|
If Art
Could Kill: Anatomy of an "Art" Attack:
The
Stephen Pearcy/Dr. BLT Interview
by
Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen (aka Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger)
History
is littered with shrapnel from prior modern "art" attacks on morality,
American culture, democracy, and the like. The deleterious sequelae
trailing from these attacks are an embarrassment on American culture. When
we reflect back on artists such as, Robert Mapplethorpe, and his seven
perverse portraits depicting human figures engaged in vile sadomasochist
acts and on Andres Serrano blasphemous piece depicting a small crucifix
submerged in Serrano's own urine, we ponder why these items were termed
"art."
One of
the most shocking "art" attacks of late is an unspeakably offensive
expression that reflects an utter disregard and disrespect for the United
States, for the President as Officer in Chief of the military, and for
patriotism across the nation. Northern Californian "shock artist"/attorney
Stephen Pearcy is the perpetrator of this attack. His weapon of choice was
his infamous work entitled, "T'anks to Mr. Bush," apiece that depicts a
stars-and-stripes-covered map of the US being flushed down a toilet with
the words, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." Those of us who come from the creative
community are finding ourselves increasingly drawn into a culture war
against American values. It is a civil war, but the unexpected strikes
from the likes of artists adhering to an extremist agenda are making this
anything but civil.
How did
this repugnant piece of weaponry land right on top of the Department of
Justice in Sacramento where it is now proudly displayed? The artist may
have called the shots, but I believe it was his impulsivity, emotional
reactivity, and ideological extremism that ultimately ruled.
The
following is an interview with artist/lawyer Stephen Pearcy who so
graciously allowed me to engage him. Let's face it: It took courage for
him to step into my right-wing ring. As right-wing/left wing dialogues
go, this one was fairly civil, and I don't mean "as in civil war." There
were no cheap shots exchanged. Personally, I was proud of my restraint.
I made it a point not to pass a fist past this pacifist. As I do my best
to present both sides to you, the public, I ask that you carefully read,
ponder, and become engaged into what your tax dollars are funding, and to
what is being called- "art."
Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen:
Will you kindly introduce yourself to those who may not have had the time
to keep up with the latest national news or follow the developing story as
it concerns your work?
Attorney Stephen Pearcy:
Sure. My
name is Stephen Pearcy; I live in Berkeley, California with my wife,
Virginia. We grew up in Sacramento, so we have many roots in that area. My
wife and I are both attorneys. Before we went to law school, we earned our
bachelor degrees at UC Davis in mathematics.
Although we
live in Berkeley, we also have a home in the Land Park neighborhood of
Sacramento, and we stay there occasionally. We only moved to Berkeley last
August. Before that, we lived in our Land Park home year-round. While we
lived there, we often placed political messages in front of our home. We
started doing that soon after 9-11 because we grew very concerned about
Americans' tolerance with the Bush administration's increasing disregard
for constitutional and human rights.
Our
Sacramento home became a focal point in February 2005 after we placed a
display of a soldier on our home with a noose around its neck and a sign
reading, "Your Tax Dollars at Work." Within days of the first news report,
a trespasser climbed our home in front of television cameras, tore down
our display and then gave a news interview. The following weekend, we
replaced the display, this time with a sign that said, "Bush Lied, I
Died." As we replaced our display, we had a great deal of support from
local community activists. Members of the Veterans for Peace held and
stabilized the ladder for me as I stapled up that second display.
Within a
few days, however, our second display was also torn down by a
trespasser/vandal/thief. That wrongdoer was also interviewed by a news
reporter. The following week, the right-wing group, Move America Forward,
held a candlelight vigil across the street from our home. At that event,
an even larger crowd of anti-war and free-speech supporters gathered on
our side of the street to defend and support our soldier displays. About
400 people in total were present.
Eventually,
the crowds and media went away, but the dialogues continued.
A few
months ago, I was invited to submit my "political protest art" for
consideration as part of an art exhibit sponsored by the California
Lawyers for the Arts. The exhibit was to open at the Sacramento County
Public Law Library and remain for two months, whereupon it would travel to
the CA Attorney General's office. I submitted my soldier display and a
painting that I made two years ago to place on my front lawn on the 4th of
July. The painting depicted an outline of the US with an American flag in
place of the states all shown going down a toilet. The caption read, "T'anks
to Mr. Bush." Both of my pieces were accepted, and both went on display in
the exhibition at the public law library. After two months, various pieces
were moved from the law library to the AG's office. My painting was one of
the pieces moved; the soldier display is still at the law library.
Within days
of the opening of the exhibition at the AG's office, right-wingers staged
a public outcry, and another media frenzy arose. My political protest art
was once again at the center of the controversy, which culminated last
week, when about 600 people gathered in front of the AG's office to
support and oppose the art exhibition.
Dr. BLT:
To allow our readers to place the controversy in context, please tell us a
little bit about where you were born, where you grew up, your current
living/work situation, and the role your background and upbringing may
have in terms of influencing and shaping your work.
Pearcy:
I was born
in Kansas, but that won't shed light on anything because I was only there
for three months. My dad was a navigator in the US Air Force, so we moved
a few times and ended up in Sacramento when I was three. The most
influential roles of my background were my college and legal educations.
Both taught me how to think and reason carefully, analytically and
logically.
Before I
returned to college to earn my bachelor's degree, I was a full-time
Sacramento County Sheriff's deputy. I worked on patrol and in the jail,
and I saw a lot of civil rights deprivations. In law school, and
afterward, I read many, many cases involving outrageous conduct by police
and other governmental officials. My experiences have taught me that there
is a compelling need for improvement in the entire criminal justice
system. There is a lack of accountability, and there are far too many
hurdles to bring legal actions against government officials who commit
rights deprivations while acting under color of authority.
Dr. BLT:
Most of us have heard myriad characterizations of your work, some
extremely pejorative (even condemning) some complimentary, and some in
between. I'm interested in knowing how you would describe your most recent
work, the one on display at the department of Justice in Sacramento.
Pearcy:
I would
describe it as political yard art. I painted the piece for the sole
purpose of conveying a political message from my front lawn. The message
was not profound or deep: it was a simple image that conveyed the direct
message that the country is going down the toilet and that the president
is taking us there. I didn't paint the piece for an art exhibition. I
spent about twenty minutes on it on the morning of the 4th of July, 2003.
I painted it on a leftover piece of sheetrock. It's been rained on many
times. Of all the pieces in the exhibit, mine is the only one that you
could put in the front yard and not worry about damaging it. The people
who criticize its artistic content are wasting their time. Any five
year-old could have painted it. It was never about quality and skill.
Nonetheless, it is a huge success; because my intent was to expend a
minimal amount of effort to produce an image that would draw attention to
both the image and the message. Again, it was originally intended to
capture the attention of passersby in front of my home. Now it's gotten
national attention, so it's succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
Dr. BLT:
Surely you knew you would offend people, (particularly those on the right)
by such an expression. Was it your
intention to alienate those of us on the right? What would make it worth
it to you to offer this work, even with the knowledge that you would be
offending so many people?
Pearcy:
The main
purpose of both displays was to convey a bold message to let others know
how we feel about the state of affairs. We suspected that many others
agreed with us, and we learned that we were correct. Many others thanked
us for doing something that they acknowledged they didn't have the nerve
to do. We knew some people would take offense to the content, but we
thought that it was more important to show others that there are in fact
educated, professional people who earn a decent living and live in a nice
neighborhood who think the way we do. We think that's an important message
to send, regardless of whether some people would be offended. You might
call that our "greater-good" analysis.
In
addition, for those people who get so wrapped up in their own mindset of
American arrogance that they believe that we're all behind the war and the
rally behind the flag, I think that it's good to remind them by example
that we're not all on the same page. If the sight offends them too much,
then it is good that they be desensitized and eventually come to realize
that our Constitution protects the expression of our views as much as
theirs. This is exactly what happened after we put out our soldier
display: first there was a reactionary stage involving anger, but later,
after some desensitizing, people began to realize that this was protected
speech. It was a good learning experience for the more arrogant,
over-reactive right-wingers.
Dr. BLT: Many feel you owe them, the country, and the president an apology
for work they regard as an abomination.
How would you feel about offering them an
apology right here and now and offering to voluntarily remove your work
from the department of Justice?
Pearcy:
An apology
is an expression of regret. I would be lying if I said I regretted
creating my images. What I'm sorry about is that so many people don't
realize that the president is misleading them about so many different
things. I'm sorry to see people vote against their own interests--e.g.,
elderly people who spend thousands of dollars on prescription drugs and
health care; young people who will need social security someday; poor
people who think the tax breaks are for them; military people who enlist
and are assured money for college; the many people who think that the war
is about freedom at home and think that the world has become safer since
we invaded Iraq, etc. I'm sorry to see so many people fooled, but I do my
part to expose the truth.
