It is completely unfair to everyone involved at Mass MOCA to describe the removal of Christoph Buchel’s exhibition an act of censorship this fall. No single human being unilaterally ordered the destruction of a work of art before it was presented to the public, but that is exactly what happened. (Just quickly, due to extensive cost overruns and schedule delays, Mass MOCA asked the courts of Massachusetts to permit the organization to remove and effectively destroy the artwork without the artist’s permission. Buchel objected, but refused to finish the work. See the excellent statement by Tyler Green and his links. Buchel photos are Basel 2005 and Mass MOCA 2007)
Normally the actions of the Mayor of Edmonton, Canada, would be seen as an act of censorship by one human against the particular work of an artist. The artwork was removed from public view because of the Mayor felt that the content of the artwork was offensive to some citizens and should not be supported by the government of Edmonton. (Just quickly, Hindu Society of Alberta petitioned the mayor to remove the sculptures depicting the Hindu god, Ganesha. Hindu residents felt the artworks by Ryan McCourt were “disrespectful treatments” especially due to the god’s nudity and decapitation in one sculpture. The artworks were removed on September 22, 2007 from the Convention Center.)
Destroyer of Obstacles, by Ryan McCourt, 2006
(The title is a typical Hindu phrase for Ganesha)
Sculptures and Paintings of Ganesha
Ryan McCourt’s work continues the cycle of artists unintentionally insulting newly empowered group of peoples. The Canadian Hindu’s are inventing artistic boundaries for the use of Hindu gods as I write. Despite McCourt’s claims of innocence and support by many Hindus, he appears to me to be manipulating symbols that he does not know from a lifetime of experience. The symbols are abstractions of ideas as diagrammed in the Ganesha illustration and combined with a cartoon character energy – which I enjoy, but from a position ignorant of Hindu meaning.
McCourt, the Mayor and the Hindu Society reminded me of the debates surrounding non-Native American artists making artworks with Native American iconography in NW North America. Just outside Seattle in the 1950s & 60s, Dudley Carter was a white, talented sculptor creating large wooden works with the traditional images from Native Americans in British Columbia and Alaska. By the 1970s, the Native Americans began to gain a stronger voice and complained in ways similar to the Hindus today. At first the mainstream culture had difficulty grasping the situation, but now as mature artists such as David Boxley of Washington State and Susan Point of British Columbia have achieved prominence, the difference between artists from the culture and artists inspired by a culture is very clear. The sense of respect for the traditions is very high as they make new unique works.
Unlike the last 30 years of public art by Native American artists, McCourt and the Hindu Society live in a visually connected globe. The public dialogue lives on electronically and helps find these boundaries of respectful interpretation that a government can support. Showing respect for all people may be the first rule of good democracy. McCourt is not censorship, but a step in a long process in which his personal views are now part of the history, not hidden from it.
Dudley Carter carving near Seattle from the 1950s and 60s
Susan Point, Coast Salish, Vancouver, Canada
David Boxley, Alaskan Tsimshian, Washington State, USA
Digg it…Del.icio.us …Technorati…Stumble Upon..Reddit
“Despite McCourt’s claims of innocence and support by many Hindus, he is manipulating symbols that he does not know with his soul.”
Excuse me? Did the author just claim the right to speak on what I “know with my soul”? WOW! And people say my work is insulting! I didn’t even know I had a soul, much less that it had knowledge (or, lacked knowledge, I suppose I should say).
Here I am, like an idiot, using my BRAIN to acquire and store knowledge, when all this time I could have been using my SOUL… blast it all, now where did I leave that thing?… it was around here just a second ago… it must have been, since Weiss has been busy weighing and adjudicating its contents…
Well, at least I’m please to hear that “McCourt is not censorship”, whatever that means…
Artists have borrowed from other cultures, and contemporary artists, especially. Mr. McCourt’s work, which I have not seen, should not be censored because of its content. If people don’t like it, don’t look at it.
There is entirely too much of this kind of “censorship” rhetoric going on in this country, today, and it seems to be the trickle down effect of the kind of authoritarianism we see at the highest levels of our government. The patronizing: “we know what is best for you” attitude.
Complaining about a “decapitated” Ganesha, by the way, is like complaining about Jesus being depicted, oh, I don’t know, nailed to a cross, or something offensive like that… It’s part of the damned story, for fuck’s sake!
So, now, Weiss has changed his story… now, I only “appear to him” to be manipulating symbols I “don’t know from a lifetime of experience”… where did he come up with this new conclusion, you ask? Well, he just pulled it out of his ass, the same place he got the first one!
Maybe he could be more specific, and point out exactly what symbols (from his helpful illustration) I’m specifically lacking in “lifetime experience” with.
Or, he can just continue with his unfounded bullshit assertions, I suppose. In that case, I will continue to ridicule from the comments section…
So, now, Weiss has changed his story… now, I only “appear to him” to be manipulating symbols I “don’t know from a lifetime of experience”… where did he come up with this new conclusion, you ask? Well, he just pulled it out of his ass, the same place he got the first one!
Maybe he could be more specific, and point out exactly what symbols (from his helpful illustration) I’m specifically lacking in “lifetime experience” with. Maybe he can also explain why a “lifetime of experience” is necessary in the manipulating of symbols in artwork, anyway…
Or, he can just continue with his shameful, unfounded bullshit assertions, I suppose. In that case, I will continue to ridicule this analysis from the comments section…
Not really Ryan. It is more a matter of who has the right to articulate the sacred and for what purposes.
Although I can empathize with what happened — methinks it could have been avoided with more groundwork and research on the history of cultural appropriation — especially when working in a really sensitive area. Then again — maybe not — I am sure there are conservative Hindu bigots just as any other religion…
Check out this book out — If I remember correctly I think it covers removal well. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10186&ttype=2
–> My previous post was in response to Ryan’s Jesus comment.
In my opinion, what would make your position defensible is if you could prove that the work happened with consultation, some oversight and perhaps even direct artistic co-production with members of the Hindu community.
If you want to get trickier about this then perhaps this process would not be warranted if you were using Jesus in the same way — as he belongs to the dominant form of our society and (I am guessing) your own heritage.
What makes my position defensible is a little thing called “freedom of expression”. I do not require the OK from any group to make any work of art. None of us do.
Your “guessing” as to “our” shared “heritage” are astonishingly ethnocentric. Why are the Greeks my heritage, but the Indians, not? Shouldn’t I get to decide (rather than you, or anyone else) what my own cultural influences are?
My work was censored, that much is undeniable. But, was my work so obviously offensive, or is this just an example of prudish repression? Why do the Hindus that like my work, not counted as much as the Hindus that don’t like it?
Why do people who haven’t thought deeply about these issues, haven’t seen the work, etc… feel like they should pronounce their verdict on my guilt or innocence.
I suppose, these days, everyone wants to be a pundit…
Re: “I do not require the OK from any group to make any work of art. None of us do.”
Well actually if you want your public works to stick it is highly recommended. I wish it was possible to hold such a romantic notion of the artist while working in the public realm — but really it rarely sticks — and admittedly, lots of great projects have had their corners sanded off, so to speak. Negotiation and mutual education is part of this process with the communities that you may affect — and if done properly the result does not have to be a compromised creation.
Re: “Shouldn’t I get to decide (rather than you, or anyone else) what my own cultural influences are?”
No I am afraid not. This is really heavily treaded ground: Hip-hop changing from its roots from functioning as the ‘Black CNN’ to now being tailored to the crass desires of suburban white males — to Inuit soapstone sculptures made in China… In effect you can trivialize the cultural voice of others by appropriation.
I really recommend you read ‘Orientalism’ by Said. http://www.amazon.ca/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/701-4446518-6486741?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191866309&sr=8-1
Re: “Why do the Hindus that like my work, not counted as much as the Hindus that don’t like it?”
Good question — that is more along the lines of what I am asking you to substantiate.
Re: “Why do people who haven’t thought deeply about these issues, haven’t seen the work, etc… feel like they should pronounce their verdict on my guilt or innocence. I suppose, these days, everyone wants to be a pundit…”
Do you mean me specifically? Stop whining. I am sure you are going to come out better for this in the end.