Socialize

FacebookTwitterRSS

Art professor’s exhibit attacked

By

A week of picketing outside a controversial art exhibit by a Stanford professor culminated when a woman broke into the museum and destroyed the art, which depicts a man who resembles Jesus Christ receiving oral sex.

Picketers crowded outside the Loveland Gallery in Loveland, Colo., on Oct. 1, when art professor Enrique Chagoya’s art exhibit, a 7.5-inch by 7-foot color lithograph print titled “The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals,” opened.

On Oct. 6, 56-year-old Kathleen Folden of Kalispell, Mont., entered the exhibit and broke the Plexiglass case with a crowbar, pulling out the book and tearing it up, The Denver Post reported.

Protesters claim the art is offensive and should not be displayed because the museum uses taxpayers’ dollars. Museum officials said since the art was donated, no public funding was used for that exhibit, according to The Post.

Chagoya, however, sees his art not as defaming Jesus but expressing an opinion about the organized church. “I’m not trying to offend anyone’s beliefs,” he said. “This is a critique to institutions.”

Chagoya is shocked at the art’s public reception, since he said the book has been in various exhibits for more than a year without any similar reaction and, he says, “no one has complained until now.”

“It’s been very disconcerting,” he said of the work’s destruction. “I feel our First Amendment right is being attacked. The museum is even afraid of replacing the work [with another copy].”

Chagoya teaches print-making and other art technique classes at Stanford, and says he never speaks about his art in classes.

Although his art has faced outspoken criticism from many, he says he also has received support from unexpected places, such as a pastor in Loveland who commissioned a work for his church after the controversy broke out.

He said the dean and the chair of the art department have been supportive. They are planning to organize a forum on censorship in the future, “maybe when animosities calm down, but not right now,” he said.

According to Chagoya, the museum held a vigil for the destroyed art on Friday night. Thomas Seligman, director of Cantor Arts Center, called the act a “prime example” of intolerance.

“I think art often provokes emotions because it has something to say that is a little too truthful for us to take or is against someone’s ideology,” he said. “It’s another good example of art having power, but a gross example of intolerance and purposeful hostilities.”

He added that while art as provocation is part of a growing society, censorship of art does nothing to advance the cause.

“It’s amazing that a woman would go to these lengths to destroy this,” he said. “If she made her own art, that’d be great–it keeps the dialogue going. But in no way did she have the right to do what she did.”

Chagoya feels that a tense political environment may have also contributed to the reaction to the art.

“I think pre-election polarizing politics may be the cause,” he said. “Unfortunately, I feel victimized by this kind of extremism.”

And, as he pointed out, his art is not the first nor will it be the last to deal with controversial religious topics.

“My work is not even as bad as it could be,” he said. “I mean, ‘South Park’ gets away with depicting religious icons and the reaction is not the same.” And, he noted, the show “also takes place in Colorado.”

  • AAArrrrgh

    I always get a chuckle with people like this Chagoya. Be as offensive as possible, provoke a hostile reaction,get bewildered by the consequences, and then run and hide behind the First Amendment. He’s certainly well within his rights,but his rights don’t absolve him of his responsibility of actions. Pointing out ‘South Park’ was funny too– didn’t the writers go into hiding a while back after getting death threats after one of their episodes?

  • fedupwithfaux

    Chagoya will have to face Jesus for this someday. Jesus can handle Himself just fine. But what was this”art” up in public for in the first place? It’s ridiculous when artists use their ‘craft’ in this way, when they plainly intend on showing pornography and hide it behind the ‘art’ clause. And he’s teaching in our colleges! That explains much

  • Cardinal

    Perhaps the good professor will continue demonstrating his keen judgement and go on to create some “art” that is offensive to Muslims. Or was his art directed as a criticism of only one organized religion?

  • Chris

    Who cares? He can put up whatever art he wants, ESPECIALLY if it was paid for with independent donations. If you don’t like it, DON’T GO SEE IT! Nobody is forcing you to go to his exhibit. Worry about you’re own lives instead of intruding into other people’s lives constantly.

  • Lewis Marshall

    I think previous commenters forget the purpose of the first amendment. The first amendment is not needed to protect popular speech; everyone likes popular speech. The purpose of the first amendment is to protect controversial speech.

    You can be offended, you can write a letter saying you dislike the art, you can protest the art, you can make your own art as a protest. Here’s what you can’t do: threaten the artist or destroy the artwork.

    I find it shocking how quick people are to blame the victim this case.

  • fedupwithfaux

    So you two (Chris and Lewis) think it’s ok to put up porn in a public place where kids can see it and call it art is ok? liberals are so intolerant

  • fedup

    This is not freedom of speech, this so-called-art is an insult to many decent people. Between the crass behavior of this Stanford Professor! and the in-your-face attitude of some of your students. I wonder why can’t we hear from the adults in this prime school?

  • http://sexpotencja.com.pl Burt Erekcja

    I think your post is extremaly interesting. I really like your style of writing and I wish I could do the same. The article is worth writing. I’ll tell about your blog my friend. Best regards.