ROBERT SHERER: Four Incidents of Censorship
Foreword: An Overview
In 1989, the American artist Robert
Sherer publicly displayed for the first time a selection of paintings
from his graduate school thesis project and immediately incurred the
wrath of local conservatives. His thesis, titled “Re-Presentations,”
was comprised of oil paintings of male nudes in famous female poses,
mocking the sexism of Western art history. Since that first controversy,
the artist’s censorship battles in Ohio, Pennsylvania, his home
state of Alabama, and most recently in South Carolina have established
him among the most censored artists in the United States.
In addition to widespread national
media coverage, his four incidents of censorship have been documented
by many First Amendment advocacy groups and censorship watchdog organizations
including The American Civil Liberties Union, ArtSave - People For The
American Way, the Individual Visual Artist’s Coalition, Inc. and
the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression. His 1995 out-of-court
settlement of an ACLU-sponsored ten million dollar lawsuit against the
Barnwell County Museum marks one of the few cases wherein an American
artist has received financial recompense for a First Amendment violation.
Each of Robert Sherer’s four
censorship incidents has been more intense, and his opponents better
organized, than the last. Increasingly, the points of contention have
had similar wording. “Sherer perverts God’s natural order
by placing men in women’s positions” is the standard expression.
The subtext of this statement seems to indicate a masked approval of
heterosexual eroticism by the religious right. Through the years, it
has also become evident that the Christian Coalition keeps itself apprised
of the artist’s movements and targets his efforts to exhibit his
art works outside the major metropolitan areas. As a result, Sherer’s
attempts at art outreach to the suburban and rural communities are deliberately
misrepresented as “the artist is here to recruit our youth to
the homosexual lifestyle.”
From the beginning of his gender-reversing thesis, it was never Sherer’s
intention to create homo-erotic images but rather to provide a feminist
critique of art historical images. His appropriations of well-known
picture compositions from such Neo-Classical and French Salon masters
as Boucher, David, Ingres, Jerome, and Bougereau clearly reveal a serious
artistic intent. The use of kitsch parody to elucidate and underscore
important sociopolitical ideas is common in contemporary art. Sophisticated
people are frequently shocked to find that these Sherer paintings have
been censored. Denizens of the insular and urbane art world have a tendency
to forget that just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so too
is “homoeroticism.” Any male nudity, even if it is portraying
a scene from the Bible, is considered pornography by religious fundamentalists.
The primary purpose of this publication
is to provide the reader with an account of the events that occurred
before, during, and after each of Robert Sherer’s four incidents
of censorship. It is our hope that these linear narratives will help
to map some of the common courses that censorship dramas take and to
illuminate some of the necessary mechanisms that must be in place for
actual censorship to occur. It is also our hope that this publication
will help garner recognition and support for the artist from the general
public as well as from the arts community.
Four Incidents of Art Censorship
1. OHIO: In November of 1989, Robert
Sherer, an Edinboro University of Pennsylvania M.F.A. candidate, was
invited to participate in an exhibition titled “5 X Figurative”
to be held at the B.K. Smith Gallery of Lake Erie College in Painesville,
a suburb of Cleveland. The intention of the exhibition was to provide
the viewer with a survey of visual inquiries into the human figure by
five painters from the Great Lakes region.
Within hours of the show being hung
on February 4, 1990, several university officials, including the president
and the dean of Lake Erie College, began to voice their displeasure
at the selection of works. Particularly offensive to them were the mock
classical paintings of male nudes placed in famous poses by Robert Sherer.
By the end of the day, all five of the artist’s paintings were
removed from the gallery and stored in a basement.
Bonnie Selip, the curator of the
“5 X Figurative” exhibition, argued with Greg Upton, the
gallery director, that the removal of these works constituted censorship
since it was clear that only male nudes had been removed. After a closed-door
meeting with university officials, the gallery director subsequently
removed a female nude and publicly took full responsibility for the
censorship. His press statement read, “These paintings are of
a sexual-political nature and might be considered offensive to some
students who visit the gallery regularly.”
Many students and faculty, however,
disagreed with the director’s paternalistic approach to curating
and his willingness to play the scapegoat for the university’s
upper echelon. On February 10, they began to circulate a petition calling
for his resignation. They also launched a barrage of negative press
coverage about the university and announced an upcoming protest rally
to be held outside the student gallery to coincide with the annual Parent’s
Visitation Day.
On February 18, an American Civil
Liberties Union attorney contacted the two censored artists and offered
legal representation. Four days later, with the threat of an imminent
First Amendment violation lawsuit, university officials announced their
intentions to re-hang the censored art for the remaining week of the
exhibition. Sherer’s paintings were returned to the exhibit on
February 22 and remained on display till the March 2, 1990 closing date
without further incident.
2. PENNSYLVANIA: As with most university
art departments, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania has a standard
agreement between the university and its graduate art students that
the university will pay for the production and mailing of student’s
thesis exhibition invitation postcards. In return, the student agrees
to work with a graphic designer and a printing company to insure the
quality of the image produced. Of the approximately two thousand invitations
that the university agrees to mail, eight hundred are slotted for an
on-campus mailing to faculty and staff.
On April 7, 1992, Robert Sherer,
a graduate painting student, consulted with his faculty committee concerning
which of his thesis paintings would be best for his invitation postcard.
Due to the awkward 3” x 5” format, it was decided that the
only image that could fit without serious cropping was a painting titled
“Sweet Dreams,” a standard academic male nude. Although
there had been no problem with past mailings of student invitations,
even such graphic images as a female nude lying spread-eagle on the
ground with a pack of salivating dogs sniffing and licking her body,
Sherer was cautious and concerned. In an effort to feel better about
the upcoming mailing, the artist met with the local US Postmaster to
discuss the matter. During this meeting the artist was assured that
the US Postal Service would have no problem with mailing the card.
