black boxes, and consequences

updated mon 30 dec 02

Carol Ross on thu 26 dec 02

This is such a complex situation, so emotionally - and intellectually -
loaded. I've been thinking about it since the first posts, fence sitting
and then hopping down to one side and then the other and back to the fence.

I finished my college work not too long ago and so have some idea of the
pressure that students feel to produce challenging, difficult work.
Conceptual. I'm also an adult, living in a post-9/11 world, terrified of
flying, horrified that North Korea is moving plutonium rods, afraid of
things I'd never even thought about... Shoe bombs, anthrax, smallpox. And
the idea that some kid (just an assumption, isn't it?) in college is out
there setting up a fragile city, society, for yet MORE panic... Well, it's
unforgivable.

What if the student didn't realize didn't understand the enormity of the
response to his concept? What if in consulting with his instructor prior to
the installation of the work, the instructor had informed the student of the
probable negative impact of his work? As Gail wrote:
> Has anybody thought of someone getting a heart attack
> and dying or perhaps a panic where there are people
> being trampled, or perhaps a miscarriage?

I think that it is the instructor to whom we should look! Students are
there to learn, to try their conceptual and artistic legs, to push the
limits - INSTRUCTORS are there to TEACH STUDENTS to set legitimate limits.
What was this instructor thinking?

Carol Ross



> Has anybody thought of someone getting a heart attack
> and dying or perhaps a panic where there are people
> being trampled, or perhaps a misarriage? It make no
> sense to do something to possibly hurt people and call
> it "art". B-S! - the "artist" should get a minimum of
> ten years in a hard time Fed prison to contimplate on
> the possible consequences. Sam in Daly City CA. P.S. I
> am a recent retired employee of UAL (who lost TWO
> airplanes full of people on 9-11). Any comments?
>
>
>
> --- Gail Dapogny wrote:
>> Lili wrote:
>>>
>>> I am glad Mark wrote in about the actual
>> consequences of that person with
>>> the black boxes in Grand Central Station. Because I
>> noted that my comment
>>> about youthful arrogance and who do "artists" think
>> they are, fell on deaf
>>> ears--or at least did not resonate.
>>>
>>> That, as reported, the person got an A for h/er/is
>> efforts only adds
>>> disgust.
>>
>> Just wanted to say, Lili, that I nodded respectfully
>> and murmured agreement
>> when I read your previous post , the youthful
>> arrogance one. I guess that
>> couldn't quite be termed responsive or "resonating",
>> however! Well, the
>> sentiment was there anyway.
>> ---Gail
>>
>> Gail Dapogny
>> 1154 Olden Road
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48103-3005
>> (734) 665-9816
>> gdapogny@umich.edu
>> http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/dapogny (single
>> historical photo - no longer
>> registered with Silverhawk)
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>>
>> You may look at the archives for the list or change
>> your subscription
>> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>>
>> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
>> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.

Ditmar on thu 26 dec 02

Whenever I pass a church and see a cross with a man impaled and bleeding, I
get sick and depressed. I think that should be banned from our culture. Why
regale in, and encourage homage to, the torment and suffering of an
individual ? Masochism and SM all in one nice package. People that display
such sick images in public should get a minimum of 10 years in a hard time
Fed prison.

OOPS, ........guess, it's just a matter of what dogma we follow.

Ditmar
BTW ...Who mourns for the thousands burned & killed in U.S. raids on
civilian German and Japanese "targets" during WWII ?
Tragedies happen....it's time to get on with life. Don't forget. ....but
don't make it a crutch either.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Yancy"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Black boxes, and consequences


> Has anybody thought of someone getting a heart attack
> and dying or perhaps a panic where there are people
> being trampled, or perhaps a misarriage? It make no
> sense to do something to possibly hurt people and call
> it "art". B-S! - the "artist" should get a minimum of
> ten years in a hard time Fed prison to contimplate on
> the possible consequences. Sam in Daly City CA. P.S. I
> am a recent retired employee of UAL (who lost TWO
> airplanes full of people on 9-11). Any comments?
>
>
>
>

Snail Scott on thu 26 dec 02

At 12:12 PM 12/26/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Has anybody thought of someone getting a heart attack
>and dying or perhaps a panic where there are people
>being trampled...


