Monday, July 13, 2009
Though only half of Kenneth Wilks’ Real People #3 was on display for Art Melt’s opening night, word about the censorship spread quickly around the gallery, and it was the highlight of the night.
A black-and-white portrait of a nude woman was one of many pieces accepted into the Art Melt this year. But a few hours before the art show began Friday evening, Forum 35 volunteers removed the photograph and had the artist escorted from the entire downtown block cordoned off for Art Melt festivities.
Kenneth Wilks’ Real People #3 featured two photo prints—one showed a clothed woman and the second showed the same woman, nude. The piece was on display for the Thursday night preview party.
“They had a school group come in Friday morning, and there was concern about that picture,” Forum 35 President Erin Monroe Wesley says. “The Art Melt chairs spoke with Susan Brunner (of Brunner Gallery inside the Shaw Center, home of the Art Melt) and made the decision to remove the art.”
Wilks says that Art Melt co-chair Christen Losey-Gregg informed him that part of the photo was taken down because it was a nude. Wilks stood near the clothed photo, holding a sign that read, “I am being censored. Ask how!!” Wilks says that 10 minutes later Losey-Gregg had Baton Rouge Police officers escort him out of the gallery, and off the entire downtown block where the Art Melt festivities took place.
“It’s hypocritical at best,” says Wilks, who didn’t see any rules about not entering nudes into the juried show. “A group that claims to be progressive and support the arts and artists in Baton Rouge has ignored the advice of the professional artists they hired and censored a participating artist.”
Wilks took his sign across the street from the Shaw Center on North Street in front of the Old State Capitol, and spent the rest of the evening trying to catch the attention of passer-bys, including Mayor Kip Holden.
“I can’t exert pressure upon the people who made this decision, but there should be a clear set of rules. Now this young man’s work that has been accepted and was shown last night has to be taken down,” Holden said Friday night while shaking hands with people streaming into the Shaw Center. “Frankly, any time you get to a point that you don’t want to listen, you’ve committed a fatal error in life. I wanted to hear what he had to say.”
While at the Art Melt, Losey-Gregg said part of the piece “may not be there,” then said the piece was not removed from the show. The piece is now back on the walls of Brunner Gallery, and will hang there through July 20.
Comments
Posted by marctravis on July 13, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is crazy. Unless something is done about this, I'll never attend another "Art" Melt again. If you don't want kids to see it, take it down during the day; but it should be on display at the adult event in the evening.
Posted by JmRuff on July 13, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just another example of our "progressive" city at work. God bless Backward Rouge.
Posted by dragonlady on July 13, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I venture to say that pretty much every art museum in the world hangs artwork that depicts nudes, whether it be in the form of painting, sculpture or photographs. The ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, Michelangelo's David - the list goes on and on. I imagine if we had the opportunity to display David in Baton Rouge, some backwards people would insist that he be clothed. The conservatism in Baton Rouge is absolutely laughable. This town will never progress.
Posted by wpounders on July 13, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So why couldn't they remove this work just on Friday morning for the children if the adults were offended? What, do they have a special section in the Louvre that children are not allowed to see? What about other museums? Baton Rouge is going to stiffle our exposure to the art world at this rate.
Posted by abetterbr on July 13, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We have to remember that this is considered "art," not porn.
I can understand the concerns that may arise from this, but if we want our kids to be able to appreciate the human form for what it is and distinguish that from the lascivious, vulgar and crude nature of other depictions, then this will not do.
Not to mention, the artist's work should never have been permitted in the first place if this was the reaction and it, obviously, wasn't stated in any rules of admission.
Posted by operative011 on July 13, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It shouldn't have even been taken down for the children's event. I haven't seen the piece, but I'm guessing it falls into the realm of what most folks would consider more art than porn. Either way, if it is deemed appropriate for the walls of the gallery, it shouldn't get this treatment.
Shame. I'm reminded why I moved.
Posted by pierrelemoyne on July 13, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This would be a good time for a few hundred words on the subject of "Censorship & Art" from former F35 President Pamela Price.
I also laugh when I think about how Peter Couhig would have handled this issue when he was in charge of Forum 35.
I am positive in both instances that Real People #3 as created by Kenneth Wilks would have stayed on the wall exactly as he intended the art to be viewed.
Posted by louisianais on July 13, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll bet you that every one of the children that would have seen this photograph has seen movies or has played video games in which there is rampant violence, killing, and spilling of blood, but.... a nude photograph is cause for great alarm and public outcry because "the children must be protected?!?!?!?" Parents everywhere agree... it's perfectly acceptable for them to see depictions of people getting blown to smithereens, but artistic depictions of the nude form are cause for censorship.
To respond to dragonlady, Michelangelo's David would only be appreciated in South Louisiana if he were wielding a 30.06 and covered in blood, BUT it would be imperative for him to be tastefully attired in a cammo or LSU loincloth.
It's redneck Puritanism run rampant, as far as I can see.
Posted by annsing on July 13, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Paintings of nudes, sculptures of nudes, photos of nudes and drawings of nudes comprise some of the world's greatest art.
Why, in Baton Rouge, are nudes excluded from Art Melt? Children going to any museum in the world will see nudes. Are we really that prudish?
Posted by seriouslyserious on July 13, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What's the big deal?
This is the same reason I wear a blindfold each morning in the shower: the sight of feminine nudity cripples me, makes my body shut down, can't breathe, start to seize, etc....
Isn't that the case for everybody?
Thanks for protecting the viewing public, Art Melt!
Posted by ellenpeneguy on July 13, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Although I danced in two of the live performances at this year's Art Melt and have participated in many other Forum 35 events, I will not be providing any more entertainment for or support of future Forum 35 events unless this is remedied.
I hope that other performers and participants will join me in supporting only venues where art is truly welcomed.
Posted by brtiger on July 13, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The last paragraph states:"While at the Art Melt, Losey-Gregg said part of the piece “may not be there,” then said the piece was not removed from the show. The piece is now back on the walls of Brunner Gallery, and will hang there through July 20."
Was the piece removed or not? Some people who went to art melt remember it still being on the wall.
Posted by shrimpann on July 13, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am ashamed to live here.
Posted by rocketing_skyward on July 13, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i AM disgusted. as the former programming coordinator for Art Melt (2007-08) and Forum 35 board member, i'm hanging my head low. i loved this event for the first 5 years but i'll be hard-pressed to attend another one after this fiasco. just how backwards-thinking can one organization or committee be? i'm constantly trying to convince people that BR has changed for the better and then something like this happens. i think that Forum 35 should get out of the "art" business if it isnt going to effectively promote and support it with an open mind.
Posted by laurelivy on July 13, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am absolutely ashamed by Forum 35’s censorial action of removing the painting. Children are not harmed by looking at nudes, and adults should not have taste dictated to them by a small group of censors. We are just beginning to gain traction on issues of freedom of expression and of thought and of behavior in BR—it’s so irritating that this so-called “progressive” organization has just put our reputation back a decade.
I also can’t believe that Forum 35 chose to treat an artist this way—by first accepting the painting, then removing it, then having him escorted out by the police. This, after so many artists have left BR for more accepting, open-minded arts scenes in other cities (as 225 reported here: http://tinyurl.com/nzbnal ). Our artists and our city deserve better than this kind of garbage.
Whatever. Maybe next year you should make Art Melt nothing but pictures of puppies, I’m sure no one would object then. You can be sure that I won’t be attending or promoting it.
Posted by operative011 on July 13, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be interesting to do just that - If artists only sent in cutesy photos of puppies and like 3rd grade classroom posters. The best part would be when the public didn't even realize it was a protest. "awwww - the work this year is so much CUTER than last! Great Job BR!"
Posted by HurrayForCommonSense on July 13, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Congratulations to ArtMelt for using common sense! I don't believe we have to display nude art in front of school children to be progressive artistically. Embracing art does not require us to throw out all sense of decorum. Had they not removed the photo, many parents would have been outraged-and rightfully so-to find out what their children were exposed to. Let the parents decide if nudity is appropriate for their school-aged children. ArtMelt chairs, you did the right thing!
