Theatre of Lame (A Comedy of Errors)

“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”- Henry Louis Gate

Hello Blogiteers!
 
Gah, I say. Gah.

Just when I relax and get to thinking think that everything seems to be making progress within the PAS (Phoenix Art Scene), Reality comes back and greases the escalator that goes up. I swear on all that’s holy, there’s a huge bubble of ignorance that hovers over this city like ticks on a fat dog.

It seemingly never ends. This time however, my issue isn’t with our self-hating local media, or the candy-assed anarchists, not even that sect of timorous Stuckist cultists I was playing with a few weeks back. What's more, it’s not even a fellow Artist I have a huge problem with.

For once, I’m aiming high out of my comfort zone, and I’m taking on a well-established cultural icon, that being the Herberger Theater Center located in Downtown Phoenix.
And here you all were thinking I couldn’t change my dietary habits, no matter what.

Shame on you, cause that’s just hurtful. Finally… I get to take out my high school bitterness about not bring cast as the lead in “Grease”. I’m nobody’s Kenickie, let me tell you.

But I am the Artbitch, and my claws are out and sharpened. Granted, “hot under the collar” is sort of my niche, but in this instance my wrath is that of the righteous, no matter how one looks at it. So what did the Herberger do to incur not only my scorn but the unified contempt of the PAS?

In one word: CENSORSHIP.

As many of you know, I loathe any form of suppression, no matter what the justification may be. I’m an adult, and I sure as Hell don’t need to be protected by some anonymous Fairy Godmother looking out for my best interest. There has never been concrete evidence that the vile act of censoring ideas and concepts eventually helps lead to a stronger and knowledgeable community.

Apparently that info never hit the Herberger’s E-mail. But to be fair, it’s hard to stay on top of things when you’re too busy screwing over people. Ah. I see you require the context of explanation.

From the Internet, I will give you the answers you seek.
First, the press release for the show:

“In September, R. Pela Contemporary Art will present Prime Example: New Work from R. Pela Contemporary Art by Geoffrey Gersten, Suzanne Falk, Mike Ford, and Ronnie Ray Mendez. This exhibit, curated by Robrt Pela of R. Pela Contemporary Art, features three artists whom Pela discovered last year, and one popular local mainstay.

“I occasionally have the privilege of meeting a new artist whose work really knocks me out,” Pela says. “And in this exhibit, I’m featuring four such artists. Geoffrey Gersten’s surrealist paintings of playful things with dark edges changed me. I love how his colorful, charming images draw us in, and then demand that we stay with them to find the moral in Gersten’s story.”

Mike Ford’s photographs of himself with his mother, both garishly made up as hags, changed Pela’s opinion of photographic art. Ronnie Ray Mendez, who’s made a name for himself in the fine art world of Los Angeles, has recently arrived in Phoenix. “His drawings bridge a gap between realism and surrealism by combining human anatomy with animal life,” Pela says. “He’s illustrating that line between reason and emotion.”

Pela will also exhibit new work by local painter Suzanne Falk. “Suzie went into a brief, self-imposed exile,” Pela says. “And the work she made during that time is stunning—photorealistic oil paintings of fictional characters interacting with insects. Her many fans will be thrilled with this new series. I am.”

Prime Example will open with an artist reception on Thursday, September 5 at 5:30 p.m., and will be open through October 6. The Herberger Theater Center Art Gallery is located at 225 East Monroe Street.”

But just a week before the opening, this was posted by Guest Curator Robrt Pela:

“The Herberger Theater Center "Art Gallery" has canceled this exhibit. The manager of the space objected to two of the pieces by one of the artists, and so -- rather than seeking a solution -- they canceled the entire show (without having seen any of the work by the other three artists).

I worked on this show for many months, and booked it in November of 2011. During that time, no requests were ever made by the Herberger for samples of work that would be shown. Needless to say, the artists put an enormous amount of time into creating beautiful artwork.

Welcome to Phoenix, where censorship is okay. And where corporate gallery owners apparently don't care that artists have spent months creating art for an upcoming exhibit.”

My apologies. Please spread the word about this latest atrocity. Below, I've posted the two pieces of art that the Herberger bean counters objected to.”

These are the Images that garnered such offense.

[Images © Michael Thomas Ford]
 
Um…. why exactly were these so controversial, you ask? Well…. I honestly don’t know. Seriously, I don’t. There’s no nudity, no blood, no sexually explicit depictions, no religious mockery, no political statement, no Care Bears, no Miley Cyrus lap-dancing, in short- nothing that I would even remotely consider controversial in the slightest.
 
Granted, the word “Sodomite” might be a turn off for some, but it’s a pretty safe bet that word won’t initiate the verb on your person anytime soon. And I’m not alone in this opinion. A groundswell of dissent from the PAS was posted on various social media outlets mere minutes after the news of the cancellation was disseminated, and as you can imagine, it quickly rose up into a tsunami of artistic indignation.

  [Link: https://www.facebook.com/events/626964197347814/permalink/630059743704926/ ]

  A few random comments from FaceBook:
 
David Ira Goldstein: “This is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. I can put 20 totally naked people on the stage of the Herberger in HAIR, who have sung a song in that show called "Sodomy", but you can't show these beautiful pieces?!”

Timothy Chapman: “Okay, let me get this straight. The Theater didn't like these pieces? Maybe I'm just a workin' painter, but aren't they a little... oh, I don't know... theatrical? How long do we keep having two steps backward for every one we take forward? Sorry to all the artists who have worked so hard. And to TGWSGC.” 

Julie Peterson: “I'm very crabby about this. I'm offended that the photo with the word "Sodomite" was deemed unacceptable, and I have to say I have no idea why the other one was a problem, since men are crossdressing in that building all the time in shows that are marketed to "families." VYT's Seussical is about to open, and if HTC feels that's got anything to do with it maybe they should just stop having an art gallery or letting children into the theater, one or the other. Not that it would stop me.”

Jessica Jackson: “I'm not so sure why the art was considered so controversial. In any case, it's quite a disservice to censor art that lies outside of what is currently acceptable and comfortable. Even if the space is used mainly for theatre and it's intended demographic may have been offended by the art, which they weren't given the chance to see, there is no excuse for not requiring or asking to see show pieces or concepts for the art this whole time, and then just deciding to cancel when the art is finally seen and deemed offensive. All that work and effort put into producing art and organizing the show is wasted. This is so disrespectful.”
 
