Is This Vandalism?

[Emiliano]

So I heard from some friends, and then later saw online (though it has yet to receive very much attention), that two of the four famous George Segal statues in Christopher Park (across the street from the Stonewall Inn in NYC) were painted and dressed in wigs and bras.

Before and After:



According to the people taking responsibility for this are saying they did it to better reflect the actual people who led the Stonewall Riots. You can read the interview with the people taking responsibility here: http://www.autostraddle.com/anonymous-ac...or-303357/

"The duo also made it clear this was intended to be an act of “rectification,” not vandalism. “We painted them because Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, Miss Major, Storme DeLarverie and all the other Black and Brown people who led the movement deserve credit for their courage and strength.”

I figure this is a part of the broader backlash against the upcoming film Stonewall that has been criticized for placing a white, cis man as the main character and central figure in the riots, with trans women and non white characters pushed to the side. When gay people in general are already represented in very narrow terms in the broader media, why create a white character to be the central figure rather than focusing on the historical people involved? Is it just that a handsome white gay man is seen as more relate-able and thus able to connect with a broader audience?

There is another movie set to come out soon called Happy Birthday, Marsha which focuses on Marsha Johnson, an actual black trans woman who was credited as being one of the first to fight back in the riots. But that film is no where near as promoted, funded, or spotlighted as Stonewall is.

I saw it labeled as "a makeover" on one news source and "vandalism" on another. Previously those statues have been vandalized with clear anti gay intent.

One thing to keep in mind is that it is very typical of George Segal's style of sculpture to have bronze figures painted white. But some have latched on to this as further example of the white washing of lgbt history and of gay representation in general.

As for the drama with the movie, I can't really speak on it until I've watched it. As for the sculptures in the park, I think its interesting at the very least.

What do you think about this? Is it vandalism? Is it art? Is it a valid statement?

[Cobalt]

To I guess put it in literal terms, it could be considered vandalism because someone altered without permission a public work of art. Though there is a meaning for it the fact still remains someone without permission changed the public artwork of another. I understand what the message is but I don't agree with how they went about doing it. Construct a different public art piece the way history shows the events to happen, doings things like this just creates in-fighting. Some gays argue with this movie the fact that it's being made in the first place is wonderful. Others don't like the way events are depicted because it differs from what actually happens. Doing something like this angers one side of the community and elates the other. Making a totally different public art piece would please both sides I would imagine.

Ultimately though it's just my opinion, I don't speak for anyone but myself...

[Bhp91126]

As amusing and well-intentioned as the alterations are, I still think it's vandalism. They could have taken mannequins, outfitted them as they see fit, put them into the original group and gotten their message across that way or created their own work of art instead.

Also, the makeovers are not particularly clever or inspired, low rent drag, just wigs and bras. And blackface.

[Emiliano]

I suppose I threw "art" in there myself as an option. I don't think the intent was to make an artistic statement, rather a very strong political one. I do like the above ideas on how to improve on an artistic based statement though, maybe the next time Im drunk with some mannequins in the village...

Also, the makeovers are not particularly clever or inspired, low rent drag, just wigs and bras. And blackface.

I see what youre saying with the "low rent drag", its very party city afro.. but Im curious why you say blackface. Theres a lot going on in a statement like that. But I am a glass of wine in and prone to over analyzing things to begin with.

[LJay]

Definitely vandalism in my book. A cheap shot from people not inventive enough to make their own statement. This is equivalent to adding horn-rimmed glasses to Gilbert Stuart's portrait of George Washington.

[meridannight]

I figure this is a part of the broader backlash against the upcoming film Stonewall that has been criticized for placing a white, cis man as the main character and central figure in the riots, with trans women and non white characters pushed to the side. When gay people in general are already represented in very narrow terms in the broader media, why create a white character to be the central figure rather than focusing on the historical people involved? Is it just that a handsome white gay man is seen as more relate-able and thus able to connect with a broader audience?

yes, he is. he is also someone audiences will be able to identify with more, and someone they can see as a role model more. and you need a central character like that, in order to create a successful film, whether in terms of revenue or critical acclaim or both.

it's not really any different from most other films, unless the story specifically requires a black/trans/etc lead character. this isn't unique to gay-themed films. the general audience who goes to the movies and buys films in Europe and the US and Australia is predominantly white. if you want to make money in the film industry and be a success you can't do without a lead white male in the western world. that's the way things are.

i wouldn't be interested in seeing it if it had a black or trans lead, or the story centered around them.

if you want black or quasi-black characters you'd have to make films for Africa or go to Bollywood. Africa isn't an option since filmmakers are not capable of generating sufficient income (not to mention get their investment back) from making films for its population. China and Japan have their own industries for their own populations that work there. the math is very simple.

otherwise, since Emmerich is the director i have great expectations for it. i hope he can pull it off since it's not exactly his usual cup of tea.

[oreosplz93]

What do you think about this? Is it vandalism? Is it art? Is it a valid statement?

I get the #Blacklivesmatter movement and I get the Trans movement. But this is vandalism. George Segal would not appreciate someone doing this to his work. I don't think any artist would appreciate any tweaking to their final piece. Just ask [MENTION=20947]MikeW[/MENTION]. It's not that he is white-washing anything, that's his aesthetic. If someone is so passionate about a movement they can definitely find a canvas or medium to express their views on not someone elses. Not cool at all. But whatevssssss. Not my piece.

[East]

I have conflicting feelings...I don't like that anyone alters anyone else's art...period. I see it as an ultimate disrespect versus vandalism. Disrespect is personal...vandalism is easy to emotionally detach from...

Having said that..history does "whitewash" everything. People STILL think I am the weird one when I tell them why I don't celebrate Thanksgiving....

The truth is..the Indians shared a meal with them and later on..their "guests" decided to rape their women..steal their land...burn their homes and systematically murder them while pretending to be speaking for "God" and helping to save the "heathens"......

Yeah...they actually had the nerve to pretend the Indians were "the heathens"...and they were there to "save" them

UH...what part exactly am I supposed to be celebrating??????

If they called it the "We Came/We Raped/We Killed/We Maimed/We Stole/We Lied Our Fucking Asses Off Feast"...sure..cut me a piece of turkey

My point...yeah...I absolutely "get" their point...History in America Whitewashes pretty much everything and has for decades and decades...and then recently Faux News decided to help the cause....

I am glad whoever did it found their voice...and used it. I can be upset about the disrespect to the artist AND a bit happy that they decided to break a few rules that need to be broken...

[LONDONER]

Briefly yes, it is vandalism. There are other more legitimate ways to express yourself without resorting to the defacing of existing works of art.

[Rareboy]

Yes it is vandalism.

And yes, I also am conflicted.