March 10

Art and the College Administrator

Even a few days later, Branda Miller’s voice rises with anger as she recalls what happened in her course Wednesday at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. An artist-in-residence — whose presence had been approved through all official channels — was in the middle of a discussion with her students when three administrators arrived, told her they needed to take the artist with them at once, escorted him to another classroom, and refused to let Miller enter or to offer any explanation to her or her students. Shortly after the disruption of her class, RPI ordered the exhibit set up by the artist — a video game based in part on an Al Qaeda video game involving attempts to kill President Bush — shut down pending a review.

Looking for a job?

See all 298 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,608
Administrative: 2,284
Executive: 200
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

As the officials took away her guest, Miller said, “I thought, ‘this must be what it feels like to be in Iraq.’ A moment of compassion crossed my mind” as she thought about teaching in an environment where officials can show up in class, take someone away, and offer no explanation. “I was imagining professors attempting to teach their students in countries where academic freedom does not exist, where even their lives are at risk.”

The furor at RPI is one of several recent incidents involving controversial art in the higher education setting. In all of the cases, issues of safety or security or politics are raised by those questioning or limiting art — while others are in turn raising concerns about academic and artistic freedom.

At Arkansas Tech University last month, administrators shut down a production of the musical Assassins, saying it would be too dangerous to put on after the killings at Northern Illinois University. After widespread protests, the show has been rescheduled but with strict rules (bag searches, advance ticket sales only) that many professors say are needless and discouraging.

At Middlebury College last week, some students are angry over the removal of a a student’s staged art photograph showing another student with a toy gun in his mouth. At Cuesta College, in California, the faculty union and administration are fighting over a 2005 production of Cabaret that offended some donors — and that professors say has been a pretext for going after one of their colleagues who helped lead the show. And at the University of Dallas, administrators are being criticized for not removing from an exhibit a print — since stolen — depicting the Virgin Mary as a stripper, The Dallas Morning News reported.

To be sure, there is no shortage of cutting-edge or controversial art to be found on college campuses. But it’s also true that the combination of art and higher education sometimes has more potential than books or lectures to become a target. The late Robert Mapplethorpe was well known for his sexually charged photography for years prior to an exhibit in 1988 at the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute of Contemporary Art, but it was that exhibit (along with one other) that set off years of debate over the National Endowment for the Arts because a small NEA grant provided some support for the show.

Arts experts say that several factors make art in higher education particularly vulnerable when controversy strikes. One is that many people on a campus aren’t seeking out an arts experience in the way that would more typically be the case of someone going to a gallery or the theater. One issue at Middlebury, for example, is that the photographs were on display in a space that students would walk by — not necessarily looking for art.

Jonathan Knight, who handles academic freedom issues for the American Association of University Professors, said that “art has a way of triggering stronger responses [than academic articles or books] because it is typically exhibited in places that will be seen not just by members of the academic community, but by the public.” As a result, “administrators may have a stronger sense that an exhibition suggests an endorsement of the institution.”

Much good art, Knight said, “has an immediacy” and “seeks to trigger a strong reaction,” so it should be no surprise that this happens. While the same might be said about many academic articles or books, “it may take quite a few pages of reading” — and more of a time commitment than many critics will make — to hit an “inflammatory argument.”

While those factors may explain why administrators who wouldn’t ban a book will shut down an exhibit, Knight said that they do not justify doing so. AAUP policy is clear, he said, that academic freedom includes free artistic expression on campuses.

“Works of the visual or performing arts are as much engaged in pursuit of the academic mission of the institution — to expand knowledge, to challenge views — as are public talks by professors, articles professors write in journals, or books that they publish with presses, and therefore should be afforded the same kinds of protections,” Knight said.

“The kinds of reactions we are seeing cannot be reconciled with freedom of expression and freedom of creativity which we associate with artistic expression,” Knight added.

Nicola Courtright, a professor of fine arts at Amherst College and president of the College Art Association, said that art on campuses — as with good art everywhere — “has to be protected even when it is dealing with controversial and touchy subjects.”

While Courtright wasn’t familiar with the art at issue at RPI, she noted that there is a long history of artistic portrayals of violent acts in which the art is “to encourage you to reflect,” not to do anything violent. She added that many who express periodic concern about violence in art somehow don’t focus on violence in television.

Why does art seem to lead to so many censorship battles in higher ed, compared to other forms of scholarly communication of ideas? “Books have covers that can be closed,” Courtright said.

From Iraq to RPI

Last week’s incidents at RPI focused on art inspired by events in Iraq. Wafaa Bilal, the artist who was escorted from a classroom last week and whose video art was blocked from being shown, was born in Iraq. He fled in 1991, at the age of 23, after objecting to the autocratic rule of Saddam Hussein. An artist who works in many media, Bilal is an adjunct at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. In an interview Friday, he said that while he uses his art to criticize the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he also opposed Hussein’s rule and opposes terrorism in Iraq or elsewhere.

The work that prompted the uproar at RPI is a video game Bilal created called “Virtual Jihadi,” inspired by two previous video games produced by others (both of which have since been copied and appear in many forms). In the first, “Quest for Saddam,” players tried to capture the deposed and since executed leader of Iraq. That game inspired an Al Qaeda version called “The Night of Bush Capturing,” which features players trying to kill the American president. In Bilal’s version, “Virtual Jihadi,” a player based on his life is part of the Bush game.

Those who view the game as an endorsement of terrorism are missing the point, Bilal said. “I’m trying to show Iraqis become vulnerable to joining terrorist groups, because there is no protection by the United States” and no secure society in which people can live. His idea, Bilal said, isn’t that it is good to join terrorist groups, but that the failure of U.S. policy leads Iraqis to make such choices. “These guys feel forced to join groups where they blow themselves up,” he said.

When Bilal was questioned about his work by college administrators Wednesday after they removed him from Miller’s course, he said that they asked questions about whether he supported terrorism, and that they “didn’t seem to understand” how art makes points that aren’t necessarily literal. He said that being ordered out of a class and being asked about his art in such a hostile way reminded him of life under Saddam in Iraq.

As soon as the College Republicans heard about the exhibit, they started to complain about it. While Republican leaders did not respond to messages, they have posted on their blog several items criticizing Bilal and his art. One posting is called “The RPI Arts Department: A Terrorist Safehaven,” and says of Bilal’s art: “This is something RPI should be ashamed to have its name even mentioned with, let alone be sponsoring.”

Another post is a copy of a letter from an unnamed alumnus to institute administrators, in which the alumnus said “so long as RPI sponsors these kinds of events, giving absolutely no consideration given to military alumnus, friends and family of the university, I will not contribute a dime to the school.” The letter called Bilal’s explanation of his work “absurd.”

Wrote the alumnus: “At the very least, the arts department should issue a public apology to all those who are offended by this affront to both reason and morality. I fully support energetic and vocal criticism of America’s policy in Iraq, civilian casualties in Iraq, and the veracity of our purpose, but not efforts to sympathize with what is essentially terrorism, whether or not it is carried out by the young, hurt and confused. If Mr. Bilal truly ’seeks to imbue his audiences with a sense of empowerment that comes from hope in the enduring potential of humanity’ he would not ask us to look into the heart of a killer, and try to understand what drove him to atrocity. Hope and humanity are not equatable with murder.”

Following the criticism of the Republicans, several sources in the art department at RPI said that they were told by institute officials that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was interested in the exhibit, but neither the FBI nor the institute would confirm or deny bureau involvement.

William N. Walker, vice president for strategic communications and external relations at RPI, issued a statement in which he said that the institute welcomed Bilal “to contribute to the intellectual and artistic life of the institute, and we look forward to his continued presence in our classrooms and studios as a visiting artist.”

Walker’s statement said that RPI has “suspended” Bilal’s exhibit because “important concerns surfaced that the work may be based on a product of Al Qaeda, and questions were raised regarding its legality and its consistency with the norms and policies of the institute.... Rensselaer fully supports academic and artistic freedom. The question under review regards the use of university resources to provide a platform for what may be a product of a terrorist organization or which suggests violence directed toward the President of the United States and his family.”

