![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blogcutterWhile in Paris recently, I visited Oscar Wilde's grave at Pere Lachaise Cemetery. it had a guard rail around it and a little notice requesting that people not deface the grave as the family has to cover the costs of cleanup. Sad. Soon after my return to Ottawa, the statue of Oscar Peterson at his piano outside the NAC was also defaced - or was it decorated or enhanced? - by the addition of gold paint to his eyes.
What was interesting with Oscar Peterson was that the family considered it vandalism while the artist was not quite so sure, suggesting it might have been intended as a statement about the evils of racism and that the gold paint represented tears. It was also, apparently, quite easy to remove.
I really don't condone the permanent or semi-permanent altering of a work of art in the way that was done with Oscar Peterson, even if it does stimulate some important discussions about racism. And yet, public art that is out on the street for anyone to experience is a little different from art in a gallery, where in most cases clambering about on a statue, let alone deliberately altering it in some way, is generally frowned upon. As for gravesides and memorial markers... well, I guess they're not exactly art; they're not exactly public either in the sense that decisions about the burial, ashes or commemorative markers are generally made by the next of kin; they ARE public in the sense that normally anyone may visit them, and usually without paying admission fees. Still, there was quite the foofarrah last year when someone in a festive mood strung a garland of Christmas lights around a bear-statue on the Sparks Street mall! And Lea Vivot's wonderful boy and girl on a bench statue that she placed ouside the Library and Archives of Canada under cover of darkness, and which was instantly popular with the lunchtime crowd of 9-to-5ers and frankly just about everyone very nearly was banned because it hadn't gone through the proper channels!
Then, of course there's tagging and graffiti. Graffiti is often quite witty; tagging perhaps less so. I do support the idea of having some public areas where graffiti and impromptu works of art are permitted and even actively encouraged. One place it used to flourish was in the tunnels at Carleton University.
Which brings me to the recent uproar about a handful of frosh week facilitators who were seen - OFF campus mind you - wearing T-shirts with the words "Fuck Safe Space" on the front. Critics were outraged, claiming that these people were endorsing a "rape culture"; some supporters maintained the facilitators were merely protesting a rule that the facilitators must not use swear words.
Maybe both groups were wrong. Maybe the intent of the slogan was to promote the campus as a haven for both free love and safe sex, where people are, in the words of that classic 70s children's book, "free to be... you and me" regardless of gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, race, religion... well, you get the idea. The f-word is not necessarily a synonym for rape or sexual assault, but also includes sexual activity between consenting adults. And yes, I do consider that when it comes to intimate relationships, university students must be deemed to be adults, even if some first-year students are not legally old enough to drink or even vote.
I find it disturbing when language on campus must be sanitized like this. The university environment should foster lively discussion and intelligent debate, regardless of whether the views expressed are politically correct.
What was interesting with Oscar Peterson was that the family considered it vandalism while the artist was not quite so sure, suggesting it might have been intended as a statement about the evils of racism and that the gold paint represented tears. It was also, apparently, quite easy to remove.
I really don't condone the permanent or semi-permanent altering of a work of art in the way that was done with Oscar Peterson, even if it does stimulate some important discussions about racism. And yet, public art that is out on the street for anyone to experience is a little different from art in a gallery, where in most cases clambering about on a statue, let alone deliberately altering it in some way, is generally frowned upon. As for gravesides and memorial markers... well, I guess they're not exactly art; they're not exactly public either in the sense that decisions about the burial, ashes or commemorative markers are generally made by the next of kin; they ARE public in the sense that normally anyone may visit them, and usually without paying admission fees. Still, there was quite the foofarrah last year when someone in a festive mood strung a garland of Christmas lights around a bear-statue on the Sparks Street mall! And Lea Vivot's wonderful boy and girl on a bench statue that she placed ouside the Library and Archives of Canada under cover of darkness, and which was instantly popular with the lunchtime crowd of 9-to-5ers and frankly just about everyone very nearly was banned because it hadn't gone through the proper channels!
Then, of course there's tagging and graffiti. Graffiti is often quite witty; tagging perhaps less so. I do support the idea of having some public areas where graffiti and impromptu works of art are permitted and even actively encouraged. One place it used to flourish was in the tunnels at Carleton University.
Which brings me to the recent uproar about a handful of frosh week facilitators who were seen - OFF campus mind you - wearing T-shirts with the words "Fuck Safe Space" on the front. Critics were outraged, claiming that these people were endorsing a "rape culture"; some supporters maintained the facilitators were merely protesting a rule that the facilitators must not use swear words.
Maybe both groups were wrong. Maybe the intent of the slogan was to promote the campus as a haven for both free love and safe sex, where people are, in the words of that classic 70s children's book, "free to be... you and me" regardless of gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, race, religion... well, you get the idea. The f-word is not necessarily a synonym for rape or sexual assault, but also includes sexual activity between consenting adults. And yes, I do consider that when it comes to intimate relationships, university students must be deemed to be adults, even if some first-year students are not legally old enough to drink or even vote.
I find it disturbing when language on campus must be sanitized like this. The university environment should foster lively discussion and intelligent debate, regardless of whether the views expressed are politically correct.
