Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/12/2003 12:34:00 AM (Archive Link)
You Don’t Like My Art? Fine! Just Give Me Your Money And I’ll Go!

Artist Charles Bowden has decided that he’s upset his prize was taken away. You see, a drawing of his won second place in a Eureka, CA, art contest which meant that Bowden in turn was to receive a $300 gift certificate. The business owner sponsoring said prize, however, withdrew the award. The reason: Bowden’s art drawing in question, “The Tactics of Tyrants Are Always Transparent,” featured a “crown and halo-topped Bush stand[ing] on a grave, his hand dripping with blood as bodies fall to the ground from the World Trade Center towers in the distance.” In other words, it supported the vicious and deplorable theory that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and did nothing, or even worse, was himself involved. The proprietor who withdrew the award, Paul Bareis, doesn’t agree with such views and refused to support them. Seems fair enough so far, but let’s see Bowden’s side.

“They shouldn't call it [the art show] `open to art. They should call it, ‘open to Republican art’ or ‘open to closed-minded art.’… For local business owners to try to stagnate artistic expression according to their political interpretation of how life should be is not such a good idea.”

Ah yes… the old canard about free speech and free expression. People should be able to say whatever they want and never experience ANY negative consequences from it. Artists should be able to produce whatever they want, declare it “art,” and never be subject to any real criticism about the content, quality, or actuality of said art, with the possible exception of the truly informed professional critic. (Although, nowadays the professional modern art critic tends to use the following as his or her criteria: A) if it’s so confusing or bizarre that neither I nor any normal person can possibly glean any meaning from it beyond what I’ve made up or what the artist told me in his notes, then it’s really, really good, B) if it’s shocking, disgusting, outrageous and violates a variety of social norms, mores, morals, religious values, and common decency, then it’s great, and C) if it possesses the qualities of both A and B, then it’s a frickin’ masterpiece.) Back to the point, though, normal people aren’t allowed to question art, especially from moral, religious, or political perspectives. To do so is to repress artistic freedom or to stagnate it, etc., as if we’re always one step away from the hoi polloi stoning artists. That and artists are part of some sort of protected class as if their brilliance somehow transcends the knowledge and understanding of the rest of us mere mortals. Bowden obviously feels that Bareis should have coughed up his money and kept his mouth shut about the sort of art he was rewarding/funding. However, as Mr. Bareis said, “Freedom of speech is not a one-way street. A person has a right to paint what they want, and I have the right to not fund hate speech. I didn't want my business associated with someone's political thought.” That gets to the heart of the matter. Just because Bowden produces something and calls it art, it doesn’t make him immune to criticism or from the consequences of said art. Mr. Bareis, being a private entity, is well within his rights not to fund something he finds offensive. That’s not limiting Bowden’s right to free speech… he’s still free to produce whatever images he wants. It just means he won’t be getting Bareis’s money when he does it and that’s Bareis’s free speech in action. And quite honestly, one gets the feeling that Bareis’s free speech in the form of money is more important to Bowden than Bowden’s free speech in form of bad art is to Bareis.