A CU art student’s exhibition contained works that some people complained about, and officials responded by having the display moved to a less-visible gallery, a move the artist’s supporters call censorship. Your take?
Seeing Kaelen Williams’ drawing of a noose in a thought bubble was immediately disturbing. My mind flashed with images of a funeral I attended for a young man who had hung himself. I thought about the day a member of my family failed in his attempt to hang himself from a light fixture. I worried that seeing the picture might inspire him to try again. This seemingly simple drawing filled me with grief and fear.
Williams’ examination of suicidal ideation and self-harm is provocative and controversial. His questioning of suicide as a way of connecting an individual’s consciousness to the collective consciousness seems radical and dangerous. It is understandable that some students were upset by the work. Being exposed to uncomfortable ideas is part of expanding your horizons, of growing intellectually and emotionally. Is that no longer part of the university experience?
This artwork, whether intentional or not, is a reflection on the rapid rise in suicides across the country. In 2016 there were 44,965 suicides. That’s a 24 percent increase over 1999. It is the 10th leading cause of death. Men are 3.5 times more likely to die from suicide than women. The epidemic continues to grow. We need to talk about it. We need to devote resources to examine the causes and implement solutions. Mental illness, social isolation and economic despair are interrelated with suicide, so a broad scope of problem solving is called for. Doing nothing is a shameful stain on our country.
Hiding this controversial and thought-provoking work in the basement is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Throughout history shining a light on atrocious situations has led to change. Without that light we can all look the other way. The university is right to change course and give Williams’ controversial artwork the daylight it deserves.
Judy Amabile, Jamabile570@earthlink.net
My first reaction upon seeing the artistic depiction of a noose was to recoil in horror. My second reaction was to wonder how a college educated American man could have escaped the fact that the noose has been a long-recognized symbol of hundreds of years of enslaving, torturing and terrorizing African Americans; and is still used today to inflict fear and intimidation.
But then I think about a world where that young artist cannot make the art he wants — cannot express what is in his mind. The only thing worse than offensive art is the repression of offensive art.
I think about the recently ordered closing of the Central European University in Hungary, as the autocratic President Orban continues his rampage of shutting down all channels of expression that may diverge from the party line.
Just last Thursday night the towering CNN building in New York City had to evacuate because of a bomb threat — this after our own wanna-be autocratic president has repeatedly bashed CNN and other news media and called for the end of what he calls “fake news,” which, like Orban, are forms of expression that diverge from his own.
Danish free speech advocacy group Freemuse has published its annual report, “Art Under Threat,” documenting the state of global artistic freedom in 2017. This report documents and examines 553 cases of violations of artistic freedom in 78 countries. On average, at least one artist was prosecuted per week. Collectively, they were sentenced to over 188 years in prison. Forty-eight artists were serving terms in prison for exercising their rights and expressing their views and feelings. Six of the top 10 censoring countries are members of the G20.
After an initial stumble, the University of Colorado is doing exactly right by allowing the exhibition to remain in place and planning a symposium about art, free expression and academic freedom.
Fern O’Brien, fobrien@fobriellaw.com
Most artistic expression, including what the artist is thinking about or trying to convey, is beyond my comprehension. When asked my opinion of an artist’s creation, I usually do not go beyond stating whether I like it or not.
Kaelen Williams’ exhibit at CU, according to him, is about his view of “panpsychism,” which is a theory in philosophy that all matter has some form of consciousness. I want to thank him right off the bat for introducing me to a new word that someday I hope to get to use in conversation or a game of Scrabble.
On the serious side, the clamp-down on Williams’ exhibit should concern all of us. Williams viewed the decision to move his exhibit as censorship, since what to do with it appears to have been based on its content. It should be more concerning, however, that CU took action based on complaints from students who viewed a poster containing one of Williams’ images that included a noose. As students, they should be learning that life will likely expose them to unpleasant, disturbing and offensive images, and as members of our liberal society, they have a responsibility to learn to cope, rather than expect censors to protect them. CU’s art faculty and administrators, in caving to the complaints, missed the real “teachable moment” presented by Williams who, more so than his teachers, understands the ramifications. “If … artists have to be afraid of what will happen as a result of putting out their work, I think that’s a bad road to go down.”
We regularly see stories about CU’s administration’s missteps. Why does it happen so often at CU Boulder? Philosopher John Perry might know why: “If you think about consciousness long enough, you either become a panpsychist or you go into administration.”
Andrew Spiegel, amirror4189@gmail.com
While reading the story, I was immediately reminded of the old taunt that the most uttered phrase by arts and science graduates is “would you like fries with that?” And just to confirm everyone’s suspicions, yes, I’m grinning right now, because I know that many are twisting their faces into indignant scowls after having just read that first sentence.
However, I’m also confident that they’ll survive since anyone reading the opinion section of this fine publication is probably doing so voluntarily and should be prepared to experience unsettling feelings induced by fellow citizens’ insensitive statements. I believe this example alludes to the only possible “solution” that CU has to address this so-called issue. Since the university has thousands of people on its campus each day, they should probably assume that some of those who inadvertently wander into the art building may not know that they might encounter bad art. Furthermore, these unsuspecting guests could also be unaware of the potential soul-scarring effects that an exhibit can inflict, even one that addresses a concept as meaningful as “egoic consciousness.” Therefore, the best solution is to post simple warning signs at each building entrance alerting visitors that a “Hurt Feeling Zone” is ahead and that they should proceed with caution. A nearby safe space should also be provided as a backup plan for extreme reactions.
This is the same basic approach as the deer warning signs posted on a forest road. When you see them, you can either turn your car around and take a different route, or you can drive on and accept the risk of feeling horrible after accidentally crushing Bambi. But, at least it’s your choice based on what you believe you can handle.
By the way, I always say yes to the fries.
Jeff Schulz, JxSchulz26@gmail.com
The Camera’s editorial advisory board members are: Mara Abbott, Shawn Coleman, Michelle Estrella, Jane Hummer, Fern O’Brien, Jeff Schulz, Andrew Spiegel and Chuck Wibby. (Judy Amabile, Ed Byrne and Steve Fisher are emeritus members.)