I have some sympathy for this position. An artist
is certainly responsible for considering the effect
of their art, and considering the consequenses.
Public art, in particular, has a special obligation
to consider its context and viewership, which is
typically not well-versed in contemporary ideas of
conceptually-based, socially interacive modes of
installation or 'event' art. They are the public that
the artists must consider, however. The art student
in New York made a piece which might have worked well,
had his audience been composed entirely of the
cognoscenti of contemporary art. But it wasn't. He
made the piece using the idea of the 'general public'
as part of the piece, but forgot to regard those same
people as the audience, and not just as elements of
the piece. It's a basic principle of conceptual art
that EVERYTHING counts - the objects involved, the
manner in which they are presented, their interaction
with the space they are in, AND the presumed knowledge
base of the viewer. In this case, he considered the
'viewers' to be the art-school instructors and fellow
students, while regarding the other passersby as mere
elements of the work. Presented in the lobby of the
artschool, this would have been irrelevant, but would
have lacked the impact that the piece was intended to
create, since everyone seeing it would immediately
have thought, "Oh, an art-school project". No impact.
In the 'real-world' setting that was chosen, it
certainly did have an impact. It also had real-world
consequenses. That's what happens in the real world.
The artist was speaking a language, and speaking it
moderately well, but speaking it to an audience that
only understood an entirely different language: an
important oversight that should be taken as a warning
to other artists in public environments.

However, I have seen many, many people who seemed
to live for the opportunity to be offended, and to
make their outrage known to all. They are the tiny
minority of people who wish for their opinions to
rule everyone else's. They are the very vocal voices
of protest, 'protecting' the rest of us from the
things that they tell us we should be offended by.
Too often, the complaints of one petty, self-righteous
do-gooder is enough to shut down an exhibition or
remove a work of public art from view. One voice of
protest is stronger than a hundred voices of support,
because it's not usually the supporters who resort
to threats of lawsuit, either implied or explicit.

Did the New York project actually induce any coronary
failures, or 'fire-in-a-theater' stampedes? I didn't
hear of any. The project was inadequately thought out,
and probably did step over the line that I would draw
for myself in defining acceptable public art. But 'art
in public places' inevitably means that many people
are drawing their own lines for themselves. How many
people need to be offended, and how deeply, before
a work is deemed unacceptable for public viewing? Do
people have an absolute right to be not-disturbed, or
non-offended, or not-provoked? Is threat to life and
health the the only grounds for restriction, or not?

This touches on a great many allied concerns, such as
the current round of 'prohibited speech' subjects on
college campuses. If people have the right to be not-
offended or not-frightened, do the subjects of their
concern have to be 'reasonable' grounds for offense
and fright, or not? How many people need to object for
the art or statement to be prohibited? Who decides?

This is not an easy subject, and may have no 'right'
answer, but I fear what I perceive to be the growing
tyranny of the morally indignant, demanding to be
protected (and to protect everyone else) from anything
they find personally disturbing or challenging to
their own world-view.

For myself, I'm prepared to be disturbed now and then,
in order to live in a broader world.

-Snail

Lily Krakowski on thu 26 dec 02

While generally loath to reopen abandonned threads--we recently had a long
to do about Artists, in which, among other opinions, was the one that
"artists" are somehow "special", owed some sort of deference, and, unlike
charwomen, lettuce pickers, and navvies "entitled" to make a good living off
their work.

I am glad Mark wrote in about the actual consequences of that person with
the black boxes in Grand Central Station. Because I noted that my comment
about youthful arrogance and who do "artists" think they are, fell on deaf
ears--or at least did not resonate.

That, as reported, the person got an A for h/er/is efforts only adds
disgust.

Does being " an artist" allow one to disrupt others lives? Does this
self-annointment mean one can do as one wishes? Do we jettison
responsibility when we pick up a pug of clay, or a brush or a pen?

I think not, I certainly hope not.....I hope that person spends a few days
in jail to have time think...

And for Mark and all others who act responsibly and are hurt because of
it..... Oddly enough, in this case, it was your own "artistic"community that
turned on you. Had that young person be taught what being an artist is all
about, that person would NEVER have done that.....


Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389

Be of good courage...

