gallery owner attacked for iraq abuse art

[jun_erh]

Gallery Owner Attacked for Iraq Abuse Art




By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the nation's unresolved anguish over the incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison — a black eye delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to a painting that depicts U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners.








The assault outside the Capobianco gallery in the city's North Beach district Thursday night was the worst in a string of verbal and physical attacks directed at Lori Haigh since the artwork was installed at her gallery on May 16.


San Francisco police are investigating and have stepped up patrols around the gallery. But Haigh decided to close the gallery indefinitely, citing concern for the safety of her two children, ages 14 and 4, who often accompanied her to work.


Guy Colwell's painting, titled "Abuse," depicts three U.S. soldiers leering at a group of naked men in hoods with wires connected to their bodies. The one in the foreground has a blood-spattered American flag patch on his uniform. In the background, a soldier in sunglasses guards a blindfolded woman.


The painting was part of a show of the Berkeley artist's work that mostly featured pastel-colored abstracts.


Colwell stopped by the gallery Friday, but refused to discuss his work or the reaction to it, saying only, "I'm sorry if this is putting pressure on Lori."


Two days after the painting went up in a front window, someone threw eggs and dumped trash on the doorstep. Haigh said she did not think to connect it to the events at Baghdad's notorious prison until people started leaving nasty messages and threats on her business answering machine.


"I think you need to get your gallery out of this neighborhood before you get hurt," one caller said.


She removed the painting from the window, but the gallery's troubles received news coverage and the criticism continued. The answering machine recorded new calls from people accusing her of being a coward for moving the artwork.


Last weekend, Haigh said a man walked into the gallery, pretended to scrutinize the painting for a moment, then marched up to her desk and spat in her face.


On Thursday, someone knocked on the door of the gallery, then punched Haigh in the face when she stepped outside.


"This isn't art-politics central here at all," Haigh said. "I'm not here to make a stand. I never set out to be a crusader or a political activist."


In closing the gallery, Haigh was forced to cancel an upcoming show featuring counterculture artist Winston Smith.


For Haigh, who opened Capobianco a year and a half ago, having the chance to work with prominent artists fulfilled a lifelong dream.


"I kept thinking someday I'll have enough of a reputation where I could bring in my heroes of the art world, people like Guy Colwell especially," she said.


Haigh has received some expressions of support since closing the gallery. Her favorite: an e-mail whose writer said, "I'm sure that a few and dangerous minds don't understand that they have only mimicked the same perversity this painting had expressed."

[BM2]

WOW! Looks as if that painting inspired a few people!
A picture paints a thousand words and one black eye. ;) !!!!

[Merryprankster]

BM2,

Are you, by any chance, a BM2?

[jun_erh]

The painting was part of a show of the Berkeley artist's work that mostly featured pastel-colored abstracts.

mixed in with a couple paintings of abu graib prison contraversy. Sounds like quite a show.

In the article it says the person got threats from people who wanted it taked down and also got calls from people who called them a coward for taking it down. So who deliver the punch??? Consider the locale

[BM2]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
BM2,

Are you, by any chance, a BM2?

I have no idea what a BM2 is. My computer screwed up and could no longer sign on. I could not recall what my password was and after 4 e-mails requesting a new password with no reply I created a new sign on name. Bluesman was what the previous one was.

[The Willow Sword]

I just love it when" Angry Patriots", as i call them, feel the need to trample the 1st amendment and lower themselves to actually hit a woman for her FREEDOM, given to us by the founding fathers, to express herself either through peaceable demonstration,[ OR by an art exhibition in this case]

i love the Contradictions these days,,goes something like " "Freedom for all the people brave, true and strong,,Freedom for ALL the people UNLESS i think they're Wrong"". (then ill just show them by going up to them and punching them in the face,,who cares if they be elder/ woman/or child.):rolleyes:


PEACE,,,TWS

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
"Angry Patriots", as i call them, feel the need to trample the 1st amendment and lower themselves to actually hit a woman for her FREEDOM

It seems she was hit for removing the painting, eh?

[rogue]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
"Angry Patriots", as i call them, feel the need to trample the 1st amendment and lower themselves to actually hit a woman for her FREEDOM Angry Patriots shouldn't be confused with the ALF, ELF or anti-WTF people for whom destruction is merely a form of protest.

[Kickboxer]

Originally posted by Christopher M


It seems she was hit for removing the painting, eh?

That wouldn't really make sense; it would've been the same if she hadn't put it there in the first place. And the assailant could've got the news later or waited some time for convenience.

Calling coward is probable, punching for removing painting is not. As the general liberals themselves tend to be cowards. This is far more predictable someone who considers the painting to be anti-patriotic to begin with. People were killed during 9/11 for being anti-patriotic or "looked" like terrorists. And people were harmed and threatened during the anti-war protests.

[Christopher M]

I think your belief that only one side of this debate would become physically abusive is purely a product of your personal bias and is not reflected in the objective facts.

You really haven't offered any reasoning for your position other than this bias, which seems purely vacuous.

[Kickboxer]

and your statement is any different? lol. i myself acknowledge to both sides, I am open-minded. I managed to give an opposing view, to which, you managed to spew PC hominems :D . but really, when was the last time the anti-war liberals went out and started killing those who considered themselves "patriots?"

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kickboxer
and yours any different?

Yes.

There are two groups here, those who wanted the painting gone (A), and those who wanted it there (B).

