On April 23, 2005 the LAPD shut down an art exhibition, Mark of the Beast, at the Transport Gallery, forcing 1,000 attendees into the streets on the grounds that it was “offensive and aggressive in nature.” Take a look at these photos from the event and judge for yourself. As Adbuster’s Paul Schmelzer writes:
The LAPD’s reaction to Mark of the Beast was spurred by a single phonecall of complaint, according to gallery director Mike Russek, and Transport was shuttered by officers who never set foot in the gallery to see the work for themselves.
Several weeks earlier, on April 6, 2005 secret service agents showed up for the opening of Columbia College in Chicago’s exhibit of stamp art featuring 47 artists from 11 countries, called “Axis of Evil: The Secret History of Sin.” The Sun Times reports that “the agents asked what the artists meant by their work and wanted museum director CarolAnn Brown to turn over the names and phone numbers of all the artists.” Curator Michael Hernandez deLuna said any government involvement could come close to trampling First Amendment rights. “It frightens me … as an artist and curator. Now we’re being watched,” Hernandez said. “It’s a new world. It’s a Big Brother world. I think it’s frightening for any artist who wants to do edgy art.” [link]
In February of 2005 43-year old artist Ed (Gonzo) Stross was sentenced to serve 30 days in jail, do two years of probation and pay a $500 fine for violating a city sign ordinance. Stross painted a mural of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Man” on his own studio Gratiot in Roseville. He was also ordered to cover Eve’s bare breasts and the word ‘love’ on the mural before serving his jail sentence. According to Stross, “removing the work is the ultimate punishment. The jail time is nothing compared to removing what I painted.” [link]
And then there is the artist Steven Kurtz who on May 11, 2004 was arrested on charges of bioterrorism.
Early morning of May 11, Steve Kurtz awoke to find his wife, Hope, dead of a cardiac arrest. Kurtz called 911. The police arrived and, after stumbling across test tubes and petri dishes Kurtz was using in a current artwork, called in the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Soon agents from the Task Force and FBI detained Kurtz, cordoned off the entire block around his house, and later impounded Kurtz’s computers, manuscripts, books, equipment, and even his wife’s body for further analysis. The Buffalo Health Department condemned the house as a health risk.
Only after the Commissioner of Public Health for New York State had tested samples from the home and announced there was no public safety threat was Kurtz able to return home and recover his wife’s body. Yet the FBI would not release the impounded materials, which included artwork for an upcoming exhibition at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art.
While most observers assumed the Task Force would realize that its initial investigation of Steve Kurtz was a terrible mistake, the subpoenas indicate that the feds have instead chosen to press their “case” against Kurtz and possibly others.
The government has since dropped the bioterrorism charges, but is still actively prosecuting Steven Kurtz. An email from the Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund on May 17, 2005 states:
Today in Buffalo, Judge Kenneth Schroeder heard motions to dismiss a federal criminal case against artist Steven Kurtz. Professor Kurtz was charged with mail and wire fraud last summer after prosecutors found nothing to support their original allegations of bioterrorism. (Please see http://www.caedefensefund.org/faq.html for an overview of the case.)
In today’s hearing, defense attorney Paul Cambria argued that a dangerous precedent would be set by “exalting” into a federal criminal case of wire and mail fraud what is at best a minor, civil contract issue–the purchase of the bacterium Serratia marcescens by scientist Robert Ferrell for use by Kurtz in his artwork.
Judge Schroeder seemed to agree, asking Federal Assistant District Attorney William Hochul whether an underaged youth who uses the internet to purchase alcohol across state lines, for example, should be subject to federal wire fraud charges. “Yes,” Hochul answered after some hedging, and Schroeder chuckled. “Wow, that really opens up a Pandora’s Box, wouldn’t you say?” he asked Hochul.
Schroeder also asked Hochul whether there is any federal regulation at all (OSHA, EPA, or other) concerning Serratia. Hochul admitted there wasn’t. (The alleged danger of Serratia forms the basis of the government’s argument for making this a criminal case, rather than simply allowing the bacterium’s provider to pursue civil remedies if it feels it was wronged.)
Cambria further argued that the FBI intentionally misled a judge into issuing the original search warrant. That judge was never told of Kurtz’s lengthy, credible and complete explanation of what the seized bacterial substances were being used for, nor of the fact that Kurtz tasted Serratia in front of an officer to prove it was harmless. Also, the judge was told of Kurtz’s possession of a photograph of an exploded car with Arabic writing beside it, but not of the photograph’s context: an invitation to an important museum art show. The photograph, by artists the Atlas Group, was one of several exhibited pieces pictured on the invitation.
Because of the photo, the judge issued a warrant calling for the seizure of anything with Arabic writing. “Would that have included the Koran?” Judge Schroeder asked Hochul at today’s hearing. “Nothing in Arabic was in fact seized,” Hochul replied. Schroeder repeated the question, and Hochul admitted that the Koran would have been seized, “if the officers hadn’t recognized what it was.”
Today’s apparent courtroom victory for Cambria does not mean that Judge Schroeder will grant any of the defense motions. And if he does, it is certain that the prosecution will appeal the decision–”all the way to the Supreme Court if they can,” according to Cambria.
Whatever the outcome of today’s hearing, it will not come quickly: rulings in such hearings typically take two or three months. The defense has so far cost $60,000 for Kurtz alone; as for the taxpayer bill, it is well into the millions.
As the Buffalo News reports, Kurtz contends that “fanaticism” and “neo-McCarthyism” in the federal government are behind efforts to prosecute him for obtaining bacterial agents through the mail:
While not discussing the specifics of his case, Kurtz said he believes that the charges filed against him last year were part of a Bush administration campaign to keep artists from protesting government policies.
“There’s no doubt that this is a politically motivated case, to my mind,” said Kurtz, 47. “Look back to the tendencies of the government and the Department of Justice. . . . There’s fanaticism in the air.
“I think we’re in a very unfortunate moment now in U.S. history. A form of neo-McCarthyism has made a comeback. . . . We’re going to see a whole host of politically motivated trials which have nothing to do with crime but everything to do with artistic expression.“
These are dangerous times for artists who do politically-driven work and who seek to express themselves without fear of censorship or arrest. While it’s easy to see these as isolated incidents, there is a rather obvious pattern emerging of prosecuting artists in the United States who voice their dissent through their art. Threats to our right of freedom of expression should not be taken lightly.
