I noticed the same thing about the venues.
Concerning the Alison Stinely exhibit, there are two things being discussed here. People that choose to avoid images of the naked human and freedom of speech.
One of the unrealized aspects of free speech is that while we are guaranteed freedom of speech we are not guaranteed a freedom of audience. A rally for anything in a public space is guaranteed, within the prevailing laws of that area. If I choose to get a permit and then stand on a street corner and pontificate, I don’t have the right to force people to stop and listen. I have the right to speak but not the right to be heard.
However if you hang either good or bad art in a public building that citizens HAVE to use, you are attempting to force people to view something they may not wish to see. You have made the ethical leap between the right of freedom of speech and the right to an audience by using the government as your weapon of force.
This, of course has nothing to do with the art itself, but the attempt to use a free and publicly funded site for your own financial gain. While I do not fear seeing the naked human form I do not see that as a justification for forcing anyone else to either see it or approve of it’s viewing by anyone.
Trying to shoehorn your art in front of a captive audience and then claiming the right of free speech is disingenuous. Let it stand or fall on it’s own merit. She needs to take a real risk at a real gallery and stop trying to take short cuts on the taxpayer’s dime. Choosing to visit a gallery implies that you may see something you wouldn’t ordinarily see and you have the option to not view those things. You also have to pay to get in which funds the museum and the artist.
I do not support governments deciding what is or isn’t art and what art I should be seeing, just like I don’t support the government deciding what I should be reading or watching. I wonder how many, if any, galleries she tried to accept her work for shows? It would be revealing to know.
If a government or municipal office decides to decorate their structures with art, it should be representative of the general history that describes that community not just a few selected individuals. It is not the place of government to advance innovation in the arts. Just like any other market, art succeeds either at the public level by the public’s choice to accept it and view it or at the private level where a patron pays the artist for the work. The government has no business trying to skew the market by showing preferences for certain types of art.
It sounds like those responsible for the management of the transit site recognized that there was no way they could satisfy everyone, so they put a stop to the idea in general.
With regard to the 2nd link, I recognized the name of this guy and I had written a post about another of his shows at the same museum at
Nudity and Self Acceptance. Looks like he’s still at it and having good results.
Personally the “ART” seen in the photos does not appeal to me, though we don’t see all of it, I would be curious about the naked experience at a museum. It might be interesting if wandering nude around the museum’s other galleries is included.
Check the 2nd photo closely and you will see breasts and crotches pixilated. It's an article about how wonderful it is to view an art show naked having to censor it’s own article. Irony?
As JohnP pointed out it also should be noted that one was in America and the other in Australia. I am not familiar with the tolerance of nudity down under but the tolerance here is not so high, especially in public buildings. This is more like how an art show should be. As opposed to the previous artist’s attempt to force the viewing of her art on a captive audience that is exercising it’s right to enter a building intended for public use.
I am willing to wait to see if she claims harm and sues anyone. It’s a another example of the old addage, “There is no such thing as bad press”!
Duane