I've suggested that, if we want to guess the ideology of the person who assaulted her, we follow the most likely interpretation of the objective facts.

You have suggested that we follow your personal bias.

These are two different approaches. Had I said "I think it is B who attacked her because people in B are personally inferior than people in A" then I would have offered the same kind of argument you did. I didn't say that.

[Kickboxer]

Originally posted by Christopher M


It seems she was hit for removing the painting, eh?

other than this little "one-sided' statement, I don't see your previous suggestions other than commenting I am biased. Which I probably am, considering previous statistics. However, I fail to see your "most likely" interpretation could be as indicated above, which you still didn't elaborate other than misdirected rhetorics.

[Christopher M]

A wants painting gone. B wants painting there.

Painting is gone. Then woman is attacked.

Who attacked woman?

A straight reading offers B as the most likely. Don't you think? I didn't elaborate on this originally as I thought it was obvious.

[The Willow Sword]

Group C : Those who dont give a sh!t Either way. ;)

[Kickboxer]

Originally posted by jun_erh

SAN FRANCISCO - A San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the nation's unresolved anguish over the incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison — a black eye delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to a painting that depicts U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners.



Play it again Sam!

Please read the article again before giving me a lesson on objective argument vs subjective argument. You're logic is no less subjective than your own "obvious" deduction.

But wait, you may also claim the reporter to be biased.

If the assailant wanted the painting to be there for artsy or history lesson, whether gone or not, he wouldn't have "objected."

Objection means a halt or termination of a continuing process rather than retrieval of the terminated project.

Real life doesn't always function like an algebraic expression.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kickboxer
If the assailant wanted the painting to be there, he wouldn't have "objected."

"Apparently objected" is an interpretation of what occurred, not a reference to a remark made by the assailant. Like if I said "people apparently don't think about what they're reading", it would be my take on people's behavior, not an objective accounting of the facts.


You're logic is no less subjective than your own "obvious" deduction.

This would be more persuasive as an argument than as a blind assertion.

[Kickboxer]

you're arguing for the sake of arguments. lol. that's completely irrelevant. those who know how patriotic sentiments would've instantly figured out what happend. most of us condone the actions of our troops. the painting falls under Anti-soldiers and Anti-American category. I very much doubt there was some "Iraq sympathizer" wanted to vent their anger on the poor woman. Algebraic expressions do not work when you dont input the correct incidental/background value or take account of the detractors.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kickboxer
that's completely irrelevant.

You defended your position by asserting "If the assailant wanted the painting to be there...he wouldn't have 'objected.'" The fact that he didn't object seems extremely relevant to that assertion.


I very much doubt there was some "Iraqi sympathizer" wanted to vent their anger on the poor woman.

I know you do. This is your personal bias, which is producing your conclusion against the more logical option - as was originally noted.

[ZIM]

I mentioned this event to my mother. We looked at each other for a second, then burst out laughing. After about 5 minutes of that, we were like, "oh, we shouldn't laugh" :D :D :D

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Gotta laugh at the current discussion.

A few things I noted while reading the article:

1.) The painting was in the WINDOW of the gallery till the first spate of abuses started and than was moved away from the window.

2.) The painting was still on display INSIDE the Gallery and was NOT removed/gone from the exhibit.

3.) "Last weekend, Haigh said a man walked into the gallery, pretended to scrutinize the painting for a moment, then marched up to her desk and spat in her face. "
Attack for displaying the painting.

4.) "On Thursday, someone knocked on the door of the gallery, then punched Haigh in the face when she stepped outside."

No motive/reason apparent for the attack.

What I think is sad about the whole story is that the Gallery owner is being threatened/attacked for displaying someone elses painting.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Kickboxer.

Ignore Christopher M, he ONLY comes on here to argue with people.

You will never get anywhere with him, if you push him to give HIS opinion/views he just gets quiet and stops posting till he thinks he found another likely thread/poster where he can start again.

Seen many people like him on many boards.

[jun_erh]

interesting and unique discussion.

kickboxer- normally I would agree that it was probably the anti-painting person, but this is San Francisco after all. Alot of it is extrememly radical not Howard Dean like Anarchy/ communism, etc.

What is sort of striking to me is how recent the event was and the fact that it's a painting. Don't people usually work for a long time on paintings?? and isn't it sort of insulting to islamic people in a way too?

and don't the people on the street have a right to not want to see something like that, something that for many, maybe not so much alot of us here, is going to bring up strong emotions. "Fire" in a crowded theatre, etc??

[rubthebuddha]

play nice, kids. that's an order.

rogue -- not sure why you brought alf, etc. into the mix, but i gots a funny tale (no pun intended):

about five years ago at my uni, alf broke into one of our buildings at which students were keeping rabbits, mice, etc. for behavior tests. they set free all the critters, vandalized the building and scooted.

conveniently, not one one of those critters was undergoing unpleasant testing, all were getting more positive attention than most pets, and were actually going to be taken home by the students caring for them when the term was up.

sadly, over the next few weeks, rodent carcasses were turning up throughout the building, which, with its brick floor and lack of any food supply outside of office plants, meant that most of the animals wound up starving to death. :(

disappointingly, that's my only personal experience with alf (one of the students who lost her pet was a very ****ed off friend of mine). not surprisingly, the local alf group has yet to apologize for their lack of forethought.