Censorship Rears Its Ugly Head Again

Are you offended by the work of art pictured above?   It definitely presents a political point of view -- that war is conducted for profit.   Whether anyone agrees with that point of view or not, it is a valid one.   And the street painting could have provoked public discussion of modern wars, a discussion that could be a public service since this country is currently engaged in two endless wars.

But don't expect to see this picture if you go to Los Angeles.   The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) has whitewashed over it in a display of what can only be called censorship.   The museum had commissioned a street mural from the Italian artist Blu for a celebration of contemporary street art, but they didn't like the painting he produced.

MOCA said the painting was insensitive and offensive in their part of the city because there is a V.A. Hospital nearby and also a war memorial.   I think that's just a lot of horse manure.   For one thing, a lot of street art is more offensive than this painting, and with a lot less socially-redeeming value.   And how much value does a museum have that feels it must censor its own artists?

I'm not even sure that many veterans would find the street mural offensive.   Many of them might even agree with the sentiment of the artist.   And even if they didn't -- did they fight for freedom or censorship?   I'll bet most of them would tell you it was the former.

We are supposed to be living in a free country, and in a free country the right to free speech must be jealously guarded and protected.   And the right to free speech is much more important than the right not to be offended (which I can't seem to find in the Constitution).

The museum was wrong to whitewash the artwork.   Maybe a few people would have been offended by the painting, but that's just part of the price we pay for living in a free country.

Artwork Or Political Sign ?

The three teenagers above are Denver street artists. They are Paul Trujillo (16), Chris Balderas (19) and Noe Salido (19). Henry and Esther Vigil are Paul's grandparents, and they are justifiably proud of his talent. Instead of his normal street graffiti, they encouraged him to paint something more serious and donated their back fence for a mural.

Paul and his two friends took them up on the offer. Inspired by the Democratic Convention that came to their home town and cognizant of the need for change, they painted a 26-foot long mural of Barack Obama on the fence. The teens and the Vigils considered the mural to be art. But the city of Denver did not.

The politicians running Denver decided the mural was just another political sign, and as such, it was in violation of city law. The city code doesn't allow any political signs over 8 square feet. The city officials say the word vote contained in the mural makes it a political sign. They have told the teens they must paint over their mural.

If the family does not paint over the mural, they face a $150 fine, which would grow larger over time. But some consider the mural to be art rather than a political sign. If it is art, it would be protected by federal law, but if it is a political sign then it must be painted over.

I think a couple of things point to it being art. First, it has the respect of other street artists. They treat it as a mural and have not "tagged" it as they would a large sign. Second, the mural has drawn visitors from all over the area, who visit and take pictures. When was the last time you saw people drive across town to take pictures of a political sign?

Personally, I think the city has over-reacted on this. I believe it is art, and it should be treated as such. What do you think?