The spokeswoman who sent the statement declined to answer such questions as why Bilal had to be removed from a class session and what message that sent to students. She said repeatedly that RPI would not answer any questions beyond issuing the statement.

Miller, the professor whose class was interrupted, said that RPI’s handling of the situation makes no sense. She noted that Bilal’s artistic credentials are strong and that he is very open about the fact that his work is based on an Al Qaeda video game. “I think this is a very complex discussion,” she said. “He’s an artist. He’s very intelligent, very serious, very kind. He is trying to make a point.”

Another key point, Miller said, is that RPI students are hardly fragile innocents about video gaming. “My students play these games. Some of these games are embedded with violence and racism and the ability to dislocate your sense of self when you kill someone,” she said. Bilal was trying “to get people to think about the games,” she said.

Adding to the tensions at RPI is that many faculty members remain angry that the institute eliminated the Faculty Senate last year after it — against the wishes of the institute’s board — decided to give voting right to full-time, non-tenure track faculty members. In 2006, the faculty narrowly rejected a no confidence vote against President Shirley Ann Jackson, who is seen as a national leader on many science and technology issues, but whose priorities have been questioned by many in its Troy, N.Y., home.

Nancy D. Campbell, an associate professor of science and technology studies who was the secretary of the Faculty Senate that RPI abolished, said that the idea that “President Jackson could send henchmen” into a classroom to remove an invited lecturer reflected how bad things had become at the institute. “I think this is yet another example of this president overstepping authority and taking matters into her own hands before she has gathered the wisdom of her faculty,” Campbell said. “She cannot conduct any kind of democratic relationship.... We live in a climate of fear.”

Photography With a Toy Gun

At Middlebury College, a student’s photo exhibit — meant in part to spark reflection on last year’s Virginia Tech killings, but going up right after the Northern Illinois University killings — is setting off controversy. The exhibit features a series of photographs of students with a toy gun.

The college removed one photograph, in which a student is shown with a gun in his mouth. (The photo removed is the third in the series that accompanies this article in The Middlebury Campus, the student newspaper.)

A college spokeswoman said that Stuart Hurt, a graduate intern at Middlebury’s art museum, curated the photo exhibit and made the decision to remove the photo in question, after some complaints came in and based on discussions with a variety of others. Removing one photograph — while also adding an explanatory text for the exhibit — offered a “good compromise,” to keep the exhibit up, while also respecting the wishes of others.

The spokeswoman also noted the space where the photographs are on display. “This is a space that people often have to walk through rather than a museum exhibit where they choose to go. This point provokes the question, should art in very public places be different than that found in a museum?” One good thing to come out of this, according to Stuart, is the fact that an art exhibit is the subject of discussion on campus since he thinks that art should be a topic of discussion at Middlebury more often than it currently is.”

Aaron Gensler, the Middlebury student whose photographs are on display, said she believed they all deserved to be viewed. “Censorship is never necessary. My piece was about human response and reaction and it has been an interesting process to see what, in each of the various installations, people have chosen to react to,” she said. Gensler added, via e-mail: “I also believe that I should also have the chance to introduce art that provokes thought. It is true that my artwork was not intended to cause debate about censorship and the issues of public art; nevertheless, I am excited that it has.”

An editorial in the student paper backed Gensler and criticized the decision to remove one of the photographs.

“Gensler’s exhibit ... seems to have been intended not to inflame understandably tender feelings stemming from this violence and uncertainty but rather to encourage open and thoughtful dialogue. The photographs of students holding a toy gun are undeniably uncomfortable, but Gensler’s photographs challenge visitors to the gallery to think critically about the American relationship to the gun, the role of gun violence on college campuses and the breadth of images and messages about firearms that Americans encounter every day,” the editorial said. It added that removing a photograph “set a dangerous precedent for a student’s ability to present challenging, startling and even provocative art on campus.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Freedom

When adult students are not treated like any other free citizen, but kept in an artificial environment ‘protected’ from information or from ‘dangerous’ objects. Then you are no longer teaching, you are applying political indoctrination.

