Sculpture depicting a girl performing oral sex upon a man removed from BGSU Firelands Art Exhibit
Here’s what I find interesting, if it’s not offensive and it’s art, then why isn’t the picture of it shown either online by the artist or by any of the media who’s reported on this. I read the story first on Fox Toledo who had a link to a Sandusky Register page that has a photo of a sculpture but not “the sculpture” and on the page for the actual exhibit at Firelands the one pictured is not titled, but according to the artist, James Parlin, that one is called, “The Man Who Hasn’t Seen His Genitals in Years.” The sculpture in question depicts what it states in the title, it’s called, “The Middle School Science Teacher Makes a Decision He’ll Live to Regret.”
Who made the decision to place the piece near a window? That’s why the Blade is reporting as the reason why the sculpture was removed:
A BGSU spokesman said the work was displayed near a window where children had recently passed on their way to see a production of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. The university plans to release a statement this afternoon, the spokesman said.
Now it’s being stated that the gallery is closed in protest of what they feel is censorship which is creating some discussion at the Sandusky Register website and the University responding:
“We removed a sculpture that graphically depicts a female middle school student, on her knees, performing oral sex on a standing male middle school science teacher,” the university wrote in response to the flap. “As an institution of higher education, Bowling Green State University strongly supports the right of free speech and artistic expression. However, we also have a responsibility … to not expose the children and families we invite to our campus to inappropriate material.”
I’ll first comment on censorship – often private action is labeled as censorship; however the First Amendment only protect us against government interfering with free speech. In this case, since it was the dean of a state university that removed the piece, it is in fact state action and could be censorship.
But the courts have repeatedly said that obscenity and child pornography does not have free speech protectionse. Should it be no easier than to claim the distinction of ‘art’ in order to avoid the child-porn classification? I don’t think so. In this case we have a sculpture of a situation that if it was in a picture and placed on the web, could get a person arrested and slammed in jail.
IMO, it’s not that this sculpture was ‘inappropriate’ or ‘offensive’, it is obscene (without having even seen it).
The First Amendment Center has noted: “The high court noted that a work taken as a whole could have serious artistic value but also ‘embody the hardest core of child pornography.’ “
March 21st, 2009 at 9:23 amWell, for starters, it is not censorship as the university chose to remove it, not the government. That said, how the hell is this art? I know that people argue anything is art, but when they do it means they are devaluing true art, and, usually, their future carriers. A blow job, while enjoyable, is not art
March 21st, 2009 at 9:43 amNo doubt the ACLU will want this case. Freedom of expression means that you can create art as you see it.
It does not, in any case – in any place, require other people to appreciate, display or purchase it.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:03 amDeeDee, that’s similar to how I viewed this, the fact that none of the media nor the artist felt this was an appropriate piece to put a picture up online made me wonder. I searched for information on the piece and it’s not mentioned anywhere else. Was it shown in other locations where it did not create a controversy? That’s entirely possible since it seems what created this particular controversy was where the piece was selected to be displayed. It seems as if however, if it was deemed to be acceptable as art, that the director of the art gallery might have thought about where the piece was placed given it’s impossible for him to not be aware that children would actually be walking by the gallery area to attend Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.
We do not have the right to not be offended, but we should have the right to expect that young children will not be exposed to something that could be could be viewed as pornographic in nature.
It seems this might have been resolved very simply, just have the piece not displayed in the line of vision where children would be walking…
March 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pmIt would have also been helpful for the story to tell us how the exhibit came to BGSU in the first place. Who was responsible for bringing it there? Was it a juried group? Or was it simply the director acting on his own?
March 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pmIt appears when reading this that the artist may have solicited the University.
Though it does appear that a slide is requested showing each piece that will be shown.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pmSoooo…if I would have taken a picture of this “art”….and put a copy of that picture in the mail, addressed to the Postmaster….and then emailed a copy to my daughter’s middle school principal….would I have broken the law?
March 21st, 2009 at 8:01 pmI wouldn’t advise trying that Rogue, I have no idea how graphic the sculpture was but if the one that has been shown “The Man Who Hasn’t Seen His Genitals in Years” is any indication? It might be considered pornography if you mailed a photo of it.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:05 pmThen I’m guessing the “artist” has nothing to complain about…
Carry on…
March 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pmtoledojim wrote:
I would also like to know why these scumbag administrators allow garbage like this to be displayed by a school.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pmPresident Clinton….thank you…
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:02 pmbarga wrote:
I don’t agree with that. I think that in a lot of cases
[C E N S O R S E D]
Dee Dee made an excellent point about free speech and government censorship.
Not Again beat me to the punch. I haven’t seen the statue, nor do I know anything about the artist, the venue or the audience, but anything depicting oral sex is not fine art; it isn’t even art.
My question to the experienced parents out there is this: How would you handle the situation if your child got an a good look at this statue on the way to see Snow White? Remember, the kids are at an age where the world will end if they don’t get to see Snow White.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pmI can tell you how I’d handle it. I’d have called the police and reported it first since I believe exposing young children to this is unarguably abuse, then I’d call Social Services since I probably wouldn’t know how many other children had been abused in this way.
Then I’d have called my lawyer.
Then I’d take my child to see Snow White myself.
My ancestors would have taken a more direct and memorable route and I like to think I would opt for the above but honestly – it’d be a crap shoot.
People don’t have kids and take care of them and see to their education to have them exposed to crap like this. I’m 45 and I’d be HIGHLY upset to be involuntarily exposed to this as well.
Pornography may be legal but it’s also voluntary and NOT for children. You can’t arbitrarily decide to just expose people to this kind of thing. We all have a right not to see it if we choose not to.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm>> Pornography may be legal but it’s also voluntary and NOT for children.
Right on. I don’t have an opinion on *art* one way or the other. I’m also no prude and consider myself socially liberal. However, my wife and I will choose when and how to expose our kids to topics like these when we are darn good and ready.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 amThanks Jeff – I agree with what you said. I’m surely no prude either – and it takes an egregious example like this sometimes to wake people up to the fact that civil rights extend to the individual. Not to be used to force others to partake in anything they care to create, write or sculpt.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 pmI am in agreement with all 15 previous posts. Take your concern a step further and e-mail the gallery director and “artist”. Here are their e-mail addresses:
dsapp@bgnet.bgsu.edu
jparlin@edinboro.edu
I sent them both pointed yet coherent messages after reading the article in Saturday’s Blade.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pmI’d also like to add my observation that the “artist” is also an educator. How would you like him on the prowl at your son or daughter’s university?
I had the opportunity to talk to James Parlin. You can read what he had to say here.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:05 pmIf the AIDS Memorial Quilt was on display with homophobic language and swastikas painted all over it, would the free speechers be OK with that? I would hope not. The University is doing what is right. People have the right free speech, but they do not have a right to be seen or heard.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:57 amThe topic is quite trendy on the Internet at the moment. What do you pay the most attention to when choosing what to write ?
April 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm