A banner that was creating a lot of controversy because of it's religious implications was getting a lot of complaints. Since it was an art piece meant to invoke discussion they cannot take it down because of First Amendment protection so instead they come up with another legally, sneaky, reason. They find out that the banner did not have a permit, was large, blocked windows and violated construction codes. The school is a private school so it does not have government property like a state school does. The artist was going to apply for a permit to try again but the school officials said not to bother because they wouldn't allow it because the banner was still a hazard because it blocked windows. It proves that there are other ways to get things done without violating the first amendment and if people want them done bad enough they will find a way. Also, the artist could probably make the banner smaller or hang it in another location, that did not block windows, but the school officials would probably fight him on the issue again so he's thus given up.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov14/0,4670,StalinBannerRemoved,00.html
NYCLU: Why was Stalin banner removed from school?
Friday, November 14, 2008
By MARCUS FRANKLIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
NEW YORK — The New York Civil Liberties Union has demanded that city officials explain why they ordered a private art school to remove a banner displaying an image of Josef Stalin.
In a letter Thursday to the Department of Buildings, NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman expressed concern that the banner was taken down from The Cooper Union after some residents of the local Ukrainian community complained that it "seemed to promote" the Soviet dictator on the 75th anniversary of a famine he imposed. The famine, called the Holodomor, killed millions of Ukrainians.
The banner was part of an art exhibit, "Stalin by Picasso, or Portrait of Woman with Mustache." Lene Berg, the artist who created the banner, said it was intended to provoke discussion about the relationship between art and politics.
The 52-foot-by-36-foot banner features a reproduction of a 1953 Pablo Picasso portrait of Stalin. At the time, the image was viewed as a critique of the Soviet leader.
But the Ukrainian community found it offensive, said Tamara Olexy, president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.
"It's like hanging a portrait of Hitler in a synagogue or in a Jewish community," she said.
After receiving several complaints, the Department of Buildings investigated the banner's legality and determined it violated construction and zoning regulations, the agency said Friday.
"We determined the sign was too high, too large, lacked a permit and blocked the building's windows," buildings spokeswoman Kate Lindquist wrote in an e-mail. "The department does not regulate sign content."
But Lieberman said the NYCLU's understanding was that the complaints were about the banner's content, not its size.
"The question remains as to whether the building code was enforced because of objections to the content. If so, that raises questions about censorship," Lieberman said in a statement.
In a Nov. 13 letter to buildings department community affairs director Donald Ranshte, Lieberman said the banner's removal would raise First Amendment concerns if regulations had been selectively enforced based on complaints about its content.
Buildings officials told the school Oct. 31 to remove the banner because it didn't have a permit, Cooper Union spokeswoman Jolene Travis said Friday. The school immediately took down the banner, which had been put up on Oct. 26.
Cooper Union initially planned to apply for a permit to display the banner again, but not until after Nov. 15, when the Ukrainian community in the nearby East Village plans to hold events commemorating the famine, Travis said.
But the school abandoned the effort after being told by buildings officials that banners can't block windows because of fire hazards.
The banner controversy comes less than six months after a Roman Catholic watchdog group protested a Cooper Union student art exhibition that included what the group considered vulgar depictions of religious symbols such as a crucifix and a rosary.
1 comment:
I find this case/issue to be very interesting. After reading the details of the article, I get the impression that building officials would have found some way to remove the banner even if it complied with all of their regulations. This would cause a definite first amendment issue. As it stands right now, the artist does not appear to have much of a case because he failed to secure proper clearance before he displayed the work.
It is also interesting that the complaints are what stirred building officials to investigate the banner concerning building compliance codes. I wonder why it was not an issue before the complaints came in. So perhaps he could make a claim that he is being censored, but due to the codes, I do not think the claim would stand in court, no matter what content the banner contained.
The last thing that I have is that the artwork itself is a subjective matter. Therefore, it is hard to determine what will offend a person or a particular group of people. Although the Ukrainian community was upset, I feel that the banner has its place in society. After all it has not only been then catalyst for our blog discussion, I am sure it has created many other conversations. As the artist stated it was supposed to stir conversations of art and politics. I do not think he foresaw this particular conversation happening, but it has generated dialogue among citizens.
Post a Comment