Comments on: Muslim art defaced at 1700% Project

By: lee

lee — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 03:33:45 +0000

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.

By: leesux

leesux — Sun, 30 May 2010 07:16:29 +0000

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.

By: cbean

cbean — Sat, 29 May 2010 15:49:05 +0000

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.

By: Anon.

Anon. — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:49:34 +0000

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.

By: Rouq Yahya

Rouq Yahya — Sun, 23 May 2010 03:12:48 +0000

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.”

By: FruzsE

FruzsE — Thu, 20 May 2010 01:00:30 +0000

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.

By: anna

anna — Thu, 20 May 2010 00:51:55 +0000

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.

By: lee

lee — Wed, 19 May 2010 23:56:50 +0000

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!

By: lee

lee — Wed, 19 May 2010 23:52:18 +0000

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.

By: anna

anna — Wed, 19 May 2010 23:26:20 +0000

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!