Gail Dapogny on thu 26 dec 02

Lili wrote:
>
>I am glad Mark wrote in about the actual consequences of that person with
>the black boxes in Grand Central Station. Because I noted that my comment
>about youthful arrogance and who do "artists" think they are, fell on deaf
>ears--or at least did not resonate.
>
>That, as reported, the person got an A for h/er/is efforts only adds
>disgust.

Just wanted to say, Lili, that I nodded respectfully and murmured agreement
when I read your previous post , the youthful arrogance one. I guess that
couldn't quite be termed responsive or "resonating", however! Well, the
sentiment was there anyway.
---Gail

Gail Dapogny
1154 Olden Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-3005
(734) 665-9816
gdapogny@umich.edu
http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/dapogny (single historical photo - no longer
registered with Silverhawk)

James Bledsoe on thu 26 dec 02

>By KEVIN FLYNN (NYT) 564 words
>Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 3 , Column 5
>LEAD PARAGRAPH - Clinton Boisvert's assignment for his Foundation Sculpture
class, according to the >police, was to situate art in a specific place, not
to create alarm in the subway system.

>But Mr. Boisvert, a college student at the School of Visual Arts, succeeded
in the latter, if not the former, last >week when he taped 37 black
cardboard boxes inscribed with the word ''Fear'' in the Union Square subway
>station, according to investigators.


It is something like yelling fire in a theater, on the other hand the
discussion here in clayart has become something else. 37 black boxes
labeled fear plays to the tensions of our society. I feel it was just the
point. Heart attacks happen to people who are ready to have them.
Insurance ads play on the "fear deal" as do all the drug companies. The
9-11 mess is just that, a mess. The terrorist need do nothing for years.
Our fears will do more harm than what was done in sept. 2001. Mr.
Boisvert's act was tough and gusty it said loudly we are the creators of our
own undoing. The simple act of creating a spacial unknown with textual
reference sent people scurrying like so much poultry frightened by
shadows. He did nothing different than what everyone of the ads I refer to
do all the time. Have you had a full body scan? That stuff is trash.
Boisvert not only deserves an "A"from his teacher he deserves our praise.
We should be working to mute the effects of his work not by stopping him but
by attacking whose who profit by fear mongering. Boisvert's black boxes o
fear point out the problem. They are not the problem. That is what art
is about. It is the discussion. We are having this conversation as a
result of an art act.
More of it needs to done too!

jim


From: "Sam Yancy"

> Has anybody thought of someone getting a heart attack
> and dying or perhaps a panic where there are people
> being trampled, or perhaps a misarriage? It make no
> sense to do something to possibly hurt people and call
> it "art". B-S! - the "artist" should get a minimum of
> ten years in a hard time Fed prison to contimplate on
> the possible consequences. Sam in Daly City CA. P.S. I
> am a recent retired employee of UAL (who lost TWO
> airplanes full of people on 9-11). Any comments?
>
>
>
> --- Gail Dapogny wrote:
> > Lili wrote:
> > >
> > >I am glad Mark wrote in about the actual
> > consequences of that person with
> > >the black boxes in Grand Central Station. Because I
> > noted that my comment
> > >about youthful arrogance and who do "artists" think
> > they are, fell on deaf
> > >ears--or at least did not resonate.
> > >
> > >That, as reported, the person got an A for h/er/is
> > efforts only adds
> > >disgust.
> >
> > Just wanted to say, Lili, that I nodded respectfully
> > and murmured agreement
> > when I read your previous post , the youthful
> > arrogance one. I guess that
> > couldn't quite be termed responsive or "resonating",
> > however! Well, the
> > sentiment was there anyway.
> > ---Gail
> >
> > Gail Dapogny
> > 1154 Olden Road
> > Ann Arbor, MI 48103-3005
> > (734) 665-9816
> > gdapogny@umich.edu
> > http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/dapogny (single
> > historical photo - no longer
> > registered with Silverhawk)
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or change
> > your subscription
> > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> > reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Sam Yancy on thu 26 dec 02

Has anybody thought of someone getting a heart attack
and dying or perhaps a panic where there are people
being trampled, or perhaps a misarriage? It make no
sense to do something to possibly hurt people and call
it "art". B-S! - the "artist" should get a minimum of
ten years in a hard time Fed prison to contimplate on
the possible consequences. Sam in Daly City CA. P.S. I
am a recent retired employee of UAL (who lost TWO
airplanes full of people on 9-11). Any comments?



