Muslim art defaced at 1700% Project
Op-Ed by Fruzsina Eordogh
Some time between May 6th and May 11th, the hate-speech wall in Anida Yoeu Ali’s ”1700% Project” exhibit was defaced with a picture of a robot and a speech bubble. [Editor's note, the link to the ABC news featured incorrect information. The line "kill all Arabs" was a part of the original work and those words were written by the artist. The vandalism involves the circling of those words and additional images]. Muslims throughout Chicago and Anida Yoeu Ali are calling this a hate crime. Writes Anida Yoeu Ali on her site:
What would provoke someone to enact hate upon a work of art that addresses that very issue? I feel assaulted and violated. I feel strongly that this is not just an assault on me, but an attack on entire communities for which the work speaks. Even if the work has an emotionally charged quality, even if it’s a rant and voices accusations (in some people’s opinions), the work counters violence by addressing violence. The attack is an act of silencing. Someone doesn’t want to hear this work or see this work. Someone is bothered and angered by this work. But what bothers me more is the reaction to the defacement itself from my school, the authorities, and the public at-large. It has been alarming to hear the assumptions, the presumptions, and the lack of seriousness around the matter. I did not bring this upon myself. I do not enjoy the publicity from this. My installation has been thrown off its course and now I am forced to incorporate the mark of hate (aggressively created by someone else) into my work. The installation has been destroyed and all I can do is make the most of it.
Ali is referring to the internet trolls when she talks about all the publicity she has received from this defacement, and to be fair to her, if you read the FARK comments, they do insult the artistic merit of her work besides wondering if she did this herself to get publicity. The most common comment on the internet about this incident has dealt with the irony of the defacement ( “doing it for the lulz” explained here). The same people leaving these comments are the very same disrespectful teenage to twenty-something males that run around saying “Why So Serious” (even a Wall Street Journal blogger has used this phrase) or making those funny cat pictures everyone loves. I hesitate to call this a “hate crime” because the drawing of robots and speech bubbles on a piece of art don’t fit the definition of a hate crime:
a criminal offense committed against a person or property that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, age or religion.
A robot does not strike me as anti-Muslim, in so much as “anti-human”. A robot is not a swastika or a white hooded “KKK” member. What if this wasn’t about hatred at all, but just some jerk move by another artist? What if the vandal wanted to contribute to the work by saying any one who says these things about Muslims is a Fox News robot? Calling this a hate crime without proof of intention reminds me of the “possible hate crime” story about a Jewish man that was mugged. He wasn’t mugged because he was Jewish, he was mugged because he was alone, old, and an easy target. I buy my Fox News Robot theory over the supposed Hate Crime theory. The robots don’t seem like “marks of hate” but ones of arrogance and trolling. Was this troll bothered and angered by her hate wall? I think they were probably bored by its “seriousness” and felt like causing some drama/humor.
That said, even if this defacement was an act of trolling, it still ruined her art piece so her outrage is understandable. Who knows how many hours, or days, weeks, months she spent working on this piece of art? Anida shouldn’t fret though, there is a very large silver lining to this defacement: her exhibit is now well-known throughout the city of Chicago. Next time around, when she does another installation, people will know who she is. Being a victim is easy, and if I were her, I’d be thanking this “troll”, who ever he is (I say “he” because few female trolls exist in real life). Always look on the bright side of life, Anida!
Fruzsina,
the link says:
The artist is a Muslim graduate student at the School of the Art Institute. Anida Yoeu Ali said she was shocked to find someone painted caricatures and the words “kill all Arabs” on her work at 33 S. State St.
That seems an important element in determining a hate crime.
K
Agreed, except, the “kill all arabs” wasn’t painted on…. it was highlighted…
Was this a hate crime, or another artist saying the same thing in a different way? This CBS story makes it a little bit more clear what happened:
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/art.muslims.hate.2.1690880.html
Why does a robot and a speech bubble automatically equal a hate crime? Just because she is Muslim?
