Is This Vandalism?

[Emiliano]

It's vandalism.

In place of Segal's Gay Liberation sculptures lets instead substitute Michelangelo Buonarroti's David. I could simply point to the uproar such pointed disrespect for the artist and his work would cause, but the mass reaction alone isn't the issue. It is easy and cheap to deface/vandalize works of art to create sensationalism, thus drawing attention. I am not disputing the effectiveness with which this idiocy has the possibility to draw attention. Toward that vein I would, however, question whether the vandals are drawing the right kind of attention. If this type of action is supported in mainstream thought, by leaders of the communities the sensationalism represents, then I begin to have misgivings about the quality of their reasoning.

Let's get back to my original idea, substituting Michelangelo's David for Segal's Gay Liberation sculptures. I am not comparing the virtues or quality of either artist, but rather trying to shed light on the question by use of the perceived perspective between the lessor and the greater known art. Does the disrespect to Segal and his work become clearer when placed in that light? Would the vandals have thought twice about committing the act if it were David and not the Gay Liberation sculptures? By that line of reasoning, did the vandals devalue the Segal's work and what it stands for by assuming it would be ok to deface them? Even though a tremendous gulf of fame, value, and history separates them, both are works of art, both have taken the time and the sweat of the artist. Whether works of art obtain fame and value, no matter the quality of execution or historic significance neither should be disrespected.

Protesters should have commissioned their own art, not disrespected the art of Segal. Organize a march, picket the movie opening... there are far less damning ways to draw attention to a conflict of opinion.

Nor should the issue ever have been how well the art might be repaired. That's just reaching for an excuse to vandalize. Some art is made to be temporary. Some art is meant to be added upon. Segal's Pride sculptures were not envisioned with that aesthetic.

I like what you put out about art and the... I can't think of the word im looking for, it's been a long day... But like the idea of protecting the integrity of the art I suppose. It is interesting to think about the relationship of the art and the viewer. I'm no art student but I like thinking about that sort of thing.

I get why you make the comparison to Michelangelo's David, how it would be unthinkable to deface that sculpture. And how that regard and respect shown for one work should be extended to another, to what are considered serious works of art in general. But I also have to laugh at the idea of David being displayed in a public park in NYC. Maybe in a place like Gramercy Park... But let me not get too distracted.

You got me thinking though. I think the execution was sloppy and probably rushed, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think I can appreciate the idea behind it. I'm straight laced and goody goody to the max, so I'm not coming from a fuck the rules sort of mentality at all. And I love art and I respect art. But I think context is important.

The David is something that is separate from the street. It is carefully guarded and looked after. There are distinct visiting hours (and entrance fees I have to assume). It's housed in a museum -it's given this sense of immortality. It's protected and is very distant from the viewer, out of human scale, very posed, artistic- a display of the ideal, all that.

The sculptures in Christopher Park have been placed directly into a public, urban setting. The figures themselves are human scaled, they are made to be pedestrian - they invite interaction - that's just as much of a hallmark of George Segal's work as the white paint is. I've been in that neighborhood a lot and it's like any other chunk of space in NYC with benches in it that's close to bars. There's people taking pictures with them, there's all sorts of bodily fluids around them, there's homeless people sleeping next to them.

Rather than being an object that has been removed from daily life, these statues were intentionally placed directly into it. I think that's a fundamental difference to consider. Rather than thinking about the disrespect shown to Segal by this kind of interaction with his art, another perspective is to think of the ability of the piece to serve as a facilitator for a larger conversation. Does that not in some ways honor the artist?

I'm thinking now like why did Segal typically paint his sculptures white? The way I interpret it, being familiar with some of his other works too, is that it creates a blank canvas so to speak that allows the audience to project themselves or whoever else onto these sculptures. They are so purposefully made to resemble a regular person, but the white washing (in a non racial sense) separates them from us - they stand out, they lack an identity their own. Maybe I'm off the wall, but I like thinking about art and that's how I'm seeing it.