Dr. BLT:
As a Mennonite, I was raised to be a pacifist. In fact, many of us
"die-hard" pacifists had "turned the other cheek" so many times, our heads
were spinning, and we could no longer tell our facial cheeks from our butt
cheeks. One day a simple reality set in: There is evil in the world, and
evil does not respect pacifism. With the war in Iraq, we have indeed paid
a high price, especially in terms of the unspeakable loss of lives.
But isn't there a time when pacifism is
interpreted as weakness?
Pearcy: No,
we should have focused our efforts on improving our relations with the
world's nations. This would not matter unless Saddam felt so emboldened
that he actually launched an offensive against the US or an ally.
How we're
perceived will always be a function of how we react to given
circumstances. Right now, the majority of the world regards us as arrogant
warmongers. They perceive us that way because of what we've done. It's
egotistical if we're so concerned about being perceived as weak that we'll
invade another country against the informed judgment of the majority of
the world's nations.
Dr. BLT:
Didn't Iraq's repeated, innumerable violations of signed agreements render
the approach of the world community to his innumerable violations impotent
and ineffective?
Pearcy:
What about our innumerable human rights violations? Sanctioned torture,
indiscriminate bombings in complete disregard of civilian losses of life,
prison abuse abroad, prison abuse at home, detentions without charges,
murders by military people and only minor sentences in response, arming of
Israel to use against Palestinians, etc. Why is it war when we do it and
terrorism if they do it back?
Dr. BLT:
How do you feel the US should have responded to a nation, and to Saddam (a
violent, ruthless dictator bent on consistently thumbing his nose at the
UN) and the world community? So many UN resolutions were signed, and then
immediately violated.
Pearcy:
Yes, like the US agreement to act with NATO
Dr. BLT:
Just how effective do you believe yet another resolution would have been?
Pearcy:
We can
defend our nation without launching an offensive. Anyhow, what your asking
is really no different from someone in China or Iran asking whether they
should pass a resolution condemning the US or instead simply invade the US
(perhaps together?) in order to liberate its people from a president they
believe is evil and a war criminal and who is using his military to
conquer other weak nations for illegitimate ends.
Dr. BLT:
How far is too far when it comes to expressing oneself creatively?
Pearcy:
Generally,
the biggest concern is whether something is criminal; the next concern is
whether the speaker is willing to accept the fallout, if any, over his/her
expression. A lot of people like to say, "There are consequences for
speech." Yes, that's true, but the 1st Amendment is there to protect
people from
unlawful
consequences.
Dr. BLT:
Is there any point in which you would draw the line?
Pearcy:
Personally,
yes, I wouldn't display just anything. But what I would do has nothing to
do with constitutional protections. That's really the distinction here.
Dr. BLT:
How about the (expletive) Christ, Andres Serrano's depiction of a plastic
crucifix submerged in his own urine?
Pearcy:
I wouldn't
display it, but, again, the 1st Amendment still protects anyone who does.
Dr. BLT:
When Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of Pope Paul on the stage, did she
go too far?
Pearcy:
Not as far
as I'm concerned. I don't idolize cloth or paper images or material goods.
Tear up anything you want as far as I'm concerned. For that matter, I have
no problem with burning a flag or a Bible or a pair of Levis jeans. If I
start with a blank piece of paper and then write "God is great" on it,
does it suddenly become a sacred document that can't be torn? Ridiculous!
The picture of the Pope was no different. It was once a blank piece of
paper. A flag was once a spool of thread and before that cotton, a seed,
dirt, etc. People sure get crazy about symbols.
Dr. BLT:
How about those who commit lewd, immoral acts on the stage as a form of
artistic expression?
Pearcy:
I think
it's ridiculous when people do that, but I also think it's good to have a
constitution that protects that kind of speech. Popular speech doesn't
really need 1st Amendment protection: it's protected by virtue of its
popularity. The speech that the 1st Amendment really gets at is the
unpopular speech.
Dr. BLT:
Should there be boundaries in art, and, if so, who should decide where
those boundaries should be erected?
