Maine Gov. Paul LePage's proposal to destroy Judy Taylor's mural of Maine labor history in the Maine Department of Labor is an inflammatory attack on the very concept of public art that appears to contradict fundamental concepts of freedom of expression at the heart of American culture.
As the former president of the College Art Association, the nation's largest professional organization for artists and art historians, I strongly encourage the Legislature and the people of Maine to defend public art, and hope that Gov. LePage will reconsider his interests.
There is no example of public art in the United States with which all people will agree. But isn't that exactly the point? Only in a democracy, can people tolerate attitudes, ideas and, yes, art that they do not like or even find repugnant.
Only in authoritarian states do we get a purity test for what constitutes "acceptable" public art.
The public debate about culture and politics that the mural has sparked is a positive example of what art can contribute to a democracy.
The removal of the mural based on political posturing would seem to work against those democratic principles.
Paul Jaskot, Chicago, Ill.
Report a correction
Mr. Jaskot, Paul Lepage has
Mr. Jaskot, Paul Lepage has no plans to "Destroy" the mural in the DOL building lobby. More liberal ranting or just mis-informed?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.He's aware of that, Gary
Why not read his letter regarding the "Purity Test?" Or is this simply partisan bickering on your part.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ronald, public art vs. the
Ronald, public art vs. the lobby of the DOL building isn't the same. Both business and labor conduct affairs in that building, so I don't think it needs to be a shrine to unions or labor any more than I would think it should be a shrine to business interests. Portraits of Harold Alfond, Benjamin Bates, and Hugh Chisholm don't belong there either.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The Dept. of Labor
should be a representative of both sides of the coin. Their duties should be to match employer with employees and vice versa. They should not advocate for either and should strive to be neutral in all adversarial disputes between labor and employer.
I can see why, given this interpretation of the Dept.'s mandate, that the mural needed to be removed. It gave visitors the impression that the dept was biased towards labor when, in fact, there wasn't (or at least shouldn't have been) any kind of bias at all. I can see why people could interpret the mural as being pro labor and anti business, but I can also see that unions made a big difference in the way business was conducted in Maine.
I don't dislike the mural, I just feel that there is a better venue for its display than in a state run dept. whose business it is to attract business.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (8)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Where does this silliness come from
The purpose of the Department of Labor is not to "attract business". A quick visit to the DOL website (assuming LePage hasn't censored this too)says that its purpose is to defend labor. The mural of Maine's labor history is not just appropriate its the most appropriate piece of art the citizens of the state should expect to see there. But apparently the neo-fascists of the Republican Party want to abandon a representative democracy (as their platform implied) for authoritarianism.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Department of Labor was created to advocate for Labor's
side of the Coin, Ed.
If you haven't figured that one out, you require some serious study of History and Government
Disputes which arise in the Department of Labor due to violations of Labor regulations, on the other-hand, must be handled in a neutral and non-biased manner. These are normally handled through the administrative hearing process - presided over by a neutral administrative hearing officer or judge through an adversarial or fact-finding procedure. If the procedure is alleged to be biased or flawed, it may be appealed through normal appellate channels, which often involves the courts.
The Mural has nothing to do with your argument, and has never been cause for an appellate appeal - merely the anonymous fax from "A Secret Admirer" to the Governor. Your case holds no water.
By the way, it is the responsibility of the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development to "Attract Business" as you mention. So at least take the time to learn something about your State Government - and Administrative Law/Hearings
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Chicago, Eh... Remember "Mirth and Girth" - Mayor Washington
It cost the City $95,000 to remove 'Art'
see --> http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/officials.html
"In May 1998, David Nelson, a student at the School of Art Institute of Chicago, submitted one of his paintings in the school's annual competition. Entitled "Mirth and Girth," the painting depicted recently deceased Chicago Mayor Harold Washington wearing women's lingerie. When word of the painting reached Chicago City Council, three of the Council's aldermen went to the Art Institute, took the painting from where it was displayed, and attempted to remove it from the campus. Stopped by a school official, the aldermen were diverted to the office of the school's president. By the time the painting arrived in the president's office, it had a one-foot gash in the canvas. Upon receiving a phone call from a fourth alderman, Chicago's police superintendent ordered that the painting be taken into custody whereupon a policeman, accompanied by the three aldermen at the school, carried the painting to a police car and removed it from campus. David Nelson filed suit against the aldermen alleging their actions violated his First Amendment rights. When the trial court denied the aldermen's claim of official immunity, they appealed. Citing the long history of the visual arts as a medium for political and social commentary, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the aldermen's action of going onto private property to seize a painting simply because they found it offensive was a violation of the First Amendment. The defense of official immunity was therefore denied and the case was sent back to lower court for trial. In 1994 the City of Chicago settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay $95,000 in attorney's fees to Nelson's lawyer."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Now I understand that the above case refers to 'Private'
Land as opposed to State Land. But merely because the Governor has the right to show that he has the biggest Anus in Maine does not merely mean he should do it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.