Well this one hits close to home and it appears that no one involved is happy. At Gallery M, a space at the Intercontinental Hotel, a MIAD student curated show has created some buzz when the higher-ups requested that my former teacher, Fahimeh Vahdat, alter her piece so that it was more appropriate for the setting. Even more that the piece was about the oppression of women in Iran. Censorship of socially involved work never seems to end well.
Now the piece isn't that "vulgar" in the least. it depicts a nude women with arms out under layers of red, but nudity is always something that has some very different opinions. I can see why a large hotel would not like something potentially offensive in or near the lobby. The hotel even seems to have suggested that it be covered before the show, but open for viewing on the night of the opening.
Now here's where it gets "opinionated." There are some people of the view that no art, anywhere should be censored. That we all have the right to put up anything we want, and if an institution doesn't respect that right, they are oppressive, close-minded, and against the freedom of expression. I respectfully disagree. While censorship is usually a negative thing, the gallery belongs to the owners and whoever showing in that gallery is subject to their rules. While it's too bad that the hotel decided the piece was not appropriate, it is completely within their right to do so. They are running a business and need to make decisions that are proper for their own well-being. My question when things like this happen are, "why didn't the artists have guidelines?" And if they did, why weren't they followed? If the guidelines didn't cover issues like this, THEY SHOULD. Nothing is more disheartening than taking a piece down that you feel is successful and important and there's not a whole lot that looks worse for the gallery than "censoring" an artist, whether or not that is actually what they are doing.
It's a tough situation. The hotel doesn't want to offend guests, the gallery director doesn't want to censor its artists, and the hotel is the parent company. Basically the gallery has to do what its told and the larger institution will usually stand on the conservative side. The best thing you could probably do is work with the artist to show the piece as well and completely as possible without souring relations with the hotel.
The fact is that it is a hotel lobby gallery and not MOCA. It is probably not the best and most welcoming place to make a dynamic statement. I understand the concern for the freedom of the artist, but also the rights of the hotel to approve the work that is shown. It is a mentorship-type agreement they have with MIAD, donating 5,000$ to their scholarship fund and allowing up-and-coming artists the ability to show at a visible downtown space to a wide variety of people. I don't believe they are purposefully silencing the artist, in fact I don't think it has anything to do with the message of the piece. It's simply taking the complaint of one guest and deciding that removing one piece of art that is potentially offensive is easier than the possible displeasure of a number of paying guests.
I just really hope people don't turn this into something bigger than it really is. I understand the frustration, it's a difficult situation, but I don't feel they are oppressing anyone and no one took the piece down for it's political message. It's simply a preventative measure taken by the hotel in hopes that they don't have a problem later. It's sad that a great artist is forced to alter her work and it won't be seen as intended, but I don't see this as a blight to the cause. It's the reality of showing in a rather public space.
Read the whole story from Art City below.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/124082334.html
No comments:
Post a Comment