Melinda Parris: “So sorry to hear of this disappointing cancellation and I hope another venue is found for the collection you've spent so much time curating. The works here certainly look interesting. While I enjoy a Monet flower garden very much, what really speaks to me is work that intrigues, provokes and evokes. The art that pushes our buttons in some way is the art that sticks with us and incidentally, changes the world.”
 
Steven J. Scally: “I acted in show at the Herberger where my character: 1. murdered someone ON STAGE, blood and all. 2. raped both female characters. 3. Verbally and physically abused everyone. 4. Masturbated on stage. 5. I was beaten to death with a baseball bat. None of that was deemed offensive? But those two works of art are? Guess they are trying to destroy art in this city.”
 
Given the amount of outrage that was generated, you’d think that the HTC would have a measured and thoughtful response. Once again, they lined up, took their shot, and missed completely.
 
The whole of their statement:
“The Herberger Theater Center has supported the rich diversity of the arts and celebrated free expression of artists throughout Arizona since its inception in 1989. Since the gallery opened in 2002, all artwork has been overseen by guest curators, including Robrt Pela, and selected by a blind jury with the exception of a few invitational exhibits.
 
In all those years, we have never refused artwork based on its content. The cancellation of Prime Example was not an act of censorship, nor in any way a negative statement against any of the artists selected for the exhibit.
 
Mr. Pela recently decided to feature other artists instead of showcasing his own art as was the original intention of the curator exhibit . As an arts venue that caters to diverse audiences of all ages, we are not in a position to display artwork sight unseen. 

Concerns for this particular venue were expressed, but ultimately we had to make the difficult decision to cancel the exhibit.”
 
So how did this “official” response go over? From FB again:
 
Robrt Pela: “The Herberger Theater Center Art Gallery never once asked to see the work I was planning to exhibit -- mine, or anyone else's. I signed to do the September, 2013 exhibit in June of 2011. That's more than two years to inquire, "What are you going to show in our gallery?" The images they censored were not offensive in any way, and have been widely posted on Facebook.”

Cathryn Hugger: “Too little, too late for damage control HTC. Your reputation has been tarnished. Maybe you don't realize your actions have gone viral. The art community is in protest. I have cancelled my women's group event to attend the lunch time theater in October and my husband has publicly withdrawn from the "Nocturne" show in protest.”

Pete Petrisko: “This statement makes no sense on face value. Pela is known as a curator, that is what he does, and he's been doing it for some time now.
 
cu·ra·tor - n. One who manages or oversees.
 
If there was any questions on the part of Herberger, it's had since June 2011 to ask. The fact it apparently didn't ask in all that time, wasn't familiar with what Pela does, and simply cancelled the show at the last minute, doesn't speak well for its supporting the "rich diversity of the arts".
 
If this truly was a miscommunication, why not let bygones be & just hang the show - since it's ready to go? Something spooked you, Herberger. That much is clear. You do the arts community no favors with a cancellation.”

Victor Arellano:  “Los Angeles to Phoenix, GROW UP!!! I was in the very first production at the Herberger, a play called "La Vida Bruta". It was a new work by a playwright from ASU. Back then, The Herberger Theatre Center was commited to bringing Arts and Culture to Phoenix.
 
This first play was chosen specifically to represent the rich Hispanic history and had some content that may have raised eyebrows. Commited to artistic freedom, even decades ago, the production was left in the hands of the creative team. The show was attended by then Governor Rose Mofford, and many luminaries from the worlds of local arts and government. There was no conflict.
 
Over the years, I have witnessed HTC become a host for elite, snobbish producers who rarely cast local talent. This is a slap in the face to a city on the verge of becoming a cosmopolitan metropolis.
 
This recent censorship in the form of cancellation of Mr. Pela's art installation is final proof that Phoenix has grown, but not grown up. I can only think that since Arizona has become a stronghold for conservatives in an age of a progressive renaissance that politics have now infected the world of culture and the arts.
 
Alhough the arts can and should be used to make politcal statements in this free and great nation, politics should never be used to block the free expression of artists.
 
This is one more reason why I am sometimes embarrassed to claim Phoenix as my birhplace and am filled with glee that I am now a proud Angelino living in the bold, progressive incubator of artistic freedom: Los Angeles, California.
 
Whomever decided for the public that these works should not be seen has exercised his or her influence inappropriately and is not qualified to hold this position of power.
 
Again, grow up Phoenix. Otherwise your minds will remain in boxes, much like the squares, the perfect grid made by the main arterial streets and avenues that make up her neighborhoods.
 
That said, there are countless talented, creative people in that desert city. Whether or not this censorship succeeds, The voices of those artists and their patrons will not be silenced.
 
Some friendly advice from across the miles, V.A.” 

And finally, this from the originally censored Artist, Michael Ford:

“As the artist whose photographs are apparently the cause of the cancellation of this show, I invite anyone interested to visit my page and see the offending pieces.
 
As I was given no reason for why my photographs were deemed unsuitable for showing at the Herberger apart from "we can't show these," I can only speculate. I will, however, take issue with the suggestion that the powers that be didn't know this was to be a group show.
 
I received my contract from the Herberger more than a month ago, so they obviously knew what was planned, even if they had yet to see the artwork itself. And why they would cancel a show after seeing only my work, and not the work of the other three artists, is a question that remains unanswered.”
 
At this moment, that situation remains unchanged. It’s rather obvious that HTC is attempting to spin their premature expurgation to their benefit, but it’s also fair to say that they’ve done more damage to their reputation by attempting to do so.
 
When you factor in that most of the evidence to support this claim against them can allegedly be proven using their own Emails sent to Robrt, It makes this Artbitch take pause and think:
 
“Damn, I love it when your enemies not only pave the road for you, they go that extra mile and build a Hotel with matching Casino as well. Don’t even get me started on what a great job they did with the attached restaurant- seriously, the buffet is to die for.”
 
But here’s the interesting part- after I spent the better part of 45 minutes reading through all of these collected Emails, (which start on 4/25/2013 and end on 8/29/2013) nowhere within do I see Laurene Austin (who is the director of Development and Marketing) express any concern about the content of the show until the 29th of August.

Let me repeat that: nowhere within do I see Laurene Austin (who is the director of Development and Marketing) express any concern about the content of the show until the 29th of August.

For those keeping score, that’s ONE week before the opening, and several months after the show was agreed upon. For someone who’s supposed to be in charge of a major Arts Venue, she comes off as sort of slipshod, doesn’t she? It never crossed her mind to pre-vet the work, or to ask for ALL the images shortly after the new show plan was presented?
 
Is she new at this, or did she acquire her so-called art knowledge while working the juice bar at whatever Thomas Kinkade gift shop the HTC apparently stole her away from?
 
NONE of the work that I’ve seen from the group represented in the show falls under the category of what one might possibly argue should normally be censored or removed. I repeat, NONE. But as I’m all about fair play, I give you this exchange from the collected Emails so you can decide for yourself:
 
Laurene Austin: “Hi Robrt,

To be honest with you, I have concerns about Mike Ford’s artwork.  We have a Valley Youth Theatre show in the theater for three weeks in September and there will be many children and families in attendance. 

I haven’t seen any of Mike’s work other than the “Daddy’s Gone A-Hunting” image that you sent.  But based on the titles, I’m not sure what to expect.

As you know, we are a theater first and need to be respectful of our patrons and theater companies.  We may need to pull “The Sodomite” and others depending on subject matter.

What do you suggest?

Thank you,
Laurene
 
Robrt Pela: “I suggest that censorship is never right, and now is not the time to tell me that you may be pulling artwork from a show I've already promised my artist and the audience that they'll be seeing.

Here are Mike's images. The Sodomite is a photograph of a man's face.
 
Laurene Austin: I’m sorry but we cannot display The Sodomite, The Dolls or The Motel Room.
I have been asking for images and information since April so this is not a last minute decision. 

Thank you,
Laurene
 
Robrt Pela: “I've just reviewed our correspondence, and you've been asking me for one image, presumably to use in promotional materials. If you needed to review the artwork before agreeing to show it, you should have made that clear.

But I'm not going to argue with you people; it's not worth my time to try to convince you how inappropriate you're being.

You asked me for suggestions. Here's one: Stop pretending you're operating an art gallery. You're not. Art galleries don't censor art, or hire their friends who don't know how to curate to be "curators." Just be the lobby of a theater building, with art hanging in it.”

Laurene Austin: “Robrt,

Unfortunately, we must cancel the Prime Example exhibit.  It may well be a provocative and impactful exhibit in another space but it does not align with the balance of art forms we must achieve at the Herberger Theater.  

Thank you,
Laurene”
 
“Balance of art forms”… seriously, Laurene?

You have the possibility of featuring plays that contain vulgar language, partial to full nudity, and adult themes, but a single word is what’s going to push your clientele over the proverbial edge?
In the future, since you seemingly cannot handle art that doesn’t fit your narrow POV, I offer the following suggestions for your so-called “gallery”.

1- Cover the walls with chalkboard paint and let your clientele doodle on it. See art you don’t like? Voila- hit it with some water, and you’ll be safe and snug like a bug in a rug.

2- Convert the space into your new office. It’s not like the PAS will be giving you any work in the future, so think of all the room you can use to store office supplies. If that fails, I’d suggest installing a bouncy castle, and who doesn’t like those?

3- Still want to show art, but keep it safe for your Patrons? I suggest shopping at Kmart for some really sweet Justin Bieber posters that you can display next to your collection of his action figures.

4- Two words: Hello Kitty.
See? I can be helpful when I need to be. And as an aside, the Emails also show that you and by default- HTC, were more than aware that Robrt would be showing the work of other artists, and NOT his own. 

Now, I’m not suggesting that you’re a liar Laurene, I’m saying outright that your definition of what constitutes Truth is somewhat askew of actual Reality.

Something strikes strange here.

There’s (as I stated earlier) NO nudity, NO blood, NO sexually explicit depictions, NO religious mockery, NO political statements, NO Care Bears, NO Miley Cyrus lap-dancing, in short- nothing that I would even remotely consider controversial in the slightest- and yet, right outside the Theater’s main doors, are FOUR life size fully nude statues.

Where's the Herberger’s concern for the community about that? Kids, I say kids- could see that, become emotionally scarred, and next thing you know... they're juggling kittens, doing Meth, and burning down 7-11's with their illegally acquired flame-throwers.
Hypocrisy, they name is Herberger. Thy servant, the cravenly Laurene Austin.
 
But hope is not lost, and once again- it comes courtesy of Travis Fields and the Arizona Artists page on FB. After hearing about the asinine and unprofessional actions of Laurene on behalf of the HTC, he was moved to create the following event as a means of protesting what he and many others in the Arts community see as an act of unmitigated and baseless censorship..

[Link: https://www.facebook.com/events/525274750885122/]
 
The protest will take place Thursday, September 5th on or around 2nd St and Monroe, closest to the front entrance of the HTC, and will last from 5:30pm - 7:30pm. If ever there was a time to put up or shut up, this would be it. So bring the noise, and help light the HTC up like a Christmas Tree.
 
Bring signs, bring righteous indignation, but more importantly- bring yourself. And if you can’t do that, please let your will be heard by contacting the following people:

Richard Bowers, President x100
rbowers@herbergertheater.org
 
Mark Mettes, Vice President x107
mmettes@herbergertheater.org
 
Leah Staten, Administrative Asst. to President, Vice President & Board of Directors
x115
lstaten@herbergertheater.org
 
Laurene Austin, Director of Development & Marketing x105
laustin@herbergertheater.org

 
Let them know that in the land of the free, we don’t tolerate the act of censorship.
We don’t allow the chilling of ideas.
We don’t allow restriction.

And we sure as Hell don’t allow some random (and unqualified) overseer to dictate what we create.

We wrest the intangible from the ether, and we give it form.
We will not be broken.
We will not be caged.
We will not be assigned limits.
We are Artists, the true architects of change, and we will never be denied.
 
So know this my HTC kittens… the army you raised is coming for you, and that right quick. 

“There is no such thing as a dirty word. Nor is there a word so powerful, that it's going to send the listener to the lake of fire upon hearing it.”- Frank Zappa
“Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always will be the last resort of the boob and the bigot.”- Eugene O’ Neil

With a name like Stuckist... (Its got to be good.)

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

- Salman Rushdie

Hello Blogiteers!

The sun is blazing, the puffy clouds are not in attendance, and it’s still possible to bake cookies on the dashboard of your car. Speaking of which… Honda Oatmeal Raisin, anyone?

Yummy. Now if I could just find a way to keep milk cold inside my glove box, I’d be set.