Posted by operative011 on July 13, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hurray - you totally miss the point - We're not saying "EXPOSE CHILDREN TO NUDITY!!!" We're saying that if nudity is involved in an artistic statement that doesn't involve degradation in any form, then what you have is definitively NOT an example of "throwing out all sense of decorum". Nudity in itself isn't pornography. Comments made here ( I think) and elsewhere bringing up the Louvre and Venus are great examples. Do you think they should throw a bathrobe onto Venus when schoolchildren visit the Louvre? What makes this any different. The parents CAN decide if it is appropriate for their children by not allowing their children to visit art museums or galleries. That would, of course, be pathetic. The JOB of a gallery such as this one is to do it's part in enlightening the community in some way. I agree that embracing art does not have to involve "throwing out all sense of decorum" and that some art indeed aims to shock. Sometimes the point is positive, other times it's a short sighted artist that just wants to upset folks, but this particular case doesn't seem to be either one of those. In fact, from what I'm to understand, it's a pretty benign piece.
SO - then what you're saying is nudity itself is horrible and should not be looked on by children?
What do they look at on the internet and tv?
Do you homeschool them?
There's a world out there. We should consider preparing our children for it and encouraging them to participate in the best of what it has to offer.
Posted by seriouslyserious on July 13, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This from the same "progressive" city that creates bike lanes by simply painting a biker icon on existing streets....now go ahead, pat yourself on the back for those miles of bike lanes!
Posted by laurelivy on July 13, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@HoorayForCommonSense:
Um...this is exactly the _opposite_ of "letting the parents decide".
Posted by NeYoMad on July 13, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The majority of y'all must be whining because you missed a great art show spotlight fantastic Louisiana artist - from Gonzales to Meteria and every other corner of the state.
If you had been there, you would also know that there Mr. Wilks had a picture hanging in the show at all times. (Just like he did the previous year). And, his picture is STILL hanging. So, don't be so quick to jump on this [uniformed] censorship bandwagon.
You would also know that was another nude picture in show, one that this shallow 225 article has completely failed to mention. 225 failed to tell you that the other nude photograph remained hanging the entire time. It was more of a study of the form of the body without being just a Full Frontal Nudity like the other. So, if you wanted nudity in an art show in Baton Rouge, then, Art Melt had it...just like they did last year.
If Baton Rouge is "backwards" then it is because petty people whine and complain about simple things instead of applauding the bigger, greater achievements.
Posted by steven212 on July 13, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MOST of the people at Forum 35 have their heads, and hearts in the right place. No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater; this atrocity falls on the shoulders of ONE person.
So don't blame the rest of us at Forum 35; this was out of our control, and we will be dealing with the ramifications for some time.
Posted by gottobekiddingme on July 13, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
She gained quite the reputation for being smug, condescending, and uncompromising. Numerous people have commented on the unprofessional (and rude) manner in which she dealt with everyone around her.
Not a good way to put your best foot forward, or to build working relationships with people.
Posted by gottobekiddingme on July 13, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://fotoarttoo.blogspot.com/
Posted by jknox on July 13, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The ArtMelt is a Forum 35 event, so barring any agreement with the jurors or the artists to the contrary, Forum 35 (their representatives) may ultimately decide which artwork to include or not include in the show. It’s my understanding that the organization rents the Brunner Gallery for the term of the event, so again, barring any agreement to the contrary, Brunner would have no input in the decisions? While artistic censorship certainly doesn’t speak well for the organization (or for the city of Baton Rouge), it is Forum 35’s show.
However, what Forum 35 cannot do, without the artist’s consent, is to display only part of a complete work. Not only is it unethical, it’s pushing legality because they are altering an artist’s work (potential lawsuit material under the Visual Artists Rights Act). So, if Wilks’ two photographs constitute one whole piece, then this incident is particularly egregious. The article states that the Co-Chair informed Wilks that the nude photo was removed. Was this done prior to their action to give him the choice to either display only the one photo or to remove the remaining photo and withdraw his piece from the show altogether? Or did he show up at the opening to discover that Forum 35 had so kindly helped him to define his artistic focus? Ultimately, I presume he allowed the one photo to remain as the only way to draw any attention to the affair.