Why leave out the pivotal fact that the speech bubble circled the text “Kill All Arabs”? Whether the text was a part of the exhibition or not, the vandal decidedly chose to attribute these words to himself (or herself), which makes this a crime aimed at a particular ethnic group, i.e. Arabs. Tracing over the words, writing the words, circling the words… its all the same, the aim was to disturb the work and articulate the hateful and violent words, “kill All Arabs.” Your suggestion that the criminal who vandalized this piece somehow, “wanted to contribute to the work,” is absurd at best and dangerously apologetic at worse.
By definition, a hate crime–according to federal or state statute–occurs “when a person commits an act such as assault, battery, criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to property or mob action because of a victim’s race, religion, nationality,
gender, sexual orientation or disability.” Highlighting the phrase “kill all arabs” would appear to fit within that defintion.
there is some pretty outrageous ignorance on display in this article. “being a victim is easy”??? are you kidding? no, it’s not, not when you’re the one living as a marginalized person, not when you’re the one whose identity is subject to such abuse, not when your own community and the others who stand by in solidarity are the ones vulnerable to the very real hate that anida’s work confronts and which this act of vandalism represents. this is not positive publicity, and it is an pernicious myth that artists whose work is the subject of controversy in this manner have anything to look forward to other than a blizzard of stupid accusations–which the author shockingly validates here–and the painful memory of months and years of hard work so flagrantly disrespected.
this act of vandalism may not be a hate crime in the legal sense, but it certainly IS one in that the subject matter of anida’s piece deals directly with violence against muslims and those perceived as muslim; it was this subject matter that made the work a target for this kind of juvenile defacement. no other work in the show was vandalized, and if the author had any sense of how the work of racial or sexual minorities is often received, she might understand that such targeting is frequently the case.
maybe the author of this article should have attended the event anida held on saturday, where members of a diverse array of communities came out to the gallery to engage in a dialogue about their reactions to this act of hate. it was an emotional, heartfelt exchange that, to my mind, did accomplish some degree of healing. perhaps, if this author had been there, she wouldn’t be proposing such a frankly idiotic and shallow “silver lining” or adopting this kind of faux-critical, self-congratulatory stance. maybe, just maybe, she would have been afforded a glimpse into the lives of the people and communities whose lives are affected by this kind of hate, and would think twice before dashing off the kind of uninformed commentary that we so often hear coming out of the mouths of… oh, I dunno, Fox News Robots?
One thing that would help the discussion is if it could be made more clear who wrote what. I just called ABC news and they said it was their understanding that the vandal wrote those words and it was not in the original piece.
Interesting. If you look at photos of the defacement, the artist wrote those words herself:
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=164662
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/art.muslims.hate.2.1690880.html
I think this work is stronger now with the vandals addition; Adina’s point is now more clear (all people who think all arabs should be killed are robots), and looks remotely more interesting than before now that it has a character on it and isn’t just a wall of text.
The media wants this to be a hate crime so badly: every media outlet covering this story has said her piece was defaced with “kill all arabs” but if you look at the photos of the defacement, you see the vandal just used the artists OWN WORDS… (and even painted on her wall with her SAME MATERIALS)…hence my theory that it was a fellow artist that wanted to contribute.
First off, Anida’s 1700% project contains a 100 line poem that quotes hate crimes against Muslim Americans or those perceived to be Muslim American. It happens to contain a line about the racist, hateful signs that were posted after 9.11 that said “KIll All Arabs”. Anida is directly quoting someone else’s words to try and bring our attention to the crimes that have been perpetrated. The words “Kill All Arabs” out of 100 lines of text, were the ones that the perpetrator chose to highlight. The defacement (which cannot be argued- it is defacement) is greatly disrespectful and exhibits dominating and deconstructive behavior that does look an awful lot like a hate crime when you consider the context of the work. Whether we want to believe that this is possible or not, may I remind you that we live in a country where there are still people who actively believe that Obama is a terrorist in disguise because of the color of his skin. The racism that this piece directly confronts is not the usual everyday racism that we live with and that is so easy to deny b/c it is so hugely visible. More often, racism and sexism (homophobia, classism, etc.) in our society occur in acutely subversive ways, like when a woman says a crime has been perpetrated against her and others think they have the right to tell her it hasn’t… because…? Her reality isn’t, I dunno… valid? Hm.
A great problem in the debate around this situation is how we define value when it comes to a piece of art. You can bet that if someone vandalized or walked away those flat screened television monitors also in the gallery, investigative action of some sort would have be taken. This took place in a building on a campus that has a reputation for it’s high level of security. Whether the gallery was open to the public or not, everyone has to sign in and out of that building. How hard could it be to figure out who to speak to, at least, if this were considered worth the time and money. And how hard is it for people to understand what has been taken away from Anida in this act against her work. If you spent years (time & $$) working on a project that your whole being was invested in physically and emotionally and someone came in and kicked it around, stole it, forever altered it in an instant, wouldn’t your heart break? Don’t you see that something great has been lost here?
We do not think of works of art as having monetary value – they are greater than that – they are spiritual manifestations of our selves – but let’s be honest and give it the credit it is due. That piece was created with hours and hours of labor and research and community involvement, for the sake of the message, for the sake of the offering towards change, for something much greater than our everyday personal belongings, but we do not see it that way. If she had been mugged in the gallery, you wouldn’t feel like you had a right to say that she is clearly mistaken… oh, but then again you are comparing her reality to some other “debatable” hate crime. I’m sorry, but doesn’t the victim always know what they have lost – what has been taken?
You could see this as a gain in media attention – you could. Or you could also see that Anida’s work is no longer her own, as people who have very little relationship with the work or the facts, sit around and debate Anida’s credibility – her right to her own feelings. The intention behind her work has been warped and misrepresented and rendered inconsequential by those who think it’s not worth talking about how unbelievably important it is that Anida is addressing the hate crimes that are being perpetrated against Arabs (and those perceived to be Arabs) — a huge and real problem in our world — but instead are giving their energy to debating whether or not she deserves media attention.
I mean, if someone took a bucket of house paint from your mother’s garage and used it to paint giant letters or characters across her house, would you tell her to get over it? That it brought more attention to her beautiful house? Would you play a little Monty Python video for her and ask her to look on the bright side of life? Or worse, would you blame her for leaving the house paint around? That is not only demeaning, it’s like suggesting a woman was raped b/c she wore revealing clothing. Being a victim is easy? Really?
I know you have put a great amount of thought and energy into what you have written and I can see clearly that you are trying to give her some of your generosity. I am grateful for Chicago Art Magazine and stand by it as a publication – but I ask you to rethink how you choose to bring attention to Anida’s art work. You have chosen to speak about her – not the work – about the defacement – again, not about the work. I ask you to think again about what great art can do and consider the context and content of her work regardless of the defacement. Because it would be a great thing if those who believed that pens were mightier than swords, which I’m willing to bet you do, could be a part of the solution, honoring the great provocation and meaning that a piece of art can bring to our culture, rather being a part of the problem and invalidating the legitimacy of the artist’s experience.
Hi All,
This is Kathryn, the Editor.
I’m not backpeddling on this piece, but I will say it was part of an editorial hiccup. All pitches for pieces go past me, but in this case, it went up on the site – which makes it the only piece in the entire website that I didn’t see or know about first.
That aside, to weigh in, this whole thing is a mess and I’d like to step back and talk about why I say that.
1. The media has incorrectly characterized the vandalism. The ABC story says the vandal wrote those words and when I called, they said, “that’s what she told us”. So some basic factual clairification to the mainstream media would be helpful.
2. The other reason I say that this is a mess relates to NOT understanding why there was no security around this piece. I haven’t seen it, so I’m in the dark, but I’m not understanding why there was unsupervised access to a very controvercial piece like this. They dont’ put Kara Walker’s stuff on walls without a security guard, so I’m wondering why someone with a can of spray paint and 15 minutes to spare was able to have access.
3. The third messy and complicated issue stems from people who do destructive things that don’t make any sense. If someone had written words themselves, or would have drawn a negative depiction of someone in a head scarf – that would be one thing, it would be simple and clear. However, this is a robot. What? A robot? I would suspect that doesn’t mean anything. There is a disctict possibility that some kid say a sentence that stood out, circled that, and then drew his usual stichk.
We have a lot of pro-graffiti writers on the staff, and personally, I think it’s mixed. This is what graffiti does, it puts paint on other people’s property without permission. It’s easy to cheer on graffiti artists when they’re “sticking it to the man”, but suddenly when it appears on an artwork that has meaning, it becomes the other side of what all graffiti also is — damaging.
Kathryn
Hi Kathryn,
As someone who has access to information about the piece, here is clarification:
It is a 100 line poem written on a white wall in white vinyl. The poem is performed by a group of performers or sometimes Anida alone and then the wall is stained by the performers with ink/coffee/ etc. from bowls of it, which remain in the space as evidence of the ritual process. There is no invitation to any member of the public to contribute. Further more, to do what the “defacer” has done would take quite a bit of strength, if not more than one body, as they reached difficult areas of the piece that were not previously touched, and some time as they made more progress in staining than anyone had in multiple hours prior to the defacement.
The person who vandalized the piece probably used the ink that is used by the performers to stain the wall.
One could perceive one of the characters as a robot, or one could perceive it as a monster, a human being, an animal. There are many things possible here. Who told you it was a robot?
Still, I’m not sure why the debate over the facts of how it was done or what image it took is essential to determining whether or not it is a hate crime. If someone had painted giant butterflies over the piece, it still acts as defacement of the work. Is there a particular reason why you feel that is necessary to determine that this is in fact NOT a hate crime? What’s the point there exactly?
Anida Yoeu Ali’s “The 1700% Project” is a fierce, passionate response against violence directed at Muslim communities since 9/11. Using text found in hate crimes that were filed, she writes of acts of violence against the Muslim community, and folks *mistaken* for being Muslim, and uses her writing as a launch-point for a multi-disciplinary work. This retelling of real reports is as compelling as it is horrifying. She uses quotes taken directly from the mouths of perpetrators in her text: “terrorist,” “kill all arabs”, “go back to your own country”, “you Islamic mosquitoes should be killed”, “America is only for white people.” It’s hard for me to even feel comfortable restating those words, all shockingly similar to things I’ve personally heard in my life and stories that were shared in my community of things that have happened to people I love. I feel re-stimulated by her work, I feel hurt and saddened all over again. But I also feel challenged by Ali, to speak up louder than I have, to stand strongly in solidarity with other oppressed people, and to turn my anger into action, because as she puts it, “we refuse to end in violence.”
Unfortunately, last week the installation of her work was defaced. Some of the responses to the news spreading of what happened have been really disheartening. People have been placing the blame on Ali for being “too political,” accusing her of defacing her own work just for attention, and questioning whether the act of defacement is a hate crime at all. These questions and accusation are problematic on a number of levels.
First, let’s try to frame what the circumstances around the defacement were. When one walks through a gallery space, it’s not typical to touch the art or to physically interact with it unless there’s something in the space specifying (a sign, security guard) what is allowed by the artist. We can have lots of discussion about artist and audience here, but generally, it’s the artist who is given control of a space, and gets to decide what their intention is with their work, and what is safe and appropriate for the audience to do in their space. As a rule of thumb, this usually translates to “don’t touch the artwork!” These norms should have been followed with Ali’s installation, as there was no such invitation for the audience to interact with her piece.
With no such invitation, one or more people visiting the gallery, viewing her work, used the materials in the space (ink, rags, stick) to paint cartoonish figures on her work. The incident most likely occurred during gallery hours, as that is when most people would have had access to her work. Her work is displayed in a very large gallery with minimal traffic when there is not a special event happening. The perpetrators had a lot of time to act, as the defacement was detailed and deliberate. Her piece is in a space with dozens of (if not close to a hundred) other artists’ work. No other work was vandalized besides Ali’s, a piece that was made very clear was about hate crimes (through the title card on the wall, takeaway literature on a shelf, and of course the text on the wall). Whether the intent was malicious, ignorant, or intended to be somehow funny, this is just plain disrespectful.
But it’s much more complicated than that. Whether it was their intention or not, defacing her installation actively took away her control over the direction of her work. Someone decided that what they had to say was more important than what Ali has to say. Someone decided that Ali’s perspective is of lesser value than theirs, and acted to silence her. Because no other work was vandalized, it’s clear Ali was targeted specifically–probably for who she is and what her work says. Whether it was their intention to or not, this was an aggressive, racist act of violence. This defacement was a hate crime, against Ali, everything her work is saying, and anyone who comes from a people that have endured similar oppression and violence that her work speaks of.
This is not okay. We cannot let our silence on the matter send the message that what happened is okay. We cannot allow this to be talked about only in terms of vandalism, we must insist we talk about this as an act of violence–and we must refuse to let this end in violence. This is about art, but it is also about much more. This is about oppression and racism. This is about the silencing of communities of color. This is about how we choose to respond as witnesses of violence.
http://www.nikhiltrivedi.com/1700-project-defacement-it-hate-crime
I don’t see a robot at all. I see the symbolic form of a human or human-like animal. I see no consideration, respect or even play in the depiction of the figure. The person who altered this art piece did not do so to honor or respect the work. The choice to single-out and circle the phrase “kill all arabs” is a choice and can not and should not be excused away because it is easier to do so than examine the reasons why.
Some people are so removed from the value of art, that they forget art reflects individuals and communities. This clearly was not the act of a five year old child. This was the act of an adult who had a statement to make, whether conscious or not, and the CHOICE to single-out the phrase “kill all arabs” reveals their statement. Vandalism and defacement of a piece of property through the use (yes to alter you must use) of racist language is a hate crime.
If you don’t like that, maybe you are afraid of what that means. Perhaps racist jokes are not funny after all?
Oh yes, and to the author:
Perhaps you should dedicate some time to reflect on your work before you post it. To insinuate that being a victim is easy is completely offensive. In fact it is more than offensive, it is unethical. Those in the world who choose to commit crimes against others do not need your subtle validation. It seems to me that you did not take this article very seriously or you would not have used such statements.
It’s disheartening to see journalists lose the courtesy of fact-checking.
This is the exact statement Ms. Ali gave the police officers. It was posted on her blogsite the day it happened. The statement has never changed:
On Tuesday May 11 at 12:30pm my friend and I came to view my installation titled “1700% Project: Otherance” and found the wall installation defaced with caricatures and a word bubble that was not part of the installation or original performance. The word bubble was strategically placed around the wall text that reads “Kill all Arabs.” This is obviously an intentional act of hate related vandalism. The person(s) used the stains & materials left in the space for the defacement. There is no invitation for anyone to interact with the materials. The work has statements on the wall plate, takeaway brochure & the wall itself indicating the work is about “hate crimes.”
Press were given a press release that includes excerpts from the statement: http://1700percentproject.wordpress.com/news/press-release/
If you saw inconsistencies in a few sources, wouldn’t you as a reporter/writer go directly to the primary source? Ms.Ali has been more than generous with her time in talking about the matter. Even the CBS and Medill sources that your writer has posted are consistent with Ms.Ali’s statements.
As the comments clearly indicate, this is not a simple case of vandalism or graffiti. Is a swastiki scribbled on someone’s home just graffiti? how about the words “go home” across an arab man’s home or a korean man’s storefront? how about the “N-word” painted
Clover is right. you see robots, others see inhuman beings, and still the police officer on the scene saw a hooded creature. Anida stated the defacement as caricatures.
The point is the defacement is not an embrace or loving message for the work — it is one that is meant to silence and shut up the artist.
Why do people keep saying the vandal wrote and or highlighted the words “Kill all Arabs”??
If you actually look at photographs of the piece you see that the vinyl words were higlighted to read -
“Kill all… with the words” Not “Kill all Arabs” as most commentors have previously insisted.
The writer spent her time and did the research. She posted the link and I feel the need to repost the link to the image here:
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/art.muslims.hate.2.1690880.html
Please take a closer look and see for yourselves.
It does NOT say “kill all arabs”! Thank you MK Meador. The artist also left the materials and the brush in the space. It is unfortunate her work was painted on but I do not believe for one second that this is a hate crime. The artist is a relatively negative person and refuses to think of possible alternatives about the defacement. Leaving materials in the space begs for someone to interact. We learn this in school!
I saw the piece IN PERSON while being performed and after the artist discovered the vandalism. As a person who has dedicated a lifetime of an education to reading images and media, I am disappointed. To be clear I am most disappointed in the artist herself, in the media and last but not least the idiot kid who did the graffiti itself. As much as is provided, the work of art attempts to show a recent history of racism against Muslim communities, to remind and remember the reality of discrimination in the US today. The work by Ali reiterates what the media does regularly – shaping a public image of the Muslim as violent terrorist. My disappointment in the artist first lies here, I do not respond well to anger, nor do I to repeated yelling of MORE stereotyped images of Muslim Americans.
The artist does a disservice to the Muslim community by perpetuating similar imagery. This does not mean I object to discussing hate crimes – by all means no! No, I actively follow these public discussions, films, and other forms of media that clearly discuss hate crimes while clearly also giving a human and relatable face to Muslim Americans who live work and deal with regular difficulties that every human being must deal with. We can only relate to people who have suffered hate crimes through real humanizing stories.
The fact that the artist does not clarify to the media is that she left all the tools to be used in making the piece (bowls full of the brown water, a long staff with fabric at the end used to mark the wall at hard to reach points) out for the public to view. While no statements were made as to whether the piece was interactive, the tools for interactivity were left in broad day light. Like leaving a magic marker, or chalk at the foot of a board that had been wiped down from previous lessons, the slate is wiped down, the tools are readily available for interaction. So while I’m disappointed this piece was not treated the way the artist intended it to (non-interactive). I question whether the graffiti was actually intentional ‘vandalism’.
As for the media, please LOOK at the image. The words ‘kill all Arabs’ were NOT highlighted. The word bubble circles a large area that specifically highlights ‘Kill all’ and ‘with the words’. The whole wall was originally covered with media texts about racism. To repeat, Anida Yeou Ali, was the one who chose the phrase Kill All Arabs. The whole wall is covered with racially incendiary words. It seems if anyone BUT Ali were to circle any part of the wall – they risk the accusation of a hate crime.
However, whoever ‘vandalized’ the piece sounds more like an idealistic art kid attempting to relate to the piece with their own imagination. They spent the time, thought through their action drew a word bubble and highlighted ‘Kill all …with the words’. Ali’s performance was part spoken word. Does ‘kill all.. with the words’ not ring of poetry? Of poetry that condemns racism? That defends the rights of the voiceless minorities? I honestly don’t see the hate crime – yes I see vandalism and condemn that (although there was a material invitation to interact).
As for Ali, she sees what she is looking for, proof for hate. After this whole mess, I see what I am looking for – a desperate need for dialogue –beyond hate.
As for the robotic-monster graffiti, I see an idiot kid who can’t think of what else to doodle.
btw, the same robotic monster was drawn on david lakein’s interactive piece as well. is that a hate crime too? think people think! stop thinking with your emotions! start thinking with your brains!
Clover,
the point is that Anida is declaring this to be a hate crime. Defacement and hate crime are VERY different. I have read her blog and heard her speak and she believes this is a hate crime and that is why everyone is frustrated.
Thank you MK, Anna, and Lee, for bringing to light “kill all arabs” wasn’t even highlighted by the vandal, but mentioned by the artist. I thought about mentioning that point in my piece explicitly, but I already made too many points and didn’t want to receive even more misdirected comments than I already did.
This article is not very well written. And as this case is still under investigation i’m sure there are details you don’t even know about. I find it appalling that people are attacking the victim’s character.
Not sure who said this but this is appropriate:
“A critic is someone who is someone who comes onto the battlefield after the battle is over and shoots the wounded.”
Seeing the work in person, it seems that the intentions of the vandal’s actions on this piece are far from clear. Though this should not be misconstrued as a support for hate crime or anything like that, but rather an assessment of the incident.
Given the level of interactivity elsewhere in the SAIC MFA show; the pile of take away diskettes, the electric gong, the couch that molds to your butt, the VHS tapes that you had to put in the machine, etc.; the level of interactivity in this piece was not clear nor was it stated. Granted there are not “do not touch” signs elsewhere in the MFA show, but neither was there a wall of hate speech elsewhere in the exhibit. Instead the artist had installed a wall full of hate speech and then provided tools and materials for covering it up, bowls of dark liquid, etc. Would it not be possible to read the interaction as doing just that? An attempt to erase hate speech? The artist had set up a strict division between author and audience, yet provided the tools for one to become the other, but gave no direction about behavior, and then interpreted the subsequent interaction negatively.
I think it’s also obvious to anyone who had visited the damaged piece that the vandal did NOT highlight “Kill All Arabs” as the artist confusingly claims, but highlighted very specific words within the bubble, as others here have pointed out: “Kill all” “with the words” this seems to relate distinctly to the piece itself and its media as hate speech.
And sure the splatters have a violence to them, or a velocity I might say, but so does a Jackson Pollock. But consider that the violence is directed at hate speech, unfortunately that speech is part of the project.
The commenter ‘lee’ has also recognized all this.
I can empathize that the artist feels violated by this interaction, but working in public with such loaded material but without any public guidelines, notice or explanation is the mark of a poorly conceived/planned artwork.
Oh and this is a really terrible article. Way to take a serious topic and appear totally blaise and unprofessional. Really makes me want to check the site again.
Thank you Anna (#16).
I work at an art center with unmanned galleries. Artwork gets touched regularly and sometimes defaced or damaged.
Leaving something to do it with is simply an invitation.
i love how people begin with whether or not they’ve seen the piece as if it makes them some kind of expert on the situation.
it is truly astounding how much blame is being put on the artist in this situation as if any of this is to be expected or anticipated. as a participant in the project i can clearly tell you the installation is not a wall of “hate speech” as this article subjectively (and incorrectly) expresses. the wall is in fact a poem that the artist composed based on found writings from filed hate crimes. the poem builds to an absurdity in which the artist actually uses humor to diffuse and cleverly address the issue of racial profiling. this is why an important component of the artwork is a live performance which includes the utterance of this poem to a public audience. this is clearly indicated in the name plate and take away items associated with the installation. the additional information found on the name plate clearly lists the performance dates, performers, and the medium of the piece which is ‘performance installation.’ there are no other name plates or take away item on any of the other MFA works that has this kind of depth and thoughtfulness. the take away item includes her artist statement and more information about the work in the larger picture of the project.
it doesn’t matter what was EXACTLY highlighted or not in the vandalism. the defacement was premeditated and targeted. the vandals knew that their message, which was a very large statement, was intended to humiliate and make a mockery of the artist’s message and the work itself.
oh and let me also remind you that other performers/artists in the MFA show left their materials out in their spaces (i.e – Allison Falls boots for stomping her shells & Marissa Perel’s ‘studio’ materials for writing on her wall). These materials were also clearly left out with no information either yet no one from the public tampered with their works.
but at least we can agree that this article is terribly written.
Dear leesux,
Cute name!
I probably know you, I might even think you’re an awesome person… but in reality we will probably never have a conversation about this issue in person. this will all remain in the virtual planet.
so sad, but i’m glad there’s one place we (both you and me) can safely speak our minds.
me