In my last blog, I finally completed my narrative that dealt with PHX’s weekend anarchist brigade, highlighting both the hypocrisy and pigheaded resolve that they’ve shown in regards to forging some form of beneficial resolution to the police department’s infiltration of the community.

While there were a few people who disagreed with my POV, if the emails and messages I received are any indicator, countless more agreed with me, a fact which really doesn’t shock me in the slightest. Sure, the four anonymous emails that implied I’m an arrogant jerk were well on their way to hurting my fragile little feelings until I realized:

“Wait a minute… arrogant jerks like myself don’t actually care what cravens think!”

For that reason, I’ll be giving them all the personal attention they justly deserve, right after I organize my 8-track tapes and dust off my growing collection of ABBA figurines.

Thankfully for the art of common sense, most people possess a fair degree of rational thought, and if there was ever a situation where truly cooler heads needed to prevail, this would be the one.

But what do I know? Maybe it’s perfectly lucid to keep doing the same thing time after time and expect different results. Granted, that’s usually defined as insanity- but I guess when you’re so inoculated against common sense as some of these chowder-heads seem to be, it’s just par for the course.

Gah. Time will tell who’ll eventually be proven right here, but if the past is any indication…

I really, really like my odds.

Let’s move on, shall we?

As you may have guessed by the quotes above, today’s little screed is all about Censorship. Can you say censorship, boys and girls? I knew that you could, but why would you want to in the first place? Like most artists, whenever I’m forced to take notice of that vile word, I break out in a cold sweat, even if it doesn’t directly affect me. It’s just that scary a concept.

But for those of you who aren’t exactly in the artsy loop, what precisely is the meaning of “censorship”, and why does it make my blood run cold whenever I hear about it?

According to the dictionary, it is defined as: “The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.”

The term originally derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority. In other words… Orwellian to the max.

Nothing is more chilling than having one’s artistic vision in the hands of someone who has none of their own, yet still possesses the power to limit yours. It’s even worse when the censor in question happens to be another artist, but more on that in a bit.

However, as a means of foreshadowing, here’s a story from Phoenix Performance Artist and subject of the award winning documentary “Hi, My Name is Ryan.”, the one and only Ryan Avery:
 
"I was asked to contribute to a compilation called the song poem project, the concept was a bunch of songwriters would write poems then those poems would be randomly given to the other song writers and then those said song writers would make songs out of those poems.

I wrote a poem, submitted it, got a poem back, and turned it into an a’capella song. I was then told my a’capella song was not acceptable because songs need musical accompaniment. Singing a’capella is what I do as a song writer, so I am not sure what they were expecting. The whole thing was stupid, I didn’t respond to the e-mails sent to me demanding I add music to the song.

I didn’t feel like they deserved a response. When the compilation came out they included my song but added their own music to it. At this point it doesn’t really bother me because the whole compilation turned out to be pretty mediocre.

The organizer of this compilation also asked my alter-ego Douglas Patton to submit a poem. Douglas Patton sings in the punk band Fathers Day which writes songs about dad stuff (mostly hating your wife and kids) Patton’s poem was about beating your wife because she won’t have sex with you and wants you to sleep on the couch because you snore.

Admittedly this is subject matter is pretty fucked, but the poem was declined for being too “offensive” which would make sense to me if this was going to be a compilation directed towards children (maybe).

But the fact is this compilation was for songwriters, this person knew what kind of things Douglas Patton writes about and what style of music I play, but they didn’t give any guidelines or rules on the project at all."

This is just one example out of the scores that I’ve heard over the years in regards to PHX’s creative community, and in my opinion, the producers of this project obviously didn’t do their homework in regards to whom they were asking for submissions- a decision that led to the unfortunate clusterf**k Ryan found himself in.

[Another local artist, Eric Cox, has also run into the same suppression of his work- an issue I’ll be discussing in a Q&A blog in the imminent future.]

Sadly, this type of miscommunication is commonplace here, leading eventually to both valid and sometimes baseless charges of suppression. Like most art markets, PHX has it’s fair share of issues regarding censorship, and that’s to be expected.

Depending on your POV, censorship can be looked at in three different ways- sometimes it’s a business decision, sometimes it’s a miscommunication error, and sometimes it’s just blatantly politically or personally motivated.
 
For instance, if I was responsible for curating a group show, it’s a pretty sure bet that I wouldn’t invite Peter Bugg or Suzanne Falk (PHX’s very own artsy cat lady) to be part of it, and that would be for entirely different, yet completely personal, reasons.

In Bugg’s case, it would be due to his predilection for creating (and I use that term loosely) low-end work, engaging in outright intellectual theft, and for consistently phoning in his dreadful shows from Mars.

Seriously, I actually get nauseous just thinking about having to see another one of his painful train wrecks that masquerades as an art opening.

Falk on the other hand, would be excluded due to her penchant of whining publicly* when she doesn’t get her way. That, and I’m also just sick and tired of seeing painted dragonflies and teddy bears every time I go to a downtown art show.
*[Link:http://waynemichaelreich.blogspot.com/2012/10/meow-mix-much-ego-over-nothing.html ]

As a gallery owner, one has to consider the level of professionalism in regards to the people you would be doing business with, so I wouldn’t consider my theoretical action to serve as an example of true censorship, not by a long shot. They would still be able to peddle their wares elsewhere, and I would never get in the way of them attempting to earn a living using their artistic wiles.

If truth be told, I’d actually encourage them to do so. Just keep it away from my place.

In the end, it would amount to a harsh business decision, no more, no less. Let’s face it- the easiest way to avoid a potential catastrophe is by not allowing it to take root in the first place. No, when it comes to my view of what true censorship is, I’ve always personally felt that it boils down to a simple question:

Are you still being allowed to show your work with no restrictions as a whole, or are you being forced to set up personal and professional boundaries that are at odds with your long-held beliefs?

If the answer to the first question is “yes”, then chalk it up to irreconcilable personal differences and move on to the next artistic cantina that’ll have you, my amigo. Water under the bridge, best of luck to you and yours- all that happy mumbo-jumbo.

Go forth and create, you sexy, sexy, bitches.

However, If the answer is “no”, then you are being dynamically censored, my artistic exit buddies, and that simply cannot be allowed to prosper, no matter what. I’m not a big proponent of shutting someone down just because their work is or may be, considered “offensive” by the great majority.

