Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Art Against Iraq Abuse Earns Black Eye

By kpaul in MLP
Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 09:20:53 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

The story was first reported by the media on May 28 at 9:58 p.m. according to Google News. Lori Haigh, an art gallery owner in San Francisco's North Beach, started receiving threats after displaying a painting called "The Abuse" by East Bay artist Guy Colwell. The painting depicts Pfc. Lynndie England and another soldier smiling gleefully in front of naked Iraqis.

After receiving threats, she moved the painting from the front window of her shop to the inside. It didn't pacify certain segment of the population who, in an outrage, attacked and gave her a black eye.

Pakistan is reporting that she's been forced out of business.


From one version of Sunday's AP article:
"I think you need to get your gallery out of this neighborhood before you get hurt," one caller said.

She removed the painting from the window, but the gallery's troubles received news coverage and the criticism continued. The answering machine recorded new calls from people accusing her of being a coward for moving the artwork.

Last weekend, Haigh said a man walked into the gallery, pretended to scrutinize the painting for a moment, then marched up to her desk and spat in her face.

On Thursday, someone knocked on the door of the gallery, then punched Haigh in the face when she stepped outside.

"This isn't art-politics central here at all," Haigh said. "I'm not here to make a stand. I never set out to be a crusader or a political activist."

In closing the gallery, Haigh was forced to cancel an upcoming show featuring counterculture artist Winston Smith.

Is it art? Does it go too far?

She wasn't receiving government money for it, so should she be attacked by a lynch mob?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
art gallery owner getting beat up:
o she deserved it 3%
o she didn't deserve it. 18%
o america: it's a nice place to visit, but i wouldn't want to live there. 31%
o america: love it or leave it. 2%
o be glad it wasn't worse! 0%
o this is insane! 35%
o it happens. get over it. 7%
o other (see comment) 1%

Votes: 197
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Google
o first reported
o Google News
o The Abuse
o Guy Colwell
o receiving threats
o black eye
o forced out of business
o one version of Sunday's AP article
o Is it art
o government money
o lynch mob
o Also by kpaul


Display: Sort:
Art Against Iraq Abuse Earns Black Eye | 286 comments (260 topical, 26 editorial, 2 hidden)
This just proves everything I say. (1.81 / 27) (#8)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 01:37:42 AM EST

When I wrote truthfully in an article about economic scientists that everything, which would logically include politics, was about sex, I was mocked mercilessly. I was laughed at. People pointed. If I had to pick one analogy to describe the situation accurately, it would have to be SIGNOR SPAGHETTI was Carrie at the prom, you nerds the beautiful people who died horribly in the end. That is what you nerds remind me of, all beauty no brains. Which one of you will deny the two most salient facts about politics in modern American history, the decline of the Marxist-Keynesism, caused by one young Miss Lewinsky and a penis, and the surrender of Bush and moral claritivism, for which we have to thank another lassie, Miss England, and (surprise) a penis? Do I have to draw a Venn diagram for you people?

"I disagree, SIGNOR SPAGHETTI. If I might take you up on that diagram, I think a more accurate picture of our suffering would take into account morality, an immaterial substance split between good and evil. Sex, being a form of pity, is orthogonal to morality. You see, --"

SHUT UP YOU ARE MAKING SIGNOR SPAGHETTI ILL. ARE YOU A FOOLISH WOMAN?

The suffering of computer nerds and Islamo-fascists in the world is nothing compared to that of all other sentient creatures, which suffer greatly without any so-called "moral" improvement to their gene pool. It may revolt species imperialists to suppose our suffering and the problem of so-called "evil" isn't objectively different than what happens to the ant going about his business when you step on his little back, but there it is.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

What a pathetic cunt (1.00 / 46) (#9)
by godix on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 03:10:02 AM EST

"This isn't art-politics central here at all," Haigh said. "I'm not here to make a stand. I never set out to be a crusader or a political activist."

Without seeing the painting (add a link directly to it if it's on the web please) I can't be positive but from the description this painting was a political comment from someone who intended to use politics to influence her audience (after all, influencing the audience is the very point of art). Sounds like a political ativist to me. She did get part of it right though, she's not willing to stand behind what she's done and now she's crying about how horrible it is that some people don't like what she did. Boo fucking hoo. She sounds like a little kid who throws a fit when he's told no one likes his dead baby jokes and he should just knock it off. Grow up and join the real world bitch, you play around with controversial events and you're going to piss some people off. Quit whining and deal with it.

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

What did she expect? (1.36 / 22) (#23)
by acceleriter on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 09:11:02 AM EST

She is producing inflammatory propaganda that contradicts the party line of her non-democratic government. No doubt she was trying to cash in on the anti-American sentiment among Muslim extremists, and took a risk. Unfortunately for her, she paid the price.

+1FP makes USian look like the mindless tools (1.65 / 29) (#33)
by Roast Pork and Eggs on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 12:38:31 PM EST

they are

News at Eleven (1.76 / 17) (#34)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 12:41:42 PM EST

So a person publicly displays a controversial piece and gets threats from a few cranks and even has one whacko deck them for it.

I'm sorry but this is earth shattering news how?

Heck, I've seen people get decked for a bad hair style. People are whacked.... News at Eleven.

Art is supposed to invoke passion (1.76 / 13) (#48)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 03:37:17 PM EST

and if an artist isn't willing to risk occasional violence, perhaps she should paint pictures of wide eyed children.

Reenactment of an alternative scenario (2.36 / 38) (#53)
by K5 ASCII reenactment players on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 05:25:35 PM EST

  Ow! By dose! Why      Controversial?  I hate it 
  do you hate my        because it's a crappy overpriced
  controversial art?    scribble, you BMW driving skank.
  _______   \             /
 |#@   : |    <O>      O
 |  ~!  %|     |      V|
 |_______|    /_\      |
              /|       |\ 



hmm, let me get this straight. (2.85 / 27) (#54)
by pb on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 05:34:54 PM EST

So you're angry about a painting depicting U.S. troops abusing Iraqis. Perhaps because Americans in general shouldn't behave like that. So what do you do?

You go and abuse someone. And the wrong 'someone', at that. Real swift there, bucko; thanks for helping clear the good name of all the other patriotic Americans out there.

Fucker.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall

I bet.... (1.66 / 6) (#61)
by ambisinistral on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 08:42:41 PM EST

When Europeans punch out artists at least they're not hypocrites about it.

No deserves to be beat up over art. (1.23 / 13) (#63)
by Psycho Dave on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 10:03:36 PM EST

But let's face it, this art is crap. Would you put it on your wall? Drop a couple thou so it could own it forever.

It's the kind of painting made specifically to satiate the ego of the artist, so they can sit around, sip espresso with their art-fag buddies, and feel "controversial". Pre-9/11, this fellow would probably take a photo of  himself sticking a madonna statue up his ass, or shitting on a picture of the Pope. Now that terrorism has replaced Catholicism as the nation's hot button issue, he makes paintings like these.

I just really hope the gallery owner didn't stage the beating herself (you know, had someone attack her to get into the news). Between Fox News and the Drudge Report, you will never hear the end of this.

Confused person, really! (1.20 / 10) (#66)
by cdguru on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 10:45:59 PM EST

There are a number of things going on here:
  • If you are going to put "controversial art" in your front window, you are likely going to get some people disagreeing with you. If you don't like people to disagree with you - sometimes violently - don't do anything controversial.
  • If you are going to do controversial things, you need to think about them just a little bit to see if you are really prepared to follow through. If your idea of doing something controversial is to put up a sign and at the first hint of disagreement to take it down, then I contest your commitment. Why did you bother?
  • It is possible that Lori didn't understand this was "controversial". Well, lesson learned, I guess.

This sounds to me like Lori is a dilettante and wasn't all that serious about (a) her gallery, and (b) her opinions about the art she was selling. Maybe the gallery was just a hobby - because if it was her sole source of income I can't believe she would just walk away because of this. Or, that if she couldn't take the heat that she wasn't a lot more careful about what she put in her gallery. Could it be that other customers told her they would never buy from her again because of this? Goes back to point three above - maybe she just didn't understand. I don't see any escape from the label "dilettante".

Another point here is there is a difference between some illustrative art about a particular soldier that clearly particpated in activities that are wrong. It is another entirely to interpret this as an attitude of all US soldiers and/or all of the US entirely. I would have no problem giving Ms. England a black eye, but I suspect the folks assaulting the gallery owner were interpreting the artwork as a general commentary on the entire US military. I don't think that would be a very popular position and might seriously offend veterans, widows of veterans and so on. Seriously enough that they might be spurned to assaulting the gallery owner. Again, if you aren't committed to a position, don't do stuff that leads people to believe you have that position. Or, don't start things you can't finish.

If you can't take the heat... (1.60 / 15) (#69)
by Work on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 11:04:26 PM EST

From the article: In closing the gallery, Haigh was forced to cancel an upcoming show featuring counterculture artist Winston Smith. She covered the windows of the gallery with old newspapers from Sept. 11, 2003, that included stories about the war, a statement she insists was coincidental.

Yeah im sure we all just happen to keep 9 month old newspapers around...

Every gallery curator shows works on a theme or says something they're interested or receptive to. Especially if you put it in the front window!

It seems to me this lady wants to make a statement, but is unable to deal with the fact that people may disagree - violently even - with her.

Or maybe she really is just that vapid and clueless.

+1FP, belated (2.79 / 24) (#76)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Jun 01, 2004 at 11:52:05 PM EST

You've trolled the conservatives into supporting violence against women.  That is so beatiful that I think I'm going to weep.

Well, so much for good old fashioned family values, and military type honor...

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

It's sad to see (3.00 / 12) (#84)
by Squeegee on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 01:17:10 AM EST

... life imitating art that imitates events that intimidates life.

Come on now, it's not the end of the world. (1.83 / 6) (#91)
by The Real Lord Kano on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 03:55:21 AM EST

I can't say that I support any repression of artistic expression, but anonymous telephone threats, a little spit and even a punch in the face are far less than what some other artists have endured.

Salmon Rushdie at one point had a 5 MILLION DOLLAR price on his head because he wrote a book. One that IMHO wasn't even that good.

Let's try to keep it in perspective.

LK

This is going to sound harsh . . . (1.66 / 6) (#94)
by vegetablespork on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 04:33:58 AM EST

. . . but this just has "publicity stunt" written all over it. What better way to promote your mediocre, but controversial work than to try to give the impression that the unenlightened Philistines are trying to suppress it.

Reading the other comments (3.00 / 13) (#97)
by Nursie on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 05:07:38 AM EST

I find it amazing what some people are willing to condone in the name of patriotism and national pride.

Stop and think before just saying "Huh, she was dumb, she deserved it". I thought the US was all about allowing dumb people to say what they wanted, without risk of imprisonment or retribution (with protection in fact), because when everyone has freedom of expression. Anything else becomes "Freedom of expression as long as it agrees with me".

That's not the same thing at all.

Meta Sigs suck.

Reminds me of another black eye.... (1.85 / 14) (#99)
by Saad on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 05:47:18 AM EST

Photo.


"POST COITUM OMNE ANIMAL TRISTE EST."
Umm...? (none / 0) (#104)
by iheartzelda on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 08:55:57 AM EST

The link to the photo (which *was* hosted at the SanFran Sentinel) seems to be 404.

Anyone got a new link?

Nice (none / 3) (#105)
by slaida1 on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 08:57:56 AM EST

She should keep a gun under her desk for that kind of situtations. Good art is the kind of art that plays with strong emotions and she should be prepared to defence herself. I believe in US she can shoot attackers, use security camera tapes as evidence and get away free.

I like US in a way that it's a modern high tech country where one can still get the thrill of fighting for his life occasionally. It's a unique mix of computer age technology and stone age problem solving.

She should go for it and fight like there's no tomorrow, woohoo cowgirl go for it!

"The Abuse" sighting (3.00 / 4) (#106)
by khallow on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 09:19:51 AM EST

This link works for now. I found it here.

Stating the obvious since 1969.

You have to pick your fights. (1.44 / 9) (#109)
by JonesBoy on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 10:54:25 AM EST

All I have seen is the little thumbnail of the painting.   From what I can tell, it really isn't that good, and it really isn't making much of a statement.   Its more of an observation or an inflamatory interpretation; a tired, unoriginal one at that.   It looks like the artist intended to jump on the edgy bandwagon by painting something inflamatory, and the gallery owner wanted to stoke some fire in his gallery.   Well, they both got it.