Marius, at 6:05 am EDT on March 10, 2008

threats on presidents

While there is much to be said about the idiocy of administrators and the irrational reactions to “threats” of violence (including banning depictions of guns in play at Yale, for instance), threats against the president—any, not just this one—are on a different level. Even if the students knew that the thing was a derivative work (based on the Al Qaeda game) RPI officials, the FBI and the Secret Service had an obligation to find out immediately what was going on. That’s hardly “just what it is like in Iraq” as the vapid art professor is quoted as saying. That’s what it has been like in the U.S. since Kennedy was assassinated.

Simplissimus, Junior faculty at Midwestern U, at 7:25 am EDT on March 10, 2008

Print-Centric

Yes, put any of these things in a printed book and academics leap to defend its right to exist. Put it in any other medium and protections drop away. This is because those running the educational system are so deeply stuck in the Calvinist/Gutenberg lockdown that “print is the source of all knowledge,” as well as the old American Puritan mindset that establishes art and music as “outside” the academic mainstream.

The details of these cases suggests the deep problems of America’s “democracy” — campus Republicans call in the FBI about an art show?! — but the overall question relates to the very narrow definitions of knowledge and knowledge transmission which are far too accepted at US universities.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 7:50 am EDT on March 10, 2008

Capitalism

It appears to me that such cavalier attitudes follow the shift of universities from public-type institutions (nonprofit, for the common welfare) to private-type institutions (endowed corporations owned by investors). Thus administrators feel responsible not to humanity and the common good, but to the various stakeholders (students, alumni, benefactors, et al.). Removing a statue or an artwork becomes a private decision equivalent to Exxon taking down a sculpture at corporate HQ.

JP, at 9:45 am EDT on March 10, 2008

exerts from Church of The Good Art Catechism

Q: If Good Art is anything obnoxious and offensive to the masses, why can there never be a KKK exhibit?

A: Good Art must conform to contemporary liberal agenda.

Densie, at 9:55 am EDT on March 10, 2008

Thoughts

The act of forcibly prohibiting art exhibits and theatre is an attempt to regulate thought. By closing down musical productions and art exhibits, officials are attempting to control what viewers of the art production/exhibit think about. Not only the artists’ voices, but the audiences’ minds are being stifled.

Now, the stifling actions may be defended as precautionary measures attempting to prevent criminal action from taking place, but where is the line?

And how little credit are we given? Officials in control must fear our minds are so weak that we will knee jerk into a criminal activity because of a thought-provoking work of art.

There will always be differing opinions. Thinking is good.

Momar, Writer from Fargo, at 10:25 am EDT on March 10, 2008

We’ve lost the concept of “art.”

We emulate what we see (there’s enough published research to prove that, if you take the time to look). So, let’s be careful about what we look at. Trying to hide support for terrorism, murder, suicide, and sexual disfunction under the banner of ‘art’ is absurd. Academia seems to think that virtually ANYTHING is acceptable, as long as we label it ‘ART.’ Not true. There is still room to be discerning about what we display. We’re told not to display Nativity scenes at Christmas because it might offend somebody—but we can accept this? Why can’t I call a Nativity scene ‘art’ and then everybody can say, “Oh, now it’s OK because it’s art.” It doesn’t happen. Yet, we can show representations of murder and suicide and say, “It’s just meant to make to you think.” Baloney. I don’t need to contemplate murder or suicide, and neither do you. The purpose of art (I’m sure I’ll face opposition on this one) is to evoke positive, not negative, emotions—to stand in awe of something’s beauty. If you wouldn’t put it up on your living room wall for positive inspiration, then it’s not art. When can we return to reason?

Richard Luetters, Alumnus at RPI, at 10:25 am EDT on March 10, 2008

Picture that!

Ten months ago on “my” campus, a student’s photo essay, one among many, was torn down because of fears that it might induce students to resort to violence. This occurred about a month after the slaughter at Virginia Tech. The photo essay depicted an apparent high school student hanging herself in despair over being stood up for a prom date. One very interesting aspect of this blunt censorship stems from the fact that it was carried out by one or more full time art instructors, not by the administration. The culture of censorship and repression has been so thoroughly embraced by this community “college’s” faculty, the administration need no longer raise its intolerant fist. Big Brother can take a break since the cameras are now installed in the subjects’ brains.