In fact, I adore controversy, as it does get a dialogue going, and that’s always beneficial in relation to expanding the concept of what Art is or isn’t. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, and when it comes to the world of creative endeavors, there’s a huge chasm in regards to what constitutes legitimacy involving personal and mainstream taste.

For instance?

I love Keith Haring and despise Picasso. I’d rather be trapped in an elevator with Ann Coulter rather than hear one of the cult rhapsodize poetically about how brilliant he was. Yes, I will agree that “Guernica” is a bad-ass piece, and I do admire his skill at bedding tall women, but overall- I think he’s just an overrated hack with a really good PR department.

However, that doesn’t mean I’m right in my assessment either- there’s just as many who would feel the same in reverse, and that’s perfectly fine. You know, freedom of speech and all that?
It’s when someone takes their opinion and uses it as a rationalization for restricting someone’s rights, that I tend to get all super bitchy.

In the end, what censorship really stands for is the chilling of independent ideas, and that is just downright terrifying. Granted, I generally don’t make the sort of work that tends to raise other peoples ire, but it has happened, and it’s never been a good experience.

What’s even more sickening in my humble opinion, is that a large amount of censorship is justified using the thread-bare excuse of “protecting” the citizenry, who apparently will just go completely off the rails if they’re exposed to something they don’t like or comprehend.

My response to that position?

For the love of Christ, give me a f**king break already- we’re all adults here, and we can take it.

No matter what the Art is, I’m pretty sure that nothing cataclysmic will happen due to our being exposed to it’s influence or inherent message. Civilization will not fall, the Apocalypse will not occur, the Four Horseman will not arrive on fiery steeds, and it’s a pretty safe bet that there will not be a fifth Twilight movie, thank all that’s holy and pure.

However to balance out the scales, they will have to make one more “Die Hard” movie.
Sigh… as they say, ya gotta take the bitter with the sweet.

In other words… if it is truly offensive, we’ll just put on our big boy Underoos and deal with it, because we don’t need to be protected from what we (or others) consider to be unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Life isn’t always pretty, and sometimes- neither is Art.

An aside. When I say “Art”, I’m referencing all the creative aspects: visual, written, sculptural, and performance. All of these are subject to the vileness that is censorship, and all of these have suffered both immediate and long term effects from it’s long and terrible reach.

Whenever I’ve been kicked out of shows or had an opening canceled due to some candy-assed twerp getting his knickers in a bunch over some piece that he/she found offensive. I’ve always responded in the most professional manner I know how- I either sue the hell out of them for breach of contract, or I tell them to take a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut.

Either/or. Depends on the situation, and my mood at the time.

Let me share a small story with you- a few years ago, I was scheduled for a show in an up and coming gallery located in a very rainy city. I was to exhibit my photographic series depicting Phoenix’s architecture, which let’s face it, couldn’t be considered divisive on any level.

However, two weeks before I was to ship off the body of work, I was contacted by the gallery owner and informed that the show would not take place. When I inquired as to why, I was told that he had recently perused my website and discovered that along with my architectural studies, that I also shot figurative nudes and other work with adult themes, saying that:

“As a Christian, I find this particular work of yours offensive.”

Logic would dictate that if one were to invite you into their gallery for a show, that they would have vetted your entire body of work before the opportunity was offered. I’d go one further and point out that we’re all born nude and therefore depictions of nudity are really no big deal, but I can only presume that he must have been born wearing a three piece suit while clutching a Bible.

I don’t know about you, but I have an old fashioned concept of what true professionalism is, and I’ve never required the Good Book to tell me how to act accordingly. Not too surprisingly, I would expect a self-declared man of God to have the same clarity of thought.

Someday, I really need to listen to my gut in matters regarding the intellectual capacity of others.

I then proceed to remind him that I was not going to be displaying any of my adult work, and that like it or not, we had a contract. His rationalization was to weakly state that he couldn’t possibly show my architectural work, as he was afraid that if his patrons discovered that I shot nudes, then he might have to deal with their being “offended”, and he wasn’t going to take that risk.

Seriously. He was censoring me on the theoretical idea that an adult who went to my website might be affronted by one of the several bodies of work that I have created over the years, and take it out on him, a successful businessman, whose gallery was filled with nude statues and paintings.

Hypocrisy, meet my business colleague- the professional Art dealer and full time candy-ass. But it only gets better. Reading the contract to him over the phone, I draw attention to the section where it points out that if my show gets canceled for any other reason than my own incompetence, he’s liable for all associated costs- such as promotion, framing, printing, etc.

His witty and eloquent retort to my observation?

Well, the good and noble Christian then proceeds to tell me that despite our having a legally binding contract, (which he was now in breach of) in his opinion I could “go f**k myself”.
Apparently, when you believe in Jesus, that makes being a sordid douchebag a perfectly acceptable position to take.

Well, I’ve always liked to think that I’m highly creative when it comes to getting even, but this time I was outdone by my lawyer, who’s no mean slouch himself in regards to the art of revenge. After the drafting of two demand letters which were both met with indescribable vulgarities, he decides to finally takes the gloves off and play dirty.

Using just a touch of humor and some well played theatrics.

Turns out that upon the snub of our last demand letter, my lawyer was coincidentally in the same town attending a conference on (wait for it) ethics in business, and he saw an opportunity to both settle the issue and to have some fun at the same time.

After being contacted by his office during a routine business lunch that he was attending with his fellow legal eagles, he became rather peeved by the earthy rebuff, and decided then and there to be righteously proactive about it.

Realizing that the gallery was a mere four blocks away from where he was currently dining, he then cajoles his lunch companions into joining him on his quest to visit said gallery and have a friendly little “chat” with the owner.

Let me set the scene: eight middle-aged gentlemen wearing $5000.00 suits walk into the offending gallery, and as seven of said group hang back a respectful distance, my lawyer steps forward to ask for the proprietor, who thinking he had a sale, literally sprints up to the front desk.

And here’s where the fun really begins.

Introducing himself, my lawyer starts off with a narrative about sending out the demand letters and living up to one’s legal obligations- as he continues, the owner of the gallery who originally was unfazed at his presence, finally spots the assembled group standing just behind my lawyer.

[Keeping in mind that I wasn’t there, this re-telling comes straight from my lawyer’s mouth.]

Gallery owner: “Um, excuse me, but who are those people?”

Lawyer: “The gentlemen behind me? Oh, those are Mr. Reich’s legal representatives. I speak for them.”

Gallery owner: (slowly and with a sense of dawning horror)“He has eight lawyers?”