Pearcy:
Some legal
boundaries already exist. The US Supreme Court has had a tough time
articulating standards, such as obscenity, so I certainly don't have the
answer. I generally favor protecting as much speech as possible, including
speech with which I disagree or speech I find offensive and outrageous.
Dr. BLT:
Is it possible that you could be underestimating some of your childhood
and adolescent experience in shaping your present state of being and
action?
Pearcy: I
responded to your question by referencing the aspects that first came to
my mind when I considered what I thought were most significant factors
influencing my political views and reasons for communicating the same.
College and law school educations seemed most important to my development
of applying reason and analysis to given sets of facts. Certainly, the
fact that I learned how to speak and read and write as a child is also
significant, but if we were to examine every possible significant link in
the causal chain, we'd never get a decent answer. So, again, I just
referenced what I thought was most important.
Incidentally, I did take some art classes in junior high and high school,
but so did a lot of other people who don't use imagery to convey political
ideas. Similarly, there are probably also people who do use art to make
political statements but who didn't take art in high school. Also, I've
spoken to many people who have come up with great ideas about political
imagery. Maybe one big difference between me and them is that I actually
carried out my idea a couple of times.
Dr. BLT:
Your post 9/11 "observation" regarding "...Americans' tolerance with the
Bush administration's increasing disregard for constitutional and human
rights," sounds to me like a conclusion based on a highly subjective
interpretation of events. Couldn't
one observe the very same phenomena, and interpret it as "...Americans'
realization that the Bush administration must become increasingly
protective of the physical safety and security of American citizens, and
that, for the sake of safety and security, some degree of practical
compromise must be introduced."? After all, what good are "constitutional
and human rights," if nobody is around to exercise such rights? Granted,
life may not be worth living in a country completely bereft of such
rights, but shouldn't we all be prepared to make some degree of sacrifice
in the interest of our own survival? Why must the post 9/11 actions of
the Bush administration automatically be interpreted in a cynical manner?
Did you ever entertain the possibility that the Bush administration, while
admittedly making its share of mistakes, had, and has, the best interest
of American citizens in mind? Or does having that sort of faith in
government render one a gullible, ignorant fool?
Pearcy:
Let me give you one example.
The 4th
Amendment protects
all of us from (unwarranted) searches of our homes. That law means that
cops cannot just arbitrarily enter our homes and start rummaging through
our things. The framers drafted that law knowing that some bad people who
kept bad things in their homes would not be discovered, but the framers
and the people thought that being free from such intrusions was more
important than catching a few more bad guys.
I
believe that the Bush administration and many republicans would be quite
happy if we all just agreed to let the cops come into our homes and look
around anytime they said that they were suspicious about something. Many
republicans often say things like, "Well, if you don't have anything to
hide, why do you care if you're searched?" That kind of mindset is
completely contrary to the principles upon which this country was
founded. Expressions such as that suggest that the speaker really does
not like our constitution or, for that matter, this country!
We've
always had bad people, and we always will. No matter how much freedom we
give up, if someone wants to kill a whole bunch of us, they will be able
to do so just as easily as if we maintain all of our freedoms. Just
because it's harder to blow up a plane doesn't mean someone can't kill
just as many people somewhere else. People are being misled if they think
that by giving up some freedoms it will make it more difficult for
terrorists.
If you
want, go ahead and describe any realistic scenario involving fewer
freedoms in a USA that you wouldn't mind living in, and I'll still be able
to give you an example of how easy it would be for someone to kill a bunch
of innocent civilians. Giving up freedom is not the answer; it will only
lend itself to a more corrupt government and a more dangerous world.
In the Final Analysis:
Reader,
what is your final analysis of Pearcy and his so-called "art?" I will
leave that analysis up to you. As for my "impressionistic
interpretation," of Pearcy, and granted, it is a subjective one by nature:
Pearcy appears to be a man on a mission, and his present day predilection
is for extremist artistic expression. Moreover, he appears to be a man of
selective sympathies, ostensibly showing virtually no compassion for the
real victims of 9/11, and virtually no disdain for the acts of
terrorists. His compassion is putatively directed towards victims of
supposed American occupiers. His disdain is apparently directed at
democracy, the good old USA, and the president. It is my impression that
I did not have to throw him for a loop in this interview. He seems to
have grabbed on to that rope he used to hang an effigy of a soldier, and
use it to engage in a deadly ideological act of self-strangulation.
The opinions expressed in
this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org, Inc.
|