The statues were dressed up before:

During pride they get decorated. And they've been attacked, like a lot of other gay bodies have been. This isn't the first time someone took it upon themselves to make a statement with them.

Also I don't view the painting / dragging of them as any sort of attack. Virge put it out there that not everything in life is an intended insult or attack - I'm going to add on to that, that not every time people of color want to talk about race and race issues is it an attack on white people. Not every time trans people want to talk about their issues is it an attack on cis people. This shouldn't be seen as wanting to erase white men from any part of gay history. It's about wanting to see othe people reflected in it too.

I think it's important to take on the context of the city they are placed in too. NYC has a rich history of protest and activism, not to mention street art. Vandalism. This isn't some Norman Rockwell middle America type place. This is New York. This is downtown. This city might be the butt of jokes for its urban rooftop kale farming and Ivy League like preschools and all that. But this city has grit, and it always will. You put something in a public place in New York and you better expect someone to pee on it, someone to draw on it, and someone to try to steal it. Segal was a New Yorker. I'm sure he must have understood that.

David is beautiful, again the ideal. But in a sense, he's dead. He's in his tomb and you can make the pilgrimage to pay your respect. But the Gay Liberation Statues aren't idealized forms. I don't think they are ugly, I have always liked them because I understood their importance and their history, but they're nothing fancy... But they are alive. They are kept alive by this very sort of interaction. I don't know all there is to know about George Segal, but I mean the mind frame of a pop artist is something different than that of a Renaissance one. They are alive because they keep the conversation going. Not the same old one, but a developing and changing one.

What does it mean to be gay in society? How has that changed from 1969 to 1989 to 2015 to 2035? What do we face, how are we viewed, how do view ourselves? And that stays true to the intent of the piece id say. To some artists, to know that their art remains engaging and relevant and controversial and a way to start conversations about broader topics, and that it is vulnerable.. I mean personally in some ways that seems to honor its creator and the role of art in modern society more than keeping it on a pedestal behind the walls of a museum to last forever might.

But that all depends on one's perspective.

So thanks for sharing yours, as well as giving me inspiration to do all this thinking on art and my personal reactions on it tonight. I don't think I'm really trying to change anyone's mind here by writing all this, I can accept people have different opinions than me. Im still developing my own opinion on it. When I started this thread I was feeling pretty nuetral on it. But asking and reading and thinking about what everyone has shared so far has helped me to find my own conclusions on it. And I appreciate that a lot.

[meridannight]

I'm thinking now like why did Segal typically paint his sculptures white? The way I interpret it, being familiar with some of his other works too, is that it creates a blank canvas so to speak that allows the audience to project themselves or whoever else onto these sculptures. They are so purposefully made to resemble a regular person, but the white washing (in a non racial sense) separates them from us - they stand out, they lack an identity their own. Maybe I'm off the wall, but I like thinking about art and that's how I'm seeing it.

The statues were dressed up before:

During pride they get decorated. And they've been attacked, like a lot of other gay bodies have been. This isn't the first time someone took it upon themselves to make a statement with them.

[MENTION=21461]Steve[/MENTION] steered it to a good comparison by mentioning David.

it's not having painted them white. (David is white and he's not a blank slate). i think the difference is the placement of Segal's statues here. they are on not elevated on a stand, or placed in a museum/secure display case. they are on the street, equal with the people who walk there and live in the city. thus, they are exposed to what people on the street are exposed to including harm and violence.

maybe Segal wanted it that way. maybe that was part of the point of his work (i don't know though).

[Emiliano]

Right, I didn't mean David as being painted white, that's marble, so that David is all white is different story, i know with that material and that legacy of marble statues is about the beauty of the material itself too.

But Segal creates bronze statues and then often painted them white. So both end up being white, but for different reasons (and effects).

I could be totally off in my interpretation that it can be used as a screen for projecting ourselves on the pieces too, that was just my thoughts last night. I'll have to look around and see if he ever spoke on his intent or if it is something more than just his preferred style.

[meridannight]

Right, I didn't mean David as being painted white, that's marble, so that David is all white is different story, i know with that material and that legacy of marble statues is about the beauty of the material itself too.

But Segal creates bronze statues and then often painted them white. So both end up being white, but for different reasons (and effects).

I could be totally off in my interpretation that it can be used as a screen for projecting ourselves on the pieces too, that was just my thoughts last night. I'll have to look around and see if he ever spoke on his intent or if it is something more than just his preferred style.

everybody knows David is marble, you don't need to explain something that is common knowledge. we're not morons.

and it's not different story. white is white, whether because it's white marble or because it was painted white. doesn't make a difference. bronze statue is just as blank a slate as when it's painted white as when it's not. and you can project yourself onto any work of art. it is always in relation to the spectator. you don't need white in order to achieve that.

[Emiliano]

everybody knows David is marble, you don't need to explain something that is common knowledge. we're not morons.

and it's not different story. white is white, whether because it's white marble or because it was painted white. doesn't make a difference. bronze statue is just as blank a slate as when it's painted white as when it's not. and you can project yourself onto any work of art. it is always in relation to the spectator. you don't need white in order to achieve that.

Im sorry if I said something that bothered you. I know its hard to read tone from text on a screen, but its not my intention to be talking down or picking a fight with anyone.

[Anocxu]

Emiliano you are a brilliant , sensitive gentle soul,

You are not the type to prance around , stepping on toes or rattle up other members.

I understand this thread dances a sensitive path but I can promise you there was no mal intent from Emiliano...

This thread has lost its intent ..it's vibrancy has been destroyed..
Its slowly becoming a host for toxicity..

[himself]

I couldn't be fucked reading through all these replies. My opinion is that, if you go by the definition of vandalism, then this is vandalism but I assume that, when people ask, "Is this vandalism?" they probably mean is "Is this morally wrong?" We could talk about the definition of the word 'vandalism' but I think, in common usage, it is a loaded word. I suppose this is 'vandalism' but, because that word often seems to refer to something the users themselves find distasteful, I don't think it's a very useful word. If someone were to call this 'vandalism', then I would assume that they are angry about it.

As for this film, I suppose it isn't out yet so I'm not sure how much 'whitewashing' it has done. I read a piece in The Spectator about it (I only read The Spectator to get angry - I like getting angry). The writer of the piece said that the reason there were no transwomen of colour in the trailer was because the trans identity didn't exist back then. I'm sure the idea of 'gravity' didn't exist in the Holy Land 2000 years ago, so maybe that explains how Jesus was able to walk on water.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Legally it is vandalism.

however realistically its a correction of history or of false history. Stonewall was NOT about LGB it was about the T and the T ONLY - its not until later that the LGB was added to the mix and that they took over Stonewall and rewrote history.

I'm sorry, but those older gays who still are a live will tell a slightly different tale than the popular one and the Winkipedia one and the many other "history" sites.

And it doesn't stop at stonewall - the Gay Plague years have been rewritten for some reason, the Queer Generation has all but been forgotten - there is a lot of propaganda and a real Gay Agenda - no not the Agenda that the Conservationist yammer on about, but an internal LGBT Gay Agenda where our "representatives" are re-writing a more sanitized version of LGBT 20th Century History in order to win those rights they are stealing via judges over votes.

See our "wins" in recent history with the overturning of the sodomy laws in the USA federally was based on minor falsehoods. Gay Marriage passing in many states was NOT done by the will of the people (VOTE) it was done by judges who listened to cases and made new laws. All of that is based on the sanitized LGBT History which many of you kids have no idea about, and the silence is deafening and growing more quiet at those who lived through Stonewall and the other riots of the 1960's shuffle off this mortal coil.

Again, legally this is vandalism - however it does reflect truths which I bet those who are in Charge of the LGBT Agenda are angry to have a public reminder of.

Oh don't think that its only the LGBT community that lies through their teeth - all communities rely on "newspeak" and "rewritting history" in order to "win" their so called "rights".

I fear its the only method that actually gets things done.

And that is a sad commentary on humanity as a species.