Lawyer: “Oh, heck no, don’t be silly. That’s just the first team… the rest are flying in tonight. (pause) Now, let’s discuss why you feel you can break a legally binding contract in the most insulting and I might add, crude- manner possible, and how much it’s going to cost to make this issue go away.

Personally, I’m thinking that it would be a damn shame for you to lose your business and your house over such a trivial and easily settled matter, don’t you?”

At this point, the gallery owner apparently went a shade of pale that was later referred to as “clear”, and started stammering out a prolonged apology in regards to his highly unprofessional behavior and subsequent vulgarity in dealing with the situation. He also whipped out his checkbook, but my lawyer wasn’t that easily mollified.

He feigns offense, stating how irritating it was to have to assemble a team to handle this minor situation, and could he guess whose fault it was that we were now at this confrontational state? Certainly, as a business owner, could he not see why we were way past settling for the original costs incurred, (as we did have to go to all this trouble) and just how in the name of God were we going to get this resolved?

Fortunately for him, my lawyer just happened to have a simple solution.

And that’s why a mere twenty minutes later, my “legal team” walked out with a certified check for a cool 3k- not bad, especially when you consider the gallery only owed me about five-hundred bucks.

That my Blogiteers, is PURE. EVIL. GENIUS.

Seriously- my lawyer should be given a hollow volcano out of appreciation for what he did that day, complete with jump-suited minion army, stainless steel monorail, a  giant death ray, and pools full of freaking sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their freaking heads.

Oh.. and a manservant who can kill people with his razor-edged bow tie, while still possessing the ability to make one mean Mojito in the traditional style. You know… the industry standard.

In my case, he accepted just half to pay off one well-earned bar tab, and I was ok with that.

Granted, not everyone has the ability to unleash legal hell or set loose the Snarky Dogs of War, but it can be done, and more often than not to the benefit of Truth, Justice, and the American Way if you steer it right. Every small victory helps beat back the advancing edge of censorship, and while the war may never be feasibly winnable overall, the numerous battles can help keep it in check.

Somewhat.

In other words, as long as you keep a wary eye, you can hopefully keep the situation contained so as to do the least possible damage in the long term. However, there are other factors which sometimes can make that possible containment damn near nigh impossible, no matter what you do.

As I stated earlier, It’s even worse when the censor in question just happens to be another artist, especially when it turns out to be someone you used to have respect for, and here is where I initiate yet another well-earned Artbitch thrashing directed at the personage of one Richard Bledsoe, local artist and past co-operator of Deus ex Machina Gallery, formerly located on Grand Avenue.

Now I know what some of you out there think of me- that I’m short on fuse and long on complaints, and while there IS a certain amount of veracity to that, it’s even rarer that I’ve ever been consistently proven wrong.

I do have a track record for calling it accurately, as a rule. Sure, my approach at times can be as subtle as a 767 hitting a Jello factory, but more often than not, if I’m wrong or just off my game, it’s usually a matter of millimeters, not feet. Despite the fact that I wish every now and then that I could be all warm and fuzzy, the Truth is supposed to hurt, and let’s face it- that’s kinda my niche.

So what did Richard do to get on my dark side?
Well…

Richard happens to champion an artistic theory commonly ascribed to as either “Remodernism” or “Stuckism”, (depending on which camp you fall into) and while I’m all about having faith in a ideology that speaks to you, I also abhor labels, as I tend to find them (to some extent) rather restrictive to your career in the long run.

For instance, if you ask me what I “do”, I would tell you that I’m an Artist. Period. No fuss, no muss.

If pushed harder, I’ll say that I’m an artist who works with and in a wide variety of media, and that’s usually as in-depth as I normally go. The stereotypical “my work speaks for itself” thing usually takes care of the rest of the conversation more often than not.

I generally don’t go around describing myself as: “a formerly New York based German-Sicilian Visual Artist with a penchant for bright primary color paintings that are artistically balanced with a wide array of photographic explorations of both structure and form.”

Honestly, the above just sounds absolutely absurd when you first hear it, and personally- I ain’t got time for all that foolishness. Plus… it’s also really hard to fit all that hokum on a business card.

But getting back to the point: what exactly is “Remodernism / Stuckism”, you ask? Other than being a word that my spell-check doesn’t recognize at all, one of the numerous descriptions available regarding this movement states that:
 
“Remodernism revives aspects of modernism, particularly in its early form, and follows post-modernism, to which it contrasts. Adherents of remodernism advocate it as a forward and radical, not reactionary, impetus.”

The movement, founded by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson, issued a manifesto in 1999 that established the guiding tenets of the movement as the following:

[Warning: colossal amounts of artsy-fartsy twaddle-faddle dead ahead.]

1. Remodernism takes the original principles of Modernism and reapplies them, highlighting vision as opposed to formalism.

2. Remodernism is inclusive rather than exclusive and welcomes artists who endeavour to know themselves and find themselves through art processes that strive to connect and include, rather than alienate and exclude. Remodernism upholds the spiritual vision of the founding fathers of Modernism and respects their bravery and integrity in facing and depicting the travails of the human soul through a new art that was no longer subservient to a religious or political dogma and which sought to give voice to the gamut of the human psyche.

3. Remodernism discards and replaces Post-Modernism because of its failure to answer or address any important issues of being a human being.

4. Remodernism embodies spiritual depth and meaning and brings to an end an age of scientific materialism, nihilism and spiritual bankruptcy.

5. We don't need more dull, boring, brainless destruction of convention, what we need is not new, but perennial. We need an art that integrates body and soul and recognizes enduring and underlying principles which have sustained wisdom and insight throughout humanity's history. This is the proper function of tradition.

6. Modernism has never fulfilled its potential. It is futile to be 'post' something which has not even 'been' properly something in the first place. Remodernism is the rebirth of spiritual art.

7. Spirituality is the journey of the soul on earth. Its first principle is a declaration of intent to face the truth. Truth is what it is, regardless of what we want it to be. Being a spiritual artist means addressing unflinchingly our projections, good and bad, the attractive and the grotesque, our strengths as well as our delusions, in order to know ourselves and thereby our true relationship with others and our connection to the divine.

8. Spiritual art is not about fairyland. It is about taking hold of the rough texture of life. It is about addressing the shadow and making friends with wild dogs. Spirituality is the awareness that everything in life is for a higher purpose.

9. Spiritual art is not religion. Spirituality is humanity's quest to understand itself and finds its symbology through the clarity and integrity of its artists.