An interesting corollary: the censored student’s instructor was an adjunct, who immediately resigned in indignation. He said he didn’t need this sort of crap from a penny ante institution. Which qualified my own assumption that adjunct professors are always far more vulnerable to censorship than full-time faculty. Adjuncts have the flexibility to take their services elsewhere when some of Leviathan’s bastards threaten them.

John C. Bonnell, Professor of English at Macomb Commodity College, at 10:35 am EDT on March 10, 2008

dissent

Richard-I will agree that your concept of art is much different than the one being argued here, but I do not think the concept has been confused or lost. You say “Baloney. I don’t need to contemplate murder or suicide, and neither do you.” Well, first of all, thank you for telling me what I need to contemplate. But more importantly, yes we do need to think about life issues. Murder happens the world over everyday, murder for self-profit, murder for the profit of others, murder for the salvation of others. These are all subjects that need more thought, not neglect. Suicide, as well, is a very important issue for many people. Just because you choose not to entertain deeper thoughts on the choice of human existence does not mean that others should not.

Momar, writer from Fargo, at 11:40 am EDT on March 10, 2008

Mainstream Art

Art in a public space and art in a museum are two completely different and separate things. They should not be treated equally. Where was the art displayed for each of the examples given? Art in the hallway of a university building (outside the classrooms of students) is different than that displayed at the downtown museum. When you have class in room XYZ you don’t have a choice whether to “view” the art displayed outside that room. Art in the museum you can escape from without having to return if you so desire. Forcing your view of “art” onto the public is an incorrect notion at best. Mainstream art should be censored to a degree as a courtesy to everyone who might view it. Leave controversial art in the museum for those who wish to contemplate its deep meaning and don’t mind being confronted by possibly disturbing ideas or thoughts. If people don’t want to contemplate it, why force them?

Befuddled, at 3:15 pm EDT on March 10, 2008

If You Have to Explain It. . .

When I read Bilal’s explanation of his “art,” it reminded me of something I read a long time ago: if you have to explain it, then it isn’t art (or at least it’s a failure at trying to be “art). If I wanted to strip naked, stand on my head, and shout profanities — and yet called this demonstation “art,” because I wanted others to “reflect” on the aburdity of it all — would academics defend my right to do this (and bemoan the “police state” that wouldn’t allow it) because I called this “art?” Oh for the days of good, common sense!

PA Man, at 4:25 pm EDT on March 10, 2008

Freedom of speech in a public space and freedom of speech in your private home are two completely different and separate things. They should not be treated equally. Where was the opinion for each of the examples given? Opinions in the hallway of a university building (outside the classrooms of students) is different than what can be said in the privacy of your home. When you have class in room XYZ you don’t have a choice whether to experience opinions displayed outside that room. Opinions in private homes you can escape from without having to return if you so desire. Forcing your opinions onto the public is an incorrect notion at best. Freedom of speech should be censored to a degree as a courtesy to everyone who might hear it. Leave controversial opinions at home for those who wish to contemplate its deep meaning and don’t mind being confronted by possibly disturbing ideas or thoughts. If people don’t want to contemplate it, why force them?

Makes me wonder which way the wall fell in ‘89.

Some people seem to confuse ‘art’ with ‘decoration’. Art is not xanax.

Marius, at 6:45 am EDT on March 11, 2008

Between philistine and stupid—the article, not the admins

A few things are not defensible, even (especially?) for artists. Games about killing the president is one of them. The Virgin Mary as stripper is (contra our learned despisers) another one. Rewrite the examples substituting “rape for fun” or “serial pedophilia murders” and then try to get outrage from readers.

Bruce C. Meyer, at 9:00 am EDT on March 11, 2008

the space itself

Befuddled acts as if those attending a college (and, most likely, paying for the privilege) have no choice but to face the big nasty art! They do, and many do, they can vote with their feet, or their tuition dollars. If colleges are entities unto themselves (which, read their recruiting materials, they all sell themselves as such), then are they not de facto gallery spaces? Does one not expect, generally, to face challenge, dissent, discussion, and (even) discomfort in a location dedicated to understanding and debating our society? The argument over whether one has a choice to view the art or seek it (in a book, in a gallery, in a theatre) I believe still applies to a campus, as its setting is removed and apart from the larger community, while still serving as a conduit to it. And as for Richard’s “hanging in the living room” litmus test, well, that’s just laughable. The contemplation of beauty can as easily happen in the face of challenging material that leads us to personal growth as it can before some beachscape over the couch.

Querying, at 9:10 am EDT on March 11, 2008

There is no justifiable reason to take a teacher out of a college or university classroom, take an exhibit down, refuse students the ability to see it and judge for themselves, and then prohibit the students from hearing an explanation. it suggests secrecy. It implies deceit. It deprives our citizens of basic freedoms. And it is exactly this freedom for which American men and women are dying in Afghanistan and iraq. But it does follow a pattern of hypocrisy in the American way of thinking: Expounding freedom, while denying it to our own citizens and supporting tyrants who suppress and imprison their own citizens around the world. I was teaching at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea when Park Chung Hee was president, dictator, and completely supported by the United States. At that time, he routinely “disappeared” anyone who did not completely agree with him, taking students, teachers, journalist, imprisoning them, or much worse. He marched the military into the college campuses and took over the night before he declared martial law. He prohibited them from meeting in groups, and he censored the media. He also received enormous aid from the U.S. I continued to meet with one of my students, a journalist, who was very afraid he would disappear in the middle of a meal at home or in the middle of the night. But why did he meet with me? Because, as he told me, if he didn’t, then no one else would know of the situation outside of South Korea. It is is easy to see how this could happen in the United States in the current climate of fear which seems to be infiltrating the college and university campuses. Should the government continue to get support by people who are intolerant of open discussion or provocative points of view, we will have nothing to fight for.

David L. Meth, at 10:30 am EDT on March 11, 2008

Disgraceful and worrying

This is Stalinism, pure and simple.

Who would ever have thought that the “Land Of The Free” would be running its own Gulags (on Cuba, what an irony THAT is!!), detaining artists, and having their artworks smashed-up by politically-motivated extremist goons??

I used to like America, but you guys have gone waaaaaaaaaaay wrong now. Way wrong.

Neil McGowan, Transparent Theatre Opera Company, Moscow, Russia, at 7:35 pm EDT on March 11, 2008

Snap Judgements

I am amused by some of the comments here (by educated people?) that don’t think violence, killing, or any other “ugly” aspects of human nature and social life have a place in art.

All I can say to them is that they haven’t looked at much art, don’t know much about art history (violence is one of the great themes across time and and cultures), and they are making uninformed judgements about a field they know little about. The last infuriates me the most because I am sure some of them wouldn’t like others making quick judgements about the research, knowledge, history and goals of their respective fields without being informed....but why they think they can or should about another always baffles me.

In addition, the article really doesn’t say anything about what the artwork was truly about, what the artist intentions were in creating it, its educational value, or how it relates to the world and the wider culture. Plus no one even asked the artist to elaborate on the work. Instead it jumps right into the controversy over “freedoms” after only briefly mentioning the artwork and the artist (which is the source of the story and controversy). And many people fell for the bait.

GR, at 2:35 pm EDT on March 12, 2008

You might want to consider that Teaching and Learning might be related to acting in resonsible ways. You might want to consider that a game portraying how to kill someone or pictures sugesting dangerous acts, like a gun in the mouth might, might be a learnig experiance for someone.

don graham, at 10:45 am EDT on March 21, 2008

This is Just Stupid

This is ridiculous. Administrators need to grow a backbone and defend first amendment rights. I am sick and tired of hearing all of these stories. This grows out of fear: fear of doing a bad job, fear of losing their jobs, or what can be considered worse, fear of losing a donor. With a little common sense and some conversation these problems would have blown over with out a notice. Controversy exists because of a person’s fear of the unknown and offending one person or another. If offending someone becomes such an issue as to control how we are express ideas, albeit new or old, then we will never progress as a culture. Stupid. Ridiculous. All of it. Just grow up and stop having other people control your rights to free expression.

PImp, at 9:20 pm EDT on March 22, 2008