--- Gail Dapogny wrote:
> Lili wrote:
> >
> >I am glad Mark wrote in about the actual
> consequences of that person with
> >the black boxes in Grand Central Station. Because I
> noted that my comment
> >about youthful arrogance and who do "artists" think
> they are, fell on deaf
> >ears--or at least did not resonate.
> >
> >That, as reported, the person got an A for h/er/is
> efforts only adds
> >disgust.
>
> Just wanted to say, Lili, that I nodded respectfully
> and murmured agreement
> when I read your previous post , the youthful
> arrogance one. I guess that
> couldn't quite be termed responsive or "resonating",
> however! Well, the
> sentiment was there anyway.
> ---Gail
>
> Gail Dapogny
> 1154 Olden Road
> Ann Arbor, MI 48103-3005
> (734) 665-9816
> gdapogny@umich.edu
> http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/dapogny (single
> historical photo - no longer
> registered with Silverhawk)
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change
> your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.

Philip Poburka on thu 26 dec 02

Dear Lilly et all,

Here is how I think of it...

I imagine if I were a policeman or other whose Station is
the attentions I may give to the Public Welfare and safety,
comeing upon the scene initially, I should have asked the
Artist about his installation, satisfied myself about it's
harmlessness, and helped him remove the 'boxes' so that
nervous people should not be troubled by it. Or that one may
not be obliged to step over or around it and so on.

I should have invited his sympathy in that regard, and been
polite about it.
I would have complimented him on the idea, and sought his
co-operation for some adjustments respecting it's practical
suitability in that context.

Or, should my understanding allow, I should have advised him
that he may not have his installation as it is where it is,
but that he may move it over to some other less trod area,
and that he must stay close with it, and answer for it, lest
I construe him to have abandonded it and be thence
'littering'. That he must be 'responsible for it, answer
questions people may have about it and so on. He must 'stay'
with it and own it.

If he refused to move or remove the items, or abandonded
them, I'd have cited him for 'littering', or for some facile
nuisance...a simple ticket, a brief custodial stop if need
be for that...and I would have enlisted some volenteer to
help me place the boxes into some dumpster or other.

No 'harm' should have afterward been attributed to anyone
for anything...



Make sense?


Respectfully,

And in what I hope may be felt as a healthy discourse,



Phil
Las Vegas



----- Original Message -----
From: "Lily Krakowski"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 6:16 AM
Subject: Black boxes, and consequences


While generally loath to reopen abandonned threads--we
recently had a long
to do about Artists, in which, among other opinions, was the
one that
"artists" are somehow "special", owed some sort of
deference, and, unlike
charwomen, lettuce pickers, and navvies "entitled" to make a
good living off
their work.

I am glad Mark wrote in about the actual consequences of
that person with
the black boxes in Grand Central Station. Because I noted
that my comment
about youthful arrogance and who do "artists" think they
are, fell on deaf
ears--or at least did not resonate.

That, as reported, the person got an A for h/er/is efforts
only adds
disgust.

Does being " an artist" allow one to disrupt others lives?
Does this
self-annointment mean one can do as one wishes? Do we
jettison
responsibility when we pick up a pug of clay, or a brush or
a pen?

I think not, I certainly hope not.....I hope that person
spends a few days
in jail to have time think...

And for Mark and all others who act responsibly and are hurt
because of
it..... Oddly enough, in this case, it was your own
"artistic"community that
turned on you. Had that young person be taught what being
an artist is all
about, that person would NEVER have done that.....


Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389

Be of good courage...

____________________________________________________________
__________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Vince Pitelka on fri 27 dec 02

> It make no
> sense to do something to possibly hurt people and call
> it "art". B-S! - the "artist" should get a minimum of
> ten years in a hard time Fed prison to contimplate on
> the possible consequences. Sam in Daly City CA. P.S. I
> am a recent retired employee of UAL (who lost TWO
> airplanes full of people on 9-11). Any comments?

