The Counsellor's
Corner
Approximately two weeks ago, the
American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit contending that the rights of a
23 year old muralist had been violated by the Parks and Recreation Commission
in that they prohibited him from placing his art at the Venice Beach Graffiti
Pit. What exactly is Mr. Taylor's
art? His mural shows what is clearly an
immigrant family running from a large boar through a city being followed by a
television news camera. Mr. Taylor's
ACLU attorney contends that the Commission rejected his mural because it
opposed the political message being put forth by Mr. Taylor. At a press conference, Commission officials
acknowledged their desire to limit controversial political expression in favor
of more innocuous, less provocative art.
The ACLU lawsuit indicates that the Commission had requested art geared
toward the theme "issues of concern to LA youth," however, the
president of the Commission is supposed to have commented regarding Mr.
Taylor's proposed mural "This is not the story I want to tell." The Commission has decided to place Mr.
Taylor's mural, in a less heavily trafficked location. The ACLU's position is that the Commission
opened up a public forum, requested art, and now "cannot deny artists the
right to exhibit based on the artist's point of view."
Mr. Taylor says he is following in
the footsteps of Pablo Picasso who used images of animals to make political
statements and that his boar or pig is supposed to symbolize the corruption of
big business.
So here we are with Mr. Taylor and
the ACLU attempting to obtain an injunction which would permit Mr. Taylor's
work to be shown at the Venice Graffiti Pit which brings me to what first
struck me when I read this story.
We're not talking about the Getty,
the Norton Simon, the Art Institute in Chicago, the Metropolitan in New York;
we're talking about an entity known as the Venice Graffiti Pit. With scantily clad individuals of both
genders skateboarding and roller blading at breakneck speed throughout the
Venice boardwalk, with mimes and volley ball and t-shirt stores and some of the
best people watching in the world; why would the Commission want to keep out
this mural? Since when is the Venice
boardwalk, which has always been one of those places to which you like to take
out-of-town visitors if they want to see the funky side of California,
concerned about taste? And we're not
talking here about some of the NEA funding issues where people defecating on
one another is put forth as art. We're
talking about one man's view of big business' affect on immigration
policies. You have three words
here. The first one is Venice, that's
the city. The second one is graffiti,
which indicates generally unwanted writing, usually on a wall. The third word is pit. Those three words viewed either individually
or collectively do not lead me to expect to see Michelangelo's work at the
Sistine Chapel, or Leonardo DeVinci's Mona Lisa.
I am with the ACLU on this one. The position taken by the Parks and
Recreation Commission just doesn't make sense.
*
* * * *
Charlie Unger is a criminal defense
attorney in the Glendale law firm of Flanagan, Booth & Unger. Mr.Unger has obtained his doctorate in
psychology and writes a bi-monthly column on legal and psychological issues.
nuspress\articles\article.13
569 words including bio info