As I read you, the First Amemndment should not apply to work that disturbs
or bothers people. Serrano bothers and disturbs Christian Fundamentalists,
Witkin the squeamish, Mapplethorpe the homophobes, should I go on? The fact
that a work bothers or disturbs someone or some group, should not be at
issue when such Kafaesque tactics are being used to ruin his life. Gosh
Jack, I've seen some feminist work that disturbs lots of men, should that
prevent them from defending their right to present it? Or is it only ideas
that are popular that deserve defending?
No one forces anyone to buy a Sturges book or go to an exhibition of his
work. Using your criteria, if one makes art that disturbs or bothers
people, those people are free to work towards that persons financial ruin,
imprisonment, or worse. And do I understand that if these forces come to
power, that you will not stand up for him or her?
True, his work is extremely controversial and that is all the more reason
to defend his right to publish it or show it.
Dick Sullivan
At 08:09 AM 2/23/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I surely would not think a debate on this group list re Mr. Sturges
>would be appropriate.
>For one, I was one of his teachers @ the Art Institute and thought him
>to be a superb craftsperson … however, within the dialogues and
>colloquys surrounding his work were women who were greatly disturbed by
>his work and attitude.
>It was apparent then that his work would be extremely controversial in
>the manner as is expressed today in Dick's site.
>In my mind, the Christian right are virtually as one-minded as Jock is
>and perhaps ought to be equivalently chastised for overtly dogmatic
>"correctness."
>The point remains in my mind however, that Jock's work has bothered a
>multitude of women I know, and have known, who are paragons of openness
>in thinking and expression … and that has always bothered me.
>Jack Fulton
>