10. The making of true art is man's desire to communicate with himself, his fellows and his God. Art that fails to address these issues is not art.

11. It should be noted that technique is dictated by, and only necessary to the extent to which it is commensurate with, the vision of the artist.

12. The Remodernist's job is to bring God back into art but not as God was before. Remodernism is not a religion, but we uphold that it is essential to regain enthusiasm (from the Greek, en theos to be possessed by God).

13. A true art is the visible manifestation, evidence and facilitator of the soul's journey. Spiritual art does not mean the painting of Madonnas or Buddhas. Spiritual art is the painting of things that touch the soul of the artist. Spiritual art does not often look very spiritual, it looks like everything else because spirituality includes everything.

14. Why do we need a new spirituality in art? Because connecting in a meaningful way is what makes people happy. Being understood and understanding each other makes life enjoyable and worth living.

=============================================================
Did you read all that? If so, then I am sorry. Really, really sorry. You have no idea how truly sorry I am. With all sincerity, I feel like I should buy you a truly nice lunch or something really shiny.

No matter how you try to slice and dice it, that is some seriously inane psychobabble, and that opinion comes from someone who’s fluent in twelve dialects of the language.

I’ve been afraid to look in a mirror, due to the trepidation that I might witness my brain trying to escape via my ears in response to absorbing that much artistic bulls**t.

Don’t get me wrong- it’s great to have a guiding philosophy. It really is. But if I were to play devil’s advocate for a mere second, I would have to ask this simple question:

“Why weigh down the purity of our craft with the detestable ichors of a conceited and narcissistic philosophy that in essence, serves no long-term useful purpose?”

Once again, the best description of what I do- I am an Artist. Period.

Labels are for canned food, not people. If you lack the courage to forge true individual definition, all the philosophies of the world aren’t going to help you in the long run.

While I may not be the biggest cheerleader in regards to all the artistic disciplines, I also don’t feel the need to have everything put into a neat little box so that I may understand it better.

In fact, co-founder Billy Childish left the group, (according to one New York Art Dealer) partially due to the “first hint of his idea manifesting itself into an actual, physical demonstration”.

Ouch. Get Billy some first aid cream, cause that burn looks painful.

But to be fair, in Childish’s own words*: *[Link: http://www.trakmarx.com/2004_02/10_billy.htm ]

“I wanted to leave within the first 6 months but Charly asked me to stay on as long as I could stand it. Firstly, I didn’t mind being in a group where I didn’t like a lot of the work because I feel that an artist can be mature enough not to need a comfort zone of agreement.

But in the end, I didn’t like what was being promoted as representing my beliefs. Charly under-used my stuff, but I was sited all the time. Also, Charly was gunning for Traci a bit, and I felt it was the wrong thing to do, but still I pick up the tab for it.

The truth is, Charly is as media hungry as Traci.

I grew to like Charles as a person - but not in charge of the group. Likewise, I like Traci, but not her public persona (which, incidentally, is nothing to do with confessional art, but is in fact revisionist in nearly all its aspects). Also, I think that a lot of the artists in the Stuckists are not sincere and don’t believe in the manifesto, or understand what I’m on about.”

Yep. Nothing says “true cultural warrior” like walking away from the movement you started less than six years ago over a few minor points of contention. That’s obviously just my humble opinion, but I’ll let you make your own judgment call in regards to that, I think.

More to the point- while I obviously find this whole movement and others of it’s ilk absolutely ludicrous, I still wouldn’t get in the way of someone promoting it as a viable method of personal artistic expression.

To each his own, I always say, no matter how self-righteous that path may be. And as a rule, I normally wouldn’t forfeit so much as a fly-speck to what I consider a non-factor in carving one’s chosen career conduit.

No, I’m actually annoyed because I got invited into a club that I never would have joined in the first place, especially if I had known what the eventual outcome would be.

See, Richard is so entranced with this so-called movement that he decided to champion it on the ol’ FaceBook by starting a page*called “The Phoenix Remodernists”- so far, so good.
[Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/161975210581035/?ref=br_tf ]

But here’s where I start having some issues with the ol’ social media thing. FaceBook allows you to “add” people to groups without their permission, something I didn’t know. As I said a moment ago, if I had known what this group represented, I wouldn’t have joined it in the first place, so being added without my knowledge was a tad bit irritating.

But since I’ve known Richard for a few years, I figured what the heck- it wasn’t going to kill me to check it out, would it? Note to self: start listening to that inner voice, already. He’s waaaaay smarter than you.

Remember all that previous artsy-fartsy twaddle-faddle I laid on you earlier?

Well… here’s some more of that- my sincerest apologies.

From the mission statement on the Remodernist page:

“Phoenix AZ is a hotbed of independent art. What is happening here is happening other places worldwide as part of the Remodernism movement. Remodernism began in London in 1999, founded by punk rock Renaissance man Billy Childish and painter Charles Thomson as a protest against elitist art world politics.

Remodernism recognizes art making as an inclusive, spiritual activity, and encourages a DIY mentality. This group is to post your thoughts and experiences as part of the long overdue renewal of art.

Share your art, announce exhibits and events. Take advantage of this thoughtful and engaged audience to share deeper insights into your goals and processes-we want to know!

Our passionate commitment to ideas may lead to disagreements. Feel free to debate without being disrespectful. Articulate your viewpoint. Disagree without being disruptive. Don't hijack threads with meaningless contradiction and complaints.

Cyber Bullying will not be tolerated.

We are entering an era where big questions are being addressed-who is art for? What does art mean in our culture? New understandings will be reached due to the inspired work and creativity of countless individuals from around the globe.

Here is a place to engage with others who are actively searching for the way forward. These are exhilarating times. The future will be what we make of it.”

Now, on the surface, this seems like it would be a great place to hang out- open discussion, critical feedback, and a sense of artistic purpose with a clearly defined end game.
Once again, note to self…things aren’t always what they seem, especially when they’re pre-packaged in art-speak.

In the beginning, I went along with the program, despite not being a disciple nor a convert to the movement- I was strictly interested in the exchange of ideas in what was supposed to be an open arts forum (IE: uncensored) and the possibility of networking with my fellow creatives.

As the saying goes, the honeymoon ended quickly when I got a really good luck under the bride’s veil. The majority of Artists who were on the page also did not seemingly believe or identify with Richard’s narrow ideology, and in the beginning at least, you weren’t allowed to post any personal show dates/events etc. on the page, which seems kind of counter productive to the convenience of networking.

Along with posting threads where Richard would prattle on and on about the Stuckist philosophy, (which were just as exciting as they sound) he would also censor or outright delete whole threads on the supposedly open forum that he had issues with- a practice with which I and several others disagreed vehemently.

Here’s a surprising fact in regards to my attitude- just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I want you to shut up.

You’ll either eventually help prove my point or you’ll change my mind, perhaps towards the betterment of both. And if you’re being an idiot, I’d rather that you’re exposed for all the world to see, versus being hidden or censored by an arrogant fairy godmother.

See, when it gets right down to brass tacks, I don’t need to be protected from ideas I find adverse, nor do I need to have the discourse in which I’m engaged to be sugar-coated. I’m an adult, not a toddler. And any ideology that cant stand divergent concepts is definitely not one I want to be involved with.

If your dogma has feet of clay, I sure as hell don’t want to be standing near when it falls.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: why didn’t I just leave? Good question. Well, to be honest, I was meeting so many other artists, absorbing their different points of view, and in general- having such a good time networking with my fellow artists that I was willing to put up with all of the self-righteous smugness that Richard was projecting online.

I also enjoyed when the debate of ideas got heated as well- passion generally leads to some serious discussions, and from that, progress is made. Once again, we’re all adults here, and we can take it.

Then came the night chivalry got me in trouble. Don’t worry, it’s not like it took me out to a bar or something, it meant well, and that’s all that counts. One night, a fellow artist (who happened to be female) was being attacked on the site for her POV- the so-called man who was leading the charge was being vulgar, sexist, and downright idiotic.

In other words, a perfect sampler tray for this here Artbitch to feast upon, which I did.

I know, I know… I have a serious problem.
But the first step is to just admit it, and make peace with yourself.

So… I jump in, make mincemeat out of the sexist small-brained twerp, and if one were to count the instant messages I received as an indicator, it seems many on the page were both amused and highly appreciative of my verbal repartee in defense of my colleague.

But not Richard. Apparently, my sense of gallantry upset his Unicorn somehow, and he wasn’t going to let that stand. The next morning, the entire thread had been deleted, and I took heart from the number of comments expressing disappointment at Richard’s unnecessary censorship.

But Richard had one more card to deal out. Later that day, I received the following FB message:

“Hey Wayne,

I don't live on facebook, so some times it takes me a little while to catch up on things.
Every time I've deleted a late night flame war you've been involved. I'll passionately debate ideas all day long, but we need to stay professional-avoid these personally abusive spats with strangers.

It adds nothing to the quality of the ideas here. I will not have it on this public forum.
Advocate strongly for your ideas without lapsing in name calling, I know you can do that!

Let me know your thoughts, thanks, Richard”

Ok... let me get this straight… I come to the defense of a fellow Artist, and I’m the bad guy here? As to the “flame war” he references, I have no idea what the f**k he’s talking about. It strikes odd that someone who’s known me for a few years seems shocked by the fact that I tend to speak my mind, and it’s even stranger when you remember that I didn’t ask to join, I was added in.

I don’t sugar-coat, I don’t lie, and I sure as hell don’t suffer fools, mainly because I’m an adult and there’s no law that says I have to. Did he seriously assume that somehow

I would have a complete personality flip in regards to what I think just because he alone thinks we should all play nice?

News flash, Richard: sometimes debate needs to get hot, because that’s how ideas get cooked. While it would be very nice if we all could join hands and start to sing “Kumbaya”*, it’s never going to happen.
*[Link: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter+paul+mary/kumbaya_20107820.html ]

However, by directly censoring the flow of free thought, Richard proved himself to be no better than the candy-asses who censored Ryan, or the myriad who’ve tried to suppress Eric Cox’s work as of late.
Personally, I find his actions to be both highly offensive, and utterly hypocritical, especially when he’s advocating a system that claims to be based on pure artistic integrity.  

As you might imagine, I didn’t respond to his pedantic e-mail, choosing to take the silent approach rather than express what I was feeling at the time, which was a mixture of anger and scorn.
It seems that perhaps that was the wrong approach on my part. A few hours later, I discovered that not only had Richard banned me from the page, he had also “un-friended” me on FB as well.

Can you say “petty” boys and girls? Richard cant, but he sure can act it out.

Turns out, he had also been busy banning several other people off the page as well. Intentionally or not, the majority turned out to be just like me, people who tend to speak their minds when given the chance.

Not a true Stuckist in that bunch by the way… I’m sure that was just a coincidence.

I took my banishment in stride, firing off the following message:

“Dropped me and Travis? Wow. I guess we are in art school all over again.

You disappoint on a grand scale.”

Now for me, that’s actually quite diplomatic, especially when you factor in that the guy I was writing to looks like one of those troll things you stick on the end of a pencil. But I took the high road in the end, and that’s what counts.

For clarity’s sake, the “Travis” I was referring to is local artist Travis Fields, another outspoken voice on the Remodernist/Stuckist page. Unlike me however, Travis took his expulsion by Richard and turned it into action.

He started his own arts forum* on FB, under the name of “Arizona Artists” and created a censorship free online round-table where anyone can discuss whatever’s on their mind, along with the posting of tons of helpful tips, articles and writings dedicated solely to the Arts.*[Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/arizonaartists/ ]

His original concept has rapidly expanded into an upcoming online magazine, a separate website, and at this point- two successful meetings of local artists, centered on solidifying and accelerating various promotional and business aspects of the downtown Phoenix Art Scene.

At this time, the page has over 600 members and is adding more everyday, due to the openness and ultimately positive energy that this forum inspires. This is how one becomes a force for useful and constructive change in this town kids, and ironically, it was all thanks to censorship.

Hmm. I guess even a broken clock gets it right twice a day, but in regards to Richard’s actions, I’m still disgusted that a fellow Artist would go out of his way to stifle free expression in such a highly public and arrogant manner.

In the end however, I don’t think that we should really concern ourselves with Mr. Bledsoe’s flawed decision to censor his colleagues- hopefully given enough time, he’ll see the light and the error of his ways, and get on board with the program.

So, I say we let Richard have his little Utopia. It’s not like he’s doing anything with it.

“The sooner we all learn to make a decision between disapproval and censorship, the better off society will be....Censorship cannot get at the real evil, and it is an evil in itself.”- Granville Hicks

 -