Censorship or Discrimination?

The main reason of citation given, the audience of the medium, referred to when I was there, first heard of this, and went over to look at images I have over at Act of Kindness, watercolors, sort of wondered if the ones in previous two juried shows this year, would make the cut on this one. Penster also has a painting at issue that was yanked, was juried, then not juried, such the confusion on that one a mystery.

Now, the point of b.peeper that always someone will like or not like art, sometimes we create it, in say images related to holocaust, war, abuse, to impact suffering, many crucifixion depict that, so art not always pretty, often war photography explicit due to medium, but painting such as Guernica by Picasso gets the suffering of that horse dying in the bombing, along with the others so maimed in that painting.

But, first excuse before we get to "objectification of women" statement in Jardine's column, quoting, seems to be transients, such may be presumed adult, over 18, not a bar, but if ok, and we know the old Howard Hughes billionare as bum lost in desert story, could be art buyer in disguise, and this is a nonprofit, art presentation to public, i.e. citizens, though distinction made on "kids" which I observed with parents at holiday sale I was working at gallery for, but in article, teenagers, well, 18 or 19, or younger not made clear, and galleries like the Louvre, the St Peter's collection in Rome, the National Museum of Art and Smithsonian, includes nudes on display where age is not at issue, for anyone wondering federal policies, perhaps under W changed for national security reasons, been a while since i was there,

but quite weird, the decision is to hang, display the art, all mediums, then your first reason is the audience, not by complaint, but the audience composition seems to offend, so rather than ask them to move on, or seek another gallery more suited to them, penalize the artists, as gallery not drawing, or engaging audience, Mistlin thinks it should attract,

This is discrimination to, including goes back to the days, when the courtiers and nobles, kings, could view anything, and the serfs not allowed near it, or you only painted the gods, the nobles, not right to paint as Millet the field workers, Van Gogh the potato eaters, issues that were part of the revolution vs, the Art Academie in Paris, for a long time said printmaking, photography not art, over 100 years ago, time changes, that dictated the standards of art, vs mere image, scribble, such Van Gogh won, also Warhol, Annie Liebowitz

Is it that if you are too poor, too unfashionably dressed, too ugly, or deformed, in crisis that you be banned from viewing art, or what you like you have to go to photographer's gallery, to view, as that seems odd, as the recent great show of Memorial complentary therapy and cancer survivors, would indicate shouldn't be such an issue, unless if you're uninsured art lover, you weren't allowed to paint your way into the exhibit, as you had no such supplies on your insurance, no such therapy included in your battle, or not included in your art appreciation admittance.

This cuts both ways in what happened in recent show, are we denying audience, and we are when show was up, you go to see what was left out, and its not there, can't complain, or praise.

You penalize the artist, who happened to engage someone, and attendance has been down.

The current show is fine to me, but some folks prefer their art clothed. Both are tough to draw.

I hope this encourages all to come on down, check it out. Participation, discussion, being affected by art, or being able to bitch about it, critique, learn, even be bored if nothing sends you, to buy for decoration, for the mystique, place in home in office, maybe burn if you really hate it that much, once its yours, might have to look over our sales contracts on that, as some event around here, took the money not to serve alcohol, whatever gets those sponsor dollars, but could be a sort of pact with the devil too.

This really is something artists, galleries, public, ought to check out, discuss, come to grips with.

I'm not in this show. Personally, wouldn't have pulled them, but that's my opinion. Overall though, the incident, triggers interest in art issues in our community, something needed, likely positive, should be an interesting potluck at mistlin monday night. I'm going, but reason I couldn't enter the show, I"m on fixed income budget unless my paintings sell, and do the art walk show first, then my support group work, some of which is with the peer to peer recovery art project, and some artists need housing, place to work, so got to do some grant writing, and that's one that's important to me. I'm walking, my name starts with C, so in the main dish provision, as a member again after 10 years out, and so they'll have to skip mine, call it conceptual air food art, perhaps bring food for thought.

I give a lot away, I know what I can get selling them, but nice as a friend of mine says, to know the really good ones get a good home, hang where I want them to, give them sometimes to friends, just as that's best place they should be, or on my myspace.

Sorry forgot to illustrate my comments again Mojo. But that requires some photograpy, and I come from UCR where great photographic museum, and I can't shoot for shit, or work the digital or darkroom as some of my heroes in art. I really enjoy photographers work, wish I were as skilled in their medium

was at the potluck tonight, though recent controversy noted in small groups, wasn't discussed in the have all your attention, announcements for the members present. Apparently will be in board meetings this week, but couldn't tell you what the real reason pulled, nor the real feeling on was this discrimination on photography.

From the myspace blogs read, seems in favor of photographers. This was xmas potluck night, so guess we didn't want to spoil the mood with business, but Petra working out the bugs on the newsletter online stuff.