Now that the nude photo has been restored to the show for the next 4 days of the Art Melt (Wed-Sat hours), maybe Forum 35 should post a volunteer on site to remove the objectionable material anytime another group of children (or members of the Jesse Helms Fan Club) come touring through the Gallery.
If you want to raise open-minded children, take them to the LSU Glassell Gallery at the Shaw Center for the ARTS. The summer invitational “American Dream” is on through August 9. The only thing banned there is the C word (that’s C for censorship).
Posted by NeYoMad on July 13, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, JNox, was it altering the artists work when 225 only re-published part of piece above?
The Full Frontal Nudity (pubic hair and all) picture IS hanging. So, why didn't 225 post an actually illustrative picure of what this story looks like? Why is no one crying about THAT continued "censorship"?
Why does showing Full Frontal Nudity equate to raising "open-minded children" or creating a ""progressive" city"" or what we let our children "look at on the internet and tv". . .as above posts say?
And dragonlady, isn't there a difference between painted nudity on a ceiling and an extra-large, detailed photograph with a woman's pubic hair about at the eye level with six-yr old's eyes? I don't thing that the SISTINE Chapel does that.
Posted by fritz on July 13, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NeYoMad, the Sistine Chapel is replete with nudity as was the Rodin exhibit thick little bronze wieners. As far as I know, and I could be wrong, no young minds were forever destroyed by the show.
Posted by EmmaG on July 14, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neyomad, no, there is absolutely no difference between painted nudity on a ceiling and an extra-large, detailed photograph with a woman's pubic hair about at the eye level with six-yr old's eyes! It's called EDUCATING AND PARENTING you moron! Why the hell do we have to raise YOUR children? If you don't want your kids to view nudity in art, I suggest you don't take them to an art gallery (judging by your comment, I'm sure you don't anyway).
HOW DARE YOU Art Melt, how dare you censor art in the name of 'protecting' children, this is disgusting and repulsive. BR is the most backwards, ignorant place I have ever lived (I have lived in 3 different countries). I cannot wait to get out of here and this incident is a perfect example of why. BR will never progress, it will never mature and it will never change. Idiots breeding idiots. But hey, at least we've got a good football team huh?
Posted by NeYoMad on July 14, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Emma. . .lol. . . ya must not have seen it. . .the guy says he's inspired by Hustler. . . The real "art" nude piece remained up.
You seem like quite the hothead. I don't know why you're bothering with name-calling and personal attacks on me! I've been encouraging people to volunteer instead of complain (regardless of their opinion), but in your case, I don't think I will.
Baton Rouge is a great place to live and is improving, but not because of foolish people such as yourself. (but, lol, "how dare YOU" complain without being involved to make for better change...leave...good ridance!)
Posted by fritz on July 14, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I cannot wait to get out of here and this incident is a perfect example of why. BR will never progress, it will never mature and it will never change. Idiots breeding idiots." While I agree that Art Melt was wrong to take down the piece, this sort of insulting hyperbole undercuts reasonable criticism of what happened. I live in Baton Rouge, I have traveled and lived all over the world and I kind of like it here and I am not an idiot. So, how about toning down the bile?
Posted by dshay on July 14, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Art Melt 2009 was an amazing event. Focusing in so dramatically on the one mistake made by Forum 35 is doing the event a great injustice. No, Baton Rouge isn't as progressive as other places that gladly welcome and even encourage displaying art that to some could be considered sordid. This is erroneous to the fact that Art Melt is a positive addition to the developmental downtown area. This is an event that I really hope to see happening for years to come in Baton Rouge, and I will fully support whatever the decision makers believe is or isn't appropriate for it.
Posted by steven212 on July 14, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Forum 35 didn't make the mistake; it was ONE person who was enjoying her temporary position of power a little too much. The event was still a success, and it is a shame the actions (and attitude) of one person has cast a shadow on the event and the organization.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)