[pure-silver] Re: Censorship
- From: "B P" <peeperphotos@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:41:01 -0800
Thank you, Bogdan. This was a very insightful and useful post. These were
things that I did not know and am glad to learn.
Becky Lynn
On 12/7/07, Bogdan Karasek <bkarasek@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> If I remember correctly, all the submissions were presented to a jury
> which chose the photographs in question. The jury did it's job. Normal
> procedure dictates that the Board of Directors mandates a Selection
> Jury (criteria etc.) to make the selections and the jury submits it's
> choices to the Board of Directors which then approves them at the
> following Board meeting and this is included in the Minutes of the Board
> meeting. The "rubber stamp" by the Board is part of the procedure
> because the jury choices have to be officially recognized and this is
> done via the Minutes of the Board. The Board of Directors is a legal
> entity, so the choices have to go through them and be approved by them .
> Normally, the Board acknowledges the choices, approves them, thanks
> the jury for discharging it's duty, and goes on to other matters. The
> Board of Directors is empowered to name standing or ad hoc committees,
> i.e., fund raising, planning, Selection Jury or any other committee that
> it deems necessary to help fulfill it's mandate. If there is a problem
> with the choices made by the Selection Jury, then this is discussed at
> the Board meeting. Normally, the Board makes the committee's choices
> it's own, inscribes the choices in the Minutes of the Board and they
> move on to other matters. That's why a Board names committees. It
> can't do all the work by itself. It can mandate and then approve.
>
> At different times, I have sat on both sides of the fence in Artist run
> Co-ops (legally incorporated), on Selection Committees and on the Board
> of Directors. Only once did we have a problem with the Jury's choices
> and that was because of personality issues between one of the Board
> members and a member of the jury. A vote was taken and the majority of
> the Board supported the Jury's choices.
>
> So, the question I ask myself, where is the Jury? Have they spoken up?
> Have they complained to the Board that the President unilaterally
> overturned a choice they had made, and a choice that had to have been
> approved by the Board. Where are the rest of the Board members? Why
> aren't they complaining. After all, their authority is being abrogated
> by the President. If there is a crisis needing immediate resolution,
> then the President can make an on-the-spot decision because the
> situation demands it, but procedure also demands that the Board be
> appraised of the situation at a later convenient date and they normally
> ratify the President's decision. Has this been done?
>
> Some will say that I am nit-picking, but this gallery is a public
> institution, therefore a legal entity, and as such must follow certain
> procedures. This is the behind the scenes stuff that takes place in
> all public institutions. Have procedures, as set out in the By-Laws,
> been respected in this case. I find it very odd, that somebody from the
> gallery, an employee (?) could ask the President of the Board to
> override a decision by the Jury and which normally was approved by the
> Board. If there was a problem with the photographs, then it should have
> been hashed out at the Board meeting. These things are not to be taken
> lightly. A Board has legal responsibilities, By-Laws that have to be
> legally respected and if there is disagreement with the Jury's choices,
> which does sometimes happen, the Board usually consults with the Jury
> and tries to work things out. The Board has legal responsibilities and
> these cannot be dismissed.
>
> I know all this sounds very boring, but believe me, from personal
> experience, these are things to be considered. Without getting into the
> problem of Censorship or whether the images were offensive or not, that
> is not the issue from a technical legal procedural point of view. I'm
> just trying to present a different take on the problem.
>
> Anyway, what I am suggesting is that the artists in question delve into
> the legal technicalities. Was the President's action in conformity
> with the By-Laws, were mandates followed, what is the legal relationship
> between the President, the Board and the Jury? maybe they have
> different procedures in Modesto, I don't know, but I do know that if
> this is a public institution, you can't just go around doing what you
> want. All this is spelled out in the By-Laws and there is a legal
> obligation to respect these By-laws. The President has to answer to the
> Board and the Board answers to the City of Modesto. If you own a
> private gallery, that's a different matter altogether; you can do what
> you want, within certain legal limits.