Sam -
While I certainly sympathize with Mark Petrin for his lost sales at the art
fair in NYC, I agree with Phil Poburka. The authorities overreacted. Many
artists choose to respond to what is current and controversial in our
culture, and that is as it should be. This is one of the things that
artists have ALWAYS done. Art is a reflection of the time, place, and
culture in which it is created. Art documents the nature and history of a
culture, and in order to do so, it must reflect all aspects of our culture.
I don't believe it is realistic or constructive to say that a particular
kind of art is inappropriate simply because you are offended by it.

That said, I think it IS appropriate to say that certain kinds of art should
not be displayed in public places - for example, art which depicts obscenity
or violence. Such art reflects aspects of our culture, and thus is
important, but with such work, I think it should be up to the viewer whether
they choose to go see it.

The work in question was fairly non-specific, but it is certainly
understandable that people in New York are especially sensitive and edgy
right now. The artist did not show much common sense in selecting this time
and place for his installation. But the authorities should have noticed and
confronted him while he was bringing in the boxes, or while he was writing
the word "fear" on them. After all, there is suppose to be a heightened
state of security in such public places. If the authorities had been doing
their job effectively, the installation would never have been completed, and
nothing further would have happened.
- Vince

Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/

Bobbruch1@AOL.COM on fri 27 dec 02

Philip writes
<<<
Dear Lilly et all, Here is how I think of it... I imagine if I were a
policeman or other whose Station is the attentions I may give to the Public
Welfare and safety, comeing upon the scene initially, I should have asked the
Artist about his installation, satisfied myself about it's harmlessness, and
helped him remove the 'boxes' so that nervous people should not be troubled
by it. Or that one may not be obliged to step over or around it and so on.
<<<<it.
I would have complimented him on the idea, and sought his co-operation for
some adjustments respecting it's practical suitability in that context. Or,
should my understanding allow, I should have advised him that he may not have
his installation as it is where it is, but that he may move it over to some
other less trod area,
and that he must stay close with it, and answer for it, lest I construe him
to have abandonded it and be thence littering'. That he must be 'responsible
for it, answer
questions people may have about it and so on. He must 'stay' with it and own
it.

<<<<cited him for 'littering', or for some facile nuisance...a simple ticket, a
brief custodial stop if need be for that...and I would have enlisted some
volenteer to help me place the boxes into some dumpster or other. No 'harm'
should have afterward been attributed to anyone for anything...

<<<
Not really Philip! No sense at all. Perhaps having a Las Vegas address, you
escaped notice of an event called 9/11. You could read about it with the help
of a search engine. The "authorities" who you decry are not quite as amused
with comments and attitudes at airports as they were before 9/11. The
attitude of the police and the DA and the citizenry has also been formulated
by those events. JMHO, but given 9/11, this black box scheme borders on
shouting fire in a crowded theater. Amusing to some - but try it and see what
the consequences are.

Would it be OK for an "artiste" to create a bomb scare at an airport for the
sake of art? I suppose that is why we have elections and courts ....... why
don't you try one of those projects at the airport and explain your theories
to the "authorities." Send us an email so we can help you make bail. This
student is 25 years old. I assume that his teacher is older. That is too old
to get away with "I didn't know the consequences so I am not guilty of
anything." That excuse is for juvenile offenders.

There are several other unspoken matters that could be considered. One is, if
an Arab American had done this, would it be as amusing? Would there be more
reason to be concerned? Is the fact that this person is a non Arab citizen of
"good standing" your evidence for the fact that he meant no harm?

Also, if another artiste was at the scene and tried to "jokingly" feign anger
and act like they were going to throw the black box artiste and/or his
teacher in front of an oncoming subway train, would that be OK? Would it be
OK if artiste #2 had a friend with a camera to film it for another class
project? How do you think the black box twit would react if someone pulled
something like that on him? Would it be OK to attempt to terrify him if you
are equipped with a camera, but not OK if you are solo and really upset at
the person's actions?

We live in a country where many people feel that it is OK to do anything you
want to do under the guise of artistic or other types of freedoms. We are,
but there is also a concept called "consequences." Maybe the teacher in this
case is to blame, but the gentleman in question didn't plan his project very
well. If someone does a performance piece, they need to think it out beyond
painting the boxes and leaving them in the station. Kind of like assigning a
first year student project to fire some class work to cone 10 and not
explaining what happens when you use terra cotta and cone 06 glazes - there
would be some unpleasant consequences to that activity as well.

Bob Bruch