Art, treason or terrorism?

[GaryKelly]

I don't see anything in the source article which would confirm or refute that the artists in question expressly agreed to or otherwise permitted their work to be exhibited.

Bear in mind that the artwork was commissioned (ie purchased) from a graphic designer by an independent film company for use in its documentary. Same for all the other "postage stamp art" in the exhibit. It's more than likely therefore that once the contract was signed and money exchanged, the artwork and rights to it belong to the film company, not to the artist.

It's also more than likely, as Cynth has already said, that the exhibit itself was set up by the same film company to advertise its documentary, and if so they've certainly succeeded (with a lot of help from the Secret Service).

Of course it's also possible that this isn't the case at all, but at the moment we don't know for sure.

One thing we do know for sure is that the piece in question is indeed art, and though provocative, it isn't treason and it certainly isn't terrorism. I too agree with Jim's views on the Secret Service in this matter, but I reserve the right to maintain my cyncism about the reasons for their very public 'investigation'.

[Walden]

I once attended a Sunday morning church service where the minister said, from the pulpit, in the opening remarks of his sermon, that the president ought to be shot, in so many words. Some people walked out at that point.

[Wombat]

There's always going to be a clever explanation.

In my grand painting 'Screw the Constitution'
in which I'm wiping my butt with it, I'm
decrying the cheapening of our political
liberties by commercialization, which treat
our most sacred dcouments like....
toilet paper.

Yep

If you wanted to paint an artwork decrying the cheapening ... (etc. etc.) and you wanted it to have maximal impact, how would you go about it? This isn't a rhetorical question. In 'some' sense, a lot of good art is effective in large part because it shocks us out of our complacency.

Frankly, I'd be frightened the consititution might scratch my butt.

[Wombat]

I once attended a Sunday morning church service where the minister said, from the pulpit, in the opening remarks of his sermon, that the president ought to be shot, in so many words. Some people walked out at that point.

Did you walk out Walden?

Assuming you didn't, did the sermon pick up after that beginning?

[Flyingcursor]

And you know,
we've had a lot of people assassinated, JFK, Bobby K,
Reagan almost (not to mention MLK, George Wallace (almost))...

You forgot Larry Flynt!

cuz I live in Cincinnati - we had the "Mapplethorpe" thing, you know.

I didn't see what the fuss was all about there either. I'll bet if those had been images of women it wouldn't have aroused so much heated debate.

[missy]

actually - I didn't either, Fly (you don't want to see them - then don't pay the money to go to the exhibit)......

But you have to understand Simon Leis (the proscecutor at the time).


Missy

[Walden]

Did you walk out Walden?

I did not, but I paid a visit to the pastor, whom the offending minister was filling in for (he was retired and just filling the pulpit for the ailing pastor), and informed him of what happened and asked him to visit those who left out and tell them that it was not the church's position on the matter.

This was a few years ago, and the president, at the time, was not the one who is in office today.

Assuming you didn't, did the sermon pick up after that beginning?

Yes. It had no other direction it could have gone but up.

[jim stone]

I don't see anything in the source article which would confirm or refute that the artists in question expressly agreed to or otherwise permitted their work to be exhibited.

Bear in mind that the artwork was commissioned (ie purchased) from a graphic designer by an independent film company for use in its documentary. Same for all the other "postage stamp art" in the exhibit. It's more than likely therefore that once the contract was signed and money exchanged, the artwork and rights to it belong to the film company, not to the artist.

It's also more than likely, as Cynth has already said, that the exhibit itself was set up by the same film company to advertise its documentary, and if so they've certainly succeeded (with a lot of help from the Secret Service).

Of course it's also possible that this isn't the case at all, but at the moment we don't know for sure.

One thing we do know for sure is that the piece in question is indeed art, and though provocative, it isn't treason and it certainly isn't terrorism. I too agree with Jim's views on the Secret Service in this matter, but I reserve the right to maintain my cyncism about the reasons for their very public 'investigation'.

There is nothing I can find anywhere in any posted material that
suggests the art was purchased by the film company. Certainly
the artists would have had good reason to produce these
works without charging--one supposes that they are politcally
active people with strong feelings on these subjects, as artists they
make artworks as a matter of course, and
of course having one's work brought before a wider public
is a plus. This is
an independent film company with strong political feelings,
probably it is operating on shoestring, depending on the
help of like-minded people. It is unlikely that the people
interviewed, like Bernadette Dorhn, a former leader of
the radical Weather Underground (!), charged for the
interviews. It really is worth getting a grip on who these
people are.

Here is the producer: Jim Swanson is the publisher of Qualiatica Press, and the producer of AXIS OF EVIL. A former board member of the ACLU and the Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, he is a draft resister, drug law reform activist, and proud secular humanist.

Even if the art was the 'legal property' of the film company, these are people who put a premium on conscience and not much on 'private property.' Also one supposes they operate with
reasonable human courteousy. It is therefore a very good bet that the artists were
informed about the plans for the exhibit at Columbia College; were
asked if it was alright with them; and if they had expressed reservations, it's hard to
imagine this film company saying: 'Hey, your work is ours! We PAID for it!' Given all of this, it is exceedingly likely that the artists permitted their work to be exhibited; indeed, they approved of it. I think one has to face the fact that the artists strongly approve of the film's message, they are very strongly anti-Bush, and their work is being exhibited in Columbia College because they want it to be.

Also I think it's more likely than not that the chief motivation wasn't to advertise the film, but to
spread the film's political message. Certainly these people
aren't in it for the money. Also the exhibitor probably saw it
as an art exhibit, not a film advertisement.

The likely point of the very public investigation, I believe, is to chill a certain sort of speech--public expressions that appear to advocate that the president be assassinated. The Secret Service went public to get the news coverage. They are trying to send a widespread message. This is because the job of the Secret Service is to protect the president from assassination. Overzealous. I don't know what the other reasons would be. I doubt
they think the artist is planning a hit.

[GaryKelly]

I think one has to face the fact that the artists strongly approve of the film's message, they are very strongly anti-Bush, and their work is being exhibited in Columbia College because they want it to be.

I don't think it's a fact at all, much less one that needs to be faced. Here's a list of the artists who contributed 'stamp art' to the film:

"Axis of Evil also contains images from 54 international artists from 11 countries, in a “stamp art” style that explores individual and cultural visions of evil. The artwork is used both as a visual counterpart to the interview subjects, and as a multimedia exploration of the meaning of evil.

Michael Hernandez de Luna organized the stamp art, and the companion book was by Al Brandtner Design.


stamp art navigated and curated by
Michael Hernandez de Luna

stamp artists
Anna Banana
Vittore Baroni
G´rard Barbot
Patrick Beilman
Robbie Billings
Mark Block
Buzz Blurr
Al Brandtner
Sergej Denisov
Mike Dickau
Dogfish/Robert Rudine
Jas W. Felter
HR Fricker
David Gilhooly
Markus Greiner
Harley
Deborah Hayner
John Held Jr.
Michael Hernandez de Luna
E.F. Higgins
Marvin Johnson/Bufo
Kursade Karatas
Alexander Kholopov
Constantia V Khudiakov
Garland Kirkpatrick
Ivan Kolenikov
Nicholas Krastchin
Natalie Lamanova
Jon Langford
Tim Mancusi
Eiichi Matsuhashi
Ken McGhee
Keiichi Nakamura
Clemente Padin
Ed Paschke
Marlon Vito Picasso
Allan Pocius
John Rininger
Matthew Rose
Gogolyak Sandor
Joel Smith
Steve Smith
S. Ortiz Taylor
Slava Vinogradov
Weef
Reid Wood
Gerardo Yépiz"

A visit to http://www.brandtnerdesign.com is interesting. The artist in question has produced a prolific number of CD and DVD covers as well as book jackets and a host of other material, including material for the US Marine Corps. I don't see anything in his portfolio to suggest he is "very strongly anti-Bush" or anti anything at all.

A jobbing graphic designer will produce whatever his client wants irrespective of his or her own political feelings. Mr Brandtner produced a piece for a Washington Post editorial about Pat Roberton, that doesn't mean the artist is anti-christian, anti-Robertson, or anti-TV Evangelist, or Pro Washington Post. It means he's a professional artist making a living from commissioned works.

As I said, I haven't seen the film or the exhibition, so who knows what the images are that the other 53 artists produced on the subject of "evil". I doubt many will contain a picture of the President.

Indeed, in the very first post, we learn that:

"The exhibit, called “Axis of Evil: The Secret History of Sin,” opened last week at Columbia College in Chicago. It features stamps designed by 47 artists addressing issues such as the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal, racism and the war in Iraq."

Which would pretty much seem to indicate that the artwork covers a broad spectrum of 'evils' and tarring all the artists (and indeed the film itself, without having viewed it) with a "very strongly Anti-Bush" brush is stretching your interpretation of the image a very long way indeed.

[jim stone]

Thanks for your research, Gary.
I was aware of this too.
It may well be that some of the artists
you list are not strongly anti-Bush.
On the question of whether the Chicago
artist in question is anti-Bush, and,
more importantly, whether he is responsible
for the apparent message of his works
being exhibited at Columbia College in Chicago,
I think we must disagree. Best, Jim

[Lambchop]

is '37' a Masonic code, biblical reference, or a date?

It's the current price of first-class letter postage--37 cents.

[water805]

One thing that should be pointed out is that the DVD was created to replace a DVD about Luna doing the show - perfing stamps, et.al. (for the best) None of the artistamp people were paid for their work but we did sign wavers for the art to be used in promotional materials. The invite for the show said it would be a dialogue about evil.. It's a shame that the book and seperate show are reduced to simple Bush/Church/Doubleplusungood bashing. Much of the work - particularly the Russians - is sublime and beautiful. It should be noted that the show and the book are not connected. Swanson and Luna had a major court fight that lasted a year primarly over tax/work for hire issues.

john rininger

[dubhlinn]

we
john rininger

Care to elaborate...?

Slan,
D.

[water805]

what do you wish to know?

john r