You have to pick your fights, and consider the consequences of your actions.   While assaulting the gallery owner is wrong, it is the first thing that comes to my mind as a consequence.   Unjust, but fair (stupidity should be painful, IMO).

You can fight a porcupine and win, but if other folks get a look at you they may think it's a bad idea to mess with porcupines.
- Neal Knox
Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.

Lets be clear on the point here (2.66 / 9) (#111)
by GenerationY on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 11:27:16 AM EST

Do you believe, in America today, someone has the right to paint and display a picture that depicts a real world, actual event, without fear of assault?

Yes or no? No pissing around with what the artist did or did not say or questioning artistic values. Or whether you think assault is trivial or not... Its a very simple question.

It is not controversial, as everyone from the President to the people accused of perpetrating the acts in Abu Graib admits it happened. This is therefore rendered uncontroversial in that sense.

It is not an incitement because, as I have just said, these things did actually happen. Who would these pictures be an incitement to? On what grounds? I am genuinely confused by this. I cannot imagine the thought processes involved. What has the artist done wrong here? Leaves me very confused.

Nor is it political; unless it is Republican official policy to torture and sexually humiliate foreigners. If Bush had brain enough he could quite easily come out of the whole affair with a degree of credit for restoring the image of America throughout the world through his careful handling of the situation. His personal determination to see that justice was served etc.  "We must fight evil within and without" (here GWB, have the soundbite for nothing)etc. Fat chance I know, but still.

I can only assume from both this story and the responses made that Americans are facing a crisis of cognitive dissonance. Is the national ego under threat? Come on chaps, pull through, it is better to face the truth than to hide it.

Bitch had it coming! (1.05 / 19) (#125)
by undermyne on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 12:43:42 PM EST

Going for the trifecta here people.

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo

Hey man give America some credit. (2.63 / 11) (#126)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 12:44:45 PM EST

  • Gossip and slander will force Ms Haigh to leave San Francisco and settle in Canada.
  • The artist will die in a hospital, following some sort of mental illness, and be buried in an unmarked pauper's grave.
  • A year from now a businessman who votes Republican will be selling the picture on lunchboxes, which same sex couples that vote Democrat will buy for their adopted children.
  • So you see in America today is the tomorrow you were worried about yesterday.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

  • another link (none / 0) (#154)
    by kpaul on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 05:27:56 PM EST

    to The Abuse painting... some kind of 44 meg video as well...


    2014 Halloween Costumes

    That's a really conservative neighborhood (none / 0) (#170)
    by mveloso on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 07:13:45 PM EST

    A lot of old-time immigrants, etc. Those guys are merciless.

    Rack up another victim of "Art." I'd be surprised if she thought that particular work wouldn't rile some of the people there, but I guess she thought the area was more like San Fran. Doh!

    Hah, I love it (1.00 / 20) (#203)
    by rho on Thu Jun 03, 2004 at 02:14:21 PM EST

    Nothing is more sad and pathetic than a leftist hiding behind freedom of speech. As soon as somebody exercises their own freedoms to condemn, retort, or otherwise challenge the loony-leftist's bullshit "artistic expression", the twinkish pansy goes running behind the skirts of the First Amendment.

    Lefties want the First Amendment to read, "Everybody shall be forced to listen to liberal nonsense and nobody shall be allowed to call them names or anything, because, well, just because." When their bullshit is challenged, the first defense the left yanks out is freedom of expression--as if it applies at all, which it doesn't. This tart, she's perfectly able to continue displaying her shit art. She's not willing to, because it's not as universally loved as she thought it would be in goddamned San Francisco, of all places. Her freedom of speech is not being infringed--that she's totally lacking in any courage in her convictions sure is being highlighted, though.

    That "God Hates Fags" guy probably gets a lot of threats and crap thrown at him, too. Where's the K5 Bunched Underwear Brigade? Why aren't they straining juice through their panties for him?

    Anyway, knowing a San Fran leftie, she probably was not just punched out of the blue. More likely she called a Vietnam vet a "baby killer", and he went Apocolypse Now on her vegan ass.

    (BTW, any artist that is labeled "counterculture" is guaranteed to be crap. Come to find out, Mr. Winston Smith is a montage artist, which is a farty way of saying "I can't draw, so I cut out other people's art and paste it together, and then get laid by skanky bullemic art-whores." So, weep weep, says I for the cancelled exhibition. What an asshole.)
    "The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw

    Hmm. (none / 2) (#216)
    by UCF BullitNutz on Thu Jun 03, 2004 at 04:35:35 PM EST

    It would seem that we have some of our own terrorists right here in America. What is this, Stockholm Syndrome or something? Where while we fight terror, we have Americans terrorizing other Americans because of their views? "If it's controversial, you shouldn't be displaying it." Oh puh-leeze. Controversy is what the US is all about, through and through. Reality shows, "faith based whatever," it's all just a scenario of "I do not thumb my nose at you sir, but I do thumb my nose." It really would be ironic if the scum that did this got prosecuted under the PATRIOT Act. However, we won't see that.
    ----------
    " It ain't a successful troll until the admin shuts off new user registration for half a year." - godix
    Just a quick reminder (none / 1) (#227)
    by Dogun on Thu Jun 03, 2004 at 06:09:00 PM EST

    Violence is bad. Regardless how you feel about the painting, no adult should strike another adult. For those of you who say you would have no problem giving Ms. England or the gallery owner a black eye, I remind you that you are scum, and that your opinions aren't worth listening to. For future reference, the correct way to deal something you don't like that is legal is to lead a demonstration or a boycott.

    Controversy sells.... (1.50 / 4) (#229)
    by trimethyl on Thu Jun 03, 2004 at 07:16:10 PM EST

    Okay, so she received death threats. Someone punched her in the face. The police said they couldn't protect her.

    And we're blaming this on Right Wingers? When it happened in the Left Wing Capital of the Western States?

    I think it's far more likely that she's made some personal enemies and they executed a personal attack under the guise of a political one to avoid suspicion.



    Black eyes (none / 1) (#238)
    by Perianwyr on Fri Jun 04, 2004 at 12:00:29 AM EST

    You get one, for god's sake give one back. We have absolutely no hope of returning to clan rule unless people dig their damned feet in and beat the shit out of those that offend them.

    She should get a gun (none / 0) (#242)
    by Armada on Fri Jun 04, 2004 at 09:49:26 AM EST

    Shoot the bastard that punches her or threatens to. She does it once, it won't happen again. It's extremely easy for a woman to get a gun in the US.

    On a perfectly non-PC side note, because I know the chick isn't going to take my advice seriously, what do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

    Someone should beat the shit out of Savage (none / 1) (#279)
    by mmuskratt on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 06:27:58 PM EST

    Hey, since the police aren't going to protect people like her, do you think they'd let someone get away with kicking Michael Savage's ass? He broadcasts from the Bay Area. I find his support of torturers to be offensive (not quite as offensive as Rush Limbaugh, but close enough). Maybe if someone went up to him at a restaurant, beat the shit out of him and ran away like this pussy did to this woman, then he'd stop broadcasting his vitriolic bullshit on the radio...

    No, that probably won't happen. Besides, it would be against the tenets of non-violent protest. The biggest problem here is that a little violence sure went a long way...she closed down her gallery. Too bad, from what I've read, she is a pretty cool lady.

    Although I don't agree with using violence to resolve such conflicts, I sure find it amusing to see what kind of response I get when I mention turning the tables on some of these people who "Hide behind the First Ammendment."

    so fucked up its fucking funny. (none / 0) (#284)
    by ShiftyStoner on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 03:55:04 PM EST


    ( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler
    Possibly suffers from mental illness. (none / 0) (#285)
    by tongpoo on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 02:26:23 AM EST

    The general impression that I got was that whoever that are behind the attacks and threats suffer from serious mental illness; at least that's what their lawyers would most likely be saying once they are arrested.

    Should a mentally ill person's actions and opinions be taken as representing a substantial portion of the public's mentality?

    I'm baffled by the fact that A) An American is upset by the artwork, and B) said American is upset at the artist, and C) wants to do harm to the artist. To me, this is sign that the attacker's mind isn't working quite right at at least three points.

    Art Against Iraq Abuse Earns Black Eye | 286 comments (260 topical, 26 editorial, 2 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!