4 ms·

It seems totally appropriate the artwork was taken down. It was an attempt to provoke, and then co-opt the result of that provocation through somewhat surrepti

It seems totally appropriate the artwork was taken down. It was an attempt to provoke, and then co-opt the result of that provocation through somewhat surreptitious filming to produce another work of art, all hosted in a public place which could not be expected to be an art venue, using emotionally charged imagery of a scale that could not be avoided. I generally appreciate art that is provocative and performance art, but at least a performance artist confronts the reaction to the work through their presence. If an artist wants to do something that emotionally charged, I think they need more skin in the game than this guy had. All the article claims happened, as far as I see, is that the art was taken down, and the school apologized they didn't take it down earlier. The language the school used in its apology seems a little hyperbolic, but whatever. Assuming this is the sum reaction against the artist (and maybe there are more repercussions), then I think that's all a reasonable risk that an artist takes and the artist should take his punches and move on. Creative defacement of the art would have been a more interesting in-kind response, but I suppose that ship has sailed.

joeclark77 11y ago
I think the example in the first paragraphs of the article (the Klan effigy with candid camera) is not the strongest one; it was a weird device for data collection, not really speech. The problem is better illustrated by some of the other articles: leftist students attacking things they disagree with, not by responding to them, but by going to the authorities and claiming to feel "unsafe". They have in many cases abused Title IX, claiming that this book or that lecture creates a "hostile environment" (i.e., lying without shame), because they know it's a way to trap an opponent in a lengthy, biased pseudo-judicial process. In these kinds of attacks, it's not about getting a conviction, because the leftists know their charges are false. Instead, "the process is the punishment". They want to make examples and terrorize others into self-censorship. These attacks are happening all over the country and they are not just good people taking it too far -- they are malicious and intentional.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The other examples are pretty terrible too, the guy who was afraid of his "liberal" students was complained about by a right-wing student who demanded he blame a financial collapse on poor, black homeowners, and was mostly frightened because he apparently had no job security. So on the basis of all the examples the highly respected Economist magazine can scrape together, this appears to be almost entirely invented scandal. You on the other hand seem to have knowledge of a wide-ranging campaign of terror and intimidation against free speech, maybe you should write up an article about it and we could discuss that instead.

joeclark77 11y ago

I think the example in the first paragraphs of the article (the Klan effigy with candid camera) is not the strongest one; it was a weird device for data collection, not really speech. The problem is better illustrated by some of the other articles: leftist students attacking things they disagree with, not by responding to them, but by going to the authorities and claiming to feel "unsafe". They have in many cases abused Title IX, claiming that this book or that lecture creates a "hostile environment" (i.e., lying without shame), because they know it's a way to trap an opponent in a lengthy, biased pseudo-judicial process. In these kinds of attacks, it's not about getting a conviction, because the leftists know their charges are false. Instead, "the process is the punishment". They want to make examples and terrorize others into self-censorship. These attacks are happening all over the country and they are not just good people taking it too far -- they are malicious and intentional.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
The other examples are pretty terrible too, the guy who was afraid of his "liberal" students was complained about by a right-wing student who demanded he blame a financial collapse on poor, black homeowners, and was mostly frightened because he apparently had no job security. So on the basis of all the examples the highly respected Economist magazine can scrape together, this appears to be almost entirely invented scandal. You on the other hand seem to have knowledge of a wide-ranging campaign of terror and intimidation against free speech, maybe you should write up an article about it and we could discuss that instead.