>
> Has the question been brought up at city council meetings?
>
> There are different ways of protesting loudly and there are also legal
> issues at stake. Use them all. No one is above the law even if the
> person is President...... of a Public Gallery.
>
> Hope I didn't bore anyone but I've had to deal with these kind of issues
> in the past.
>
> Cheers,
> Bogdan
>
>
>
> B P wrote:
>
> > The President of the board is a very well known Christian in town. Gaye,
> > who is in charge of running the gallery is also a Christian. It was Gaye
> > who deemed them inappropriate and then she made a call to Brad Hawn, the
> > president. He supported her decision and the photos were taken down.
> >
> > I was talking with David, one of the photographers who's work was taken
> > down. He said that Gaye, the one who took his work down, said that if he
> > had painted the images they would have been fine!! He said that he was
> > offended because she was saying that his artwork (photography) was not
> > art. So, it's more about the medium than the actual content.
> > Photography is seen as art at Mistlin Gallery unless it includes
> > breasts. But painting can be of anything and it's, "Art".
> >
> >
> > On 12/7/07, vellum <vellum@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vellum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > That's not the reason for the censorship. The article in the
> Modesto
> > Bee states clearly that "A couple of visitors voiced objections to
> > gallery staff members". Furthermore, the article implies that the
> > gallery operators felt that the images crossed the line of good
> taste
> > and states that the gallery board felt the photos were inappropriate
> > for
> > children.
> >
> > It's just plain old prudish censorship born of an anti-human
> morality.
> > Here's the url to the article so you can read it and decide for
> > yourself.
> >
> > http://www.modbee.com/1544/story/143951.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Shannon Stoney wrote:
> > > This censorship seems very silly to me, but here's a possible
> > > explanation: when I used to model for a figure drawing class,
> there
> > > was a rule that nobody could take a photograph of the model
> unless he
> > > or she explicitly gave his or her consent. But people were
> busily
> > > drawing the model all the time! I think the reason was that a
> > drawing
> > > or painting of a nude figure is not easily pinned down as to who
> the
> > > model is. But a photograph is much more obviously of a certain
> > > individual.
> > >
> > > Could this have had anything to do with the case in point?
> > >
> > > --shannon
> > >
> > > On Dec 6, 2007, at 1:00 PM, B P wrote:
> > >
> > >> There are two photographers who do silver-gelatin prints who had
> > >> their prints removed from a show after they had already past
> > through
> > >> a jury and were hung. The artists are, David Schroeder, a local
> > >> Psychologist and Lee Bailey, the lab tech and teachers assistant
> at
> > >> the Jr. College that I attend. I saw the images and there were
> > >> beautiful images of beautiful figures. They were not distasteful
> in
> > >> the least bit. I went to the show and it's full of nude
> paintings.
> > >> The paintings were just as nude as the photographs. The only
> images
> > >> that were taken down from the show were photographs! It's my
> opinion
> > >> that the body is artwork in and of itself. That viewing a
> beautiful
> > >> human form would cause such discomfort for someone says
> troubling
> > >> things about that person, not the artwork or the artist. Should
> we
> > >> not see the human form as artwork unless it looks 'less real'?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Have any of you had this kind of trouble showing your
> > photographs of
> > >> the figure?
> > >>
> > >> You can read the story at modbee.com <http://modbee.com/> you
> > just scroll down a bit and
> > >> you will see it.
> > >>
> > >> I think I'll go write a letter to the editor.
> > >>
> > >> Becky Lynn
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> ===========================================================================================================To
> >
> > > unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
> > <//www.freelists.org/> and logon to your
> > > account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> > > subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> > >
> > >
> >
> =============================================================================================================
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
> > <//www.freelists.org/> and logon to your account (the same
> > e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
> > unsubscribe from there.
> >
> >
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bogdan Karasek
> Montréal, Québec bogdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Canada www.bogdanphoto.com
>
> "I bear witness"
> ________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
Other related posts:
