Censorship in Temecula
from the press release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Sissi Hale sissi@sissihalestudio.com
CITY OF TEMECULA CENSORS CONTENTS OF TWO ART EXHIBITS, IS SLOW TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR REMOVING ART WORKS FROM PUBLIC VIEW IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND WANTS FURTHER SAY IN FUTURE EXHIBITIONS. Freedom of expression is and always has been a core value in the United States. Who is responsible for determining what the public can and cannot see in public spaces, what is art and what is not, and what is offensive and what is worthy? Who employs the censors? To whom do the censors answer? Is the public willing to be dictated to?
Temecula, California, [March 5th, 2010]--- On January 22, a juried multi-media exhibit titled “Visual Expressions 2010” opened at The Merc gallery in Temecula’s Old Town– minus a nude painted by local artist Jeff Hebron. At the last minute, word was delivered to Sissi Hale, Temecula resident, artist, and curator of the show: the nude could not appear. Less than a week later, two paintings by another local artist, Lora Sanders, were removed from the Temecula Public Library where they had been on display for one day. They depicted a man smoking a cigarette, and a man with a brown bottle in his hand. Later, another of her paintings (of a boy leaning over a girl) was also removed. All the paintings had previously been reviewed and approved by city management. Nevertheless, all were subsequently deemed inappropriate for public viewing by some anonymous official, and were removed without explanation from exhibit in publicly owned buildings.
UPDATE: 3/8/2010
CENSORING THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ... well, so is obscenity, apparently.Long story shortened: I am the curator of a regional juried show called “Visual Expressions 2010” in Temecula California. A nude painting that had been juried into the show (and approved by the city’s review board) was pulled at the last minute “to protect children.” That same week in Temecula, three paintings were pulled out of another show I curated at the public library because somebody in city government declared them “not family friendly.” They depicted a man smoking a cigarette, a man holding a brown bottle, and a teenaged boy leaning over a teenaged girl.
Fortunately, not everybody was willing to let this go by unchallenged. There have been a number of articles from area newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, decrying the censorship. The National Coalition Against Censorship got into the act and pointed out that the city officials’ interference was unconstitutional because the venues were publicly owned, and therefore subject to all the precedents and First Amendment rulings against censorship. City officials continue to claim that they “are not in the business of censorship.”
If you’d like to read more, google “Temecula censorship” and the articles about this whole situation come up, as well as images of the rejected artworks. This ludicrous situation is a battle that has been fought for centuries, and has been won again and again by those who are not offended by the human body, nor by depictions of people doing normal, daily activities. The city’s stance on what is allowable in public places is not only a violation of the First Amendment, it is so small-minded and archaic that I find it difficult even to discuss. “What are they thinking?” just about sums up my reaction. It is nearly unimaginable. But worse, there have been indications that this brand of interference is only beginning with regard to art in Temecula: there are indications that city demagogues are exerting pressure so that they themselves will act as jurors and have ultimate say about what gets hung in upcoming art exhibitions.
The Mayor offered an apology in a letter to Mr. Hebron. They owe Jeff Hebron and Lora Sanders much more than that near campaign speech of an "apology". Where does this end? Who tells us, the public, what we can and cannot see in publicly owned spaces? What other decisions will we no longer be allowed to make for ourselves and our families?I encourage you to write to the mayor of Temecula:
jc@jeffcomerchero.com
jeff.comarchero@cityoftemecula.orgThe City Manager: Shawn Nelson
shawn.nelson@cityoftemecula.orgThe Director of Community Services: Herman Parker
herman.parker@cityoftemecula.organd to the rest of the City Council:
ron.roberts@cityoftemecula.org; chuck.washington@cityoftemecula.org; mike.naggar@cityoftemecula.org; maryann.edwards@cityoftemecula.org; aaron.adams@cityoftemecula.orgIf enough rational people make it plain that censorship is not acceptable, maybe these fanatics will back off and allow the arts full range of expression in this city.
Many issues are raised by these actions. Any public gallery in the United States is governed by the free speech clause in the First Amendment. The courts have time and again reaffirmed that the First Amendment prohibits public officials from censoring art they find offensive or provocative. While the Constitution accords substantial leeway for exercise of artistic judgment, it prohibits government action designed solely to avoid controversy or suppress unpopular views. The imposition of a government official’s belief that nudes be kept out of sight not only violates free speech principles, it demonstrates disregard for the community at large, whose members have a right to see the full range of artistic expression, and to choose for themselves whether to view it or not.
Temecula city officials eventually claimed that the artworks were removed from public view to protect children from inappropriate subject matter. In truth, however, the criterion “inappropriate for children” is extremely vague and subjective. An art institution or its curators cannot be held accountable for determining what may be suitable or unsuitable for all audiences. In these cases of censorship in Temecula, there is no established boundary between what somebody subjectively decided was inappropriate and what is obscene (and therefore constitutionally unprotected). Simple nudity, for instance, presents constitutionally protected expression. Another troubling aspect of the censorship is that initially Temecula officials did not come forth with any sort of statement before or immediately after the artworks were banned from public view, even though many in the community objected and questioned why the artwork was pulled. This silence shows a lack of accountability and transparency, and a disregard for public opinion. The removal of Jeff Hebron’s painting prompted attention from the National Coalition Against Censorship, which sent a Feb.16 letter to Temecula City Manager Shawn Nelson expressing its concerns about censorship. In a letter from Assistant City Manager Aaron Adams, the city finally responded: “This letter comes as a complete surprise to us. We were not aware that there was a controversy regarding this issue. We will evaluate the letter and its statements, and any action the City should take, if any, regarding this issue.”
Subsequently, Mayor Jeff Comerchero reacted to the press coverage and controversy, and sent a letter to Mr. Hebron as an apology for the removal of his painting from Visual Expressions 2010. Comerchero said that the city never intended to censor Hebron’s work. In an official statement, the mayor also said the city supports local arts and bills itself as a cultural arts center. “Over the last several years the City of Temecula has taken great steps to encourage, support and build all segments of the arts in the community. Approximately 10 years ago the City developed a Cultural Arts Master Plan which provided a strategic plan to develop and cultivate the arts in the City of Temecula,” Comerchero said. “The City recognizes the importance of artistic expression and has endeavored to draw the best art from the many talented artists in the region and display that art in appropriate venues,” the statement said. “Most of the time we are successful in balancing these important interests, but in this case we appear to have offended some important segments of the arts community and regret that we could not have found the proper balance in order to avoid the controversy.” “We’re in the process of formulating a policy that will be available to the public [regarding art in public spaces].”
Comerchero acknowledged that Temecula is a conservative community. He said his office has received feedback from citizens who support the city’s efforts to keep art that contains nudity out of public spaces that children may frequent. He did not, however, mention the many comments and e-mails from the community in support of free expression and the public’s right to make its own choices. In response to the city’s statements, Visual Expressions 2010 exhibit chairwoman and curator Sissi Hale states, “I am worried about the city writing and applying policy to the arts.With policy, [the government] will have the ultimate say about what the community sees in its [art shows],” Hale said. “We need a gallery that showcases art. Not all art is going to be family friendly.”
Hale, who found herself in the middle of the controversy surrounding both the removal of Hebron’s nude painting and the removal of Sanders’ paintings from the library, had been working on a proposal to the city that would secure a space in Old Town for an art gallery. “I was going to offer to manage and coordinate the gallery for free for a full year,” Hale said, noting her commitment to artistic expression and her belief that Temecula artists want such a venue. “I am going to keep fighting for gallery space. I don’t know what I have to do to get it, but I will fight for it,” Hale said.
Said artist Jeff Hebron, “It was never my intention to make the city look bad, but the First Amendment is important. We’re Americans. All I am asking for is the chance for people to see my art and let them make their own judgments. Hopefully good things happen from here. Artists are important to this town. I think there are a lot of people and businesses who would support a [city-supported] gallery. I think the city realized that it needed to change a few things [in its approach to the artistic community],” Hebron said.
It seems, however, that the city has no intention of changing its policy about deciding what the public may see in Temecula. Temecula city officials, recently contacted The Temecula Valley Art League, regarding their upcoming juried wild life and western show. They wished to appoint a city employee as the sole juror for that show, despite the fact that he has no background or expertise in the arts. Art League's representatives insisted that there be a professional juror at the show (Joe Garcia) but the city employee will be by his side during the jurying process. The Art League then felt compelled to add a disturbing revision to the prospectus for the wildlife show, which reads: "The Merc is a facility owned by the City of Temecula and the City controls the art to be displayed in the Merc. The judge will select no less than [28__] pieces of art (depending on size) to be recommended to the City. The City will select, in its sole discretion, [20-25__] pieces of art to be displayed at the Merc from the Judge’s recommendations. The City reserves the right to cancel the exhibition at any time in its sole discretion."
Where does it end? Who chooses, who decides, and are we the people going to waive our constitutional rights and be told what is and is not art, and what we can and cannot see in our publicly supported venues? If you support our bid for a public gallery in Old Town Temecula, a place where local artists can show their work and local residents can see a full range of artistic expression without interference.
Comments
The show in question represented an incursion into the culture of no culture, so it's not too surprising that the culture of no culture ("thou shalt not make any graven image") pushed back.
Posted by: RG | mars 10, 2010 01:21 PM