The city of Temecula, CA ordered the removal of a painting of a nude woman by artist Jeff Hebron from Visual Expressions 2010, an exhibit of 47 artworks selected by curator Sissi Hale, an independent artist not employed by the city. The ensuing national attention of the censorship issue has dominated press coverage of the event.
Ms. Hale claims she actively defended the inclusion of the painting in the exhibit, but has refused to specifically name the “city employee” who ordered the painting removed. It’s unclear whether Hale made any attempt to clear her selections through city authorities prior to the hanging of the art which, since they clearly have the final word, would presumably have saved them some embarrassment.
In an email Ms Hale said this was her “first encounter with censorship in my 20+ years as an artist.” My guess is that Ms Hale’s work is not the kind that generates controversy or challenges cultural conformity or she would be all too familiar with the near impossibility of getting such work exhibited in a small town government venue. Governments love to pat themselves on the back for “supporting the arts”, but only if it’s sanitized for family consumption. Anything provocative rarely gets the time of day.
Svetlana Mintcheva of the National Coalition Against Censorship addressed a letter (available on the NCAC website) to the Temecula city manager, Shawn Nelson, regarding the First Amendment implications, but it remains to be seen whether “the city” will restore the painting to the exhibit or apologize and admit the error as the artist wishes.
The “Sex Hysteria” aspect of this really focuses on the presumption that simple nudity is harmful or objectionable to families and that government is doing the public a favor by condemning such art to the proverbial “back room” as if it were a porn movie in a video rental store. Culling out nude paintings from an exhibit to make it familiy friendly sends the message to children that nudity is harmful and, even more disturbing, that government censorship is an acceptable response.
One of the misfortunes of government funded or operated art galleries is that the selection and censorship of work to be displayed is necessarily based on political considerations above artistic merit. Pleasing elected officials and catering to the conservative sensibilities of those responsible for the funding are far too important to risk public controversy and those in the art community with an appetite for government handouts lend credibility to the role of government as arbiter of what is and isn’t art.
If anyone sees an article where anyone actually steps up to the plate and takes responsibility for this Temecula fisco, I would appreciate hearing about it.
Interestingly, this story comes out of the same county where one school district recently pulled all the new Webster’s dictionaries out of 4th and 5th grade classrooms because the book defines words pertaining to sex acts.
The painting in question was cleared to be shown 2.5 weeks before the show opened.
It was only hours before the opening reception that I was given the order to take down the painting.
I have never encountered censorship before because I am originally from a big liberal city. This has been my first attempt to do something with the arts in Temecula, where I have moved recently.
I have been a painter for 20+ years. My work has evolved and changed subjects matters many times, depending on personal growth and experiences as an artist and individual.
From S&M and strip clubs in the early 90′s to landscapes in the early 2000′s.
I am formally trained and have studied the human body and painted nudes from life countless times.
Thank you,
Sissi Hale
Well the removal of my piece is unacceptable for multiple reasons. The biggest being my piece was intended to be beautiful and not ‘dirty’ or offensive –so it seems even under the best of circumstances people are offended… I just wish religion and politics would stay out of art and assume a non- partial–judgmental view of art and artists.