calls from people accusing her of being a coward for moving the artwork.”
She just can’t get a fucking break, can she? Jeez.
"Last weekend, Haigh said a man walked into the gallery, pretended to scrutinize the painting for a moment, then marched up to her desk and spat in her face.
On Thursday, someone knocked on the door of the gallery, then punched Haigh in the face when she stepped outside."
Given the other things she says happened, I can believe somebody punched her with no other warning.
USA = number 1
US flag = God
Soldier = Hero
Patriotism Heil !!
Beat the Disbelievers!!
I mean: Are you people not worried one little bit about the mindset that makes such reactions possible?
Once again I am amazed.
Salaam.A
No, we’re not worried at all. As you can tell by the posts preceding yours, all us Americans think this was just dandy. Every single one of us. That’s why this thread was titled “Lousy Commie Art Gallery Owner KO’d by Righteous American.”
What I mean is:
Do you refelct on it that a culture like the USA with its excessive patriotism, its strange adoration for everything military and its excessive “proudness” of a piece of cloth in Stars and Stripe colours actually provokes such things.
Salaam. A
While they don’t dictate what gets painted, they do have the final say in what gets shown. That said, I agree that she probably did not have a specific goal of stirring up controversy. She’d have to be stupid if she didn’t know that the showing would be controversial. But lots and lots of art is controversial. Some would say it is supposed to be. She’s undoubtedly shown work in the past that she felt was extremely controversial and the public at large took no notice. Like they do about art almost all of the time. At least, it is highly unlikely she’s ever been violently threatened before.
What I meant is:
To an outsider it is obvious that a culture like the USA, with it excessive patriotism, its even stranger adoration for a flag and it incomprehensible wide spread glorification of everyone and everything "military "actually provokes such things to happen.
So my question was: Do you actually worry about this.
Salaam. A
Dude, not all Americans are like that. Just the stupid, violent ones. Unfortunately a stupid, violent mob tends to beat out intelligent, peaceful groups in any confrontation.
Of course we worry about it. Have you noticed the posts to this thread worrying about it? Sheesh.
True, but art IMHO is either aesthetically pleasing material, or (more importantly) material that may or may not be aesthetically pleasing but that forces you (through shock, horror, astonishment, appreciation, etc.) to think, to consider alternatives, to arouse emotions, etc. Art can be dangerous, cutting stuff. And it can be disgusting – a couple years ago an artist whose name escapes me set up an exhibition of work he had made using exclusively his own faeces. I don’t know enough to tell whether his objects were any good, but knowledge of the raw materials employed certainly made me ponder the beautiful oxymoron of using the lowest and foulest of substances to produce what many people consider the highest gift to humankind.
It didn’t make me want to own any of it (good grief!) but it certainly did make me stop and think.
Any artist is entitled to pick a subject matter and explore it as he/she sees fit, regardless of personal involvement. The argument that art is any less when it is deliberately inflammatory is not really an argument, because some of the most interesting art is “shit-stirring” and should raise questions.
At any rate, the painting displayed by Haigh was a simple depiction of real events with some minor commentary by the artist; it doesn’t really seem like an attempt to ride the shock highway to fame and frankly it is a lot less offensive and shocking than much of the garbage you hear from this administration (not to mention their buddy FOX News). Some ignorant patriotic fuckhead walking by the art gallery saw the painting, felt his tidy but extremely limited and narrow worldview challenged, and lashed out the only way his pea-sized brain knew how, by assaulting an innocent citizen and a woman to boot.
We can only hope they catch him and make an example out of him and his sick but popular brand of patriotism. Strict discipline is needed for the set of assholes who think an uninformed opinion and sub-standard understanding entitles them to do anything.
I concur on all parts except a few my friend. First of all, using the term patriotic to describe this man is inappropriate. I know many patriots who would vomit at his nationalistic, violent outburst. I grow weary of patriots being equated with mindless heathens. I knwow you did not mean that by it, but I think it is important to note that there are many patriots out there who would welcome any free expression.
Secondly, it is only my humble opinion that an artist only achieves a portion of their goal if they elicit an emotional response. An artist speaks to us through work, but it must be a part of them. I look upon a piece of art and determine its value by what I think the artist felt. Shock value, in and of itself, is not art. It is the same thing as “real TV”, or funniest home videos, showing pictures of people being hit in the crotch. Always remember the Simpsons, although Homer chose man being hit in crotch at first, he eventually realized that Barney’s journey into his own alcoholic psyche was truly art. Cartoon yes, truth… yes.
I agree. However I would still say it was patriotic fervor that prompted this behaviour. In truth, the asswipe who beat up Laigh (not to mention the others who harrassed her) was being un-patriotic for disregarding such a fundamental right as free speech, not to mention the right not to be assaulted and a few others! But his intentions were no doubt patriotic in (flawed) origin. Whether he wanted to cover up what he thought was a falsehood, or simply attempt to remove the entire subject using “censorship by KO”, would be interesting to know.
Yeah, but I wouldn’t say that the painting in question (portions I have seen it and as it was described) is shocking, in fact compared to any half-decent news reports of the same event it is quite tame. That aside, I think shock is a legitimate carrier for art, of course much depends on theme, degree, execution & skill, etc. (c.f. the debate over the grisly Titus Andronicus).