On June 6, three weeks before the
scheduled exhibition reception and one week before the mailing list
deadline, the artist was informed by the Liberal Arts Dean, Dr. Robert
Weber, that the university was refusing to pay for the eight hundred
on-campus mailings. Sherer’s graduate faculty committee filed
a formal letter of support for the artist. The contents of the letter
firmly stated their disgust with the university’s decision and
questioned how a liberal arts department could justify a clear violation
of the First Amendment. As a direct result of this unanticipated proactive
stance by the faculty, university officials met with Sherer in an attempt
to settle the issue.
The artist eventually consented to
an agreement wherein the university would pay for eight hundred off-campus
addresses of his choice if he agreed not to further pursue the matter.
Sherer chose eight hundred influential American art galleries to receive
the controversial postcard. Why college administrators determined it
prudent to mail the image to the general public, rather than its college-educated
employees, remains a mystery.
As a consequence, word spread that
an exhibit of graphic homosexual art was opening in the university’s
student gallery. The rumor that “not even university faculty were
allowed to see an image of the upcoming show” seemed to fuel people’s
paranoia. The gallery was inundated with prank phone calls, several
of which took the form of death threats to gay people. Other than the
daily phone calls and the increased security, the exhibition opened
on June 27 and closed on July 18, 1992 without further incident.
3. ALABAMA: Rarely does censorship
occur within the commercial gallery setting because private-owned businesses
are typically unencumbered by the use of government funding. On November
18, 1994, Studio 2030, a privately-owned gallery in Birmingham, held
a reception to inaugurate the solo exhibition of its latest gallery
artist, Robert Sherer. The exhibition’s reception was met with
no controversy and some degree of fanfare due to it being the expatriated
artist’s first exhibition in his home state in twenty years.
Two weeks later, on the morning of
December 2, organizers for A Baby’s Place, an infant AIDS charity,
arrived at the gallery to decorate for a fund-raiser to be held there
later that evening. The charity’s executive director, Glenda Hollis,
demanded that Studio 2030’s owner, Louis Hill, remove the Sherer
paintings from the gallery. Ms. Hollis felt that the paintings of male
nudes might offend potential donors to her AIDS charity. Mr. Hill disagreed,
stating that the majority of donations come from the gay community.
Ms. Hollis, angry that she had not been warned in advance of a scheduled
exhibit of nude paintings, decided to take a radical approach to remedy
the situation. According to her gallery rental contract, Ms. Hollis
was allowed to decorate the gallery for the charity benefit. Her choice
of decoration was to place large sheets of black plastic over the front
and sides of all of the Sherer paintings on display throughout the gallery.
Mr. Hill, realizing that he was trapped between two contractual agreements,
had no choice but to allow Ms. Hollis to censor the work.
Later that evening the controversy
fully erupted when donors realized that art works they had paid to see
had been censored. Throughout the benefit, people arrived and then departed
as a show of protest. The offense was particularly felt by the large
amount of gay men present who considered the censorship yet another
attempt to negate their existence. Many considered the censorship sexism
since an exhibition of female nudes was left on display during the event.
For several weeks afterward, people in the media questioned Ms. Hollis’
judgement and asked for her resignation. Their concern being that the
executive director of an AIDS charity would be so willing to censor
an exhibition of works by a gay artist.
The black plastic was removed from
the paintings the next morning and the exhibition reopened without further
incident. Ms. Hollis never admitted wrongdoing for her actions.
4. SOUTH CAROLINA: In December of
1994, Robert Sherer was contacted by Jennings Rountree, director of
the Barnwell County Museum, to submit an exhibition proposal for the
Spring 1995 roster. Sherer agreed to a March 5, 1995 show date. The
Barnwell County Museum is a public museum within the environs of the
affluent Savannah River Nuclear Power facility. It maintains a picture
gallery specifically for traveling exhibits.
On March 7, two days after the show
opened to the public, the museum board chained and padlocked the doors
to the Sherer exhibition and covered the windows with paper. Ann Haygood,
chair of the museum board, and Ann Loadholt, a member of the county
council, stated to the press that the show was “too sophisticated
for the museum” and demanded that Sherer retrieve his work immediately.
On March 9, after threats of forced removal from museum board members,
Jennings Rountree contacted the American Civil Liberties Union who then
contacted Sherer with an offer to provide legal representation. Within
two days, the ACLU filed a ten million dollar First Amendment violation
lawsuit in federal court.
The museum board informed the ACLU
that the show would reopen the next day and remain open for its projected
running time of three weeks. As promised, the exhibition opened the
next day, but with restricted entrance: only those with identification
proving they were at least twenty one years old would be allowed to
see the show. This action, although considered extreme by many, insulted
local members of the Christian Coalition who felt that stronger action
should have been taken. In the meantime, Jennings Rountree was forced
to resign as director; the impending lawsuit having “created a
hostile work environment.”
On March 17, as a result of increased
pressure from the religious right and the county council, and in some
instances one-in-the-same, the museum board permanently closed Sherer’s
exhibit to the public. In a move which many observers saw as a clear
indication of wrongdoing, a crew of furniture movers were brought into
the museum at three o’clock in the morning to crate and remove
the art works from the facility. For one week, the whereabouts of Sherer’s
paintings was concealed from him and the ACLU attorneys. The art works
resurfaced in the form of a forced shipment to the Lowe Gallery in Atlanta.
A year passed, filled with settlement
negotiations and frequent communication breakdowns, during which the
artist was not permitted to speak to the press by his lawyers. On March
10, 1996, an agreement was finally signed by all parties. The terms
of the agreement provided the artist with an undisclosed monetary settlement
and forced the museum to schedule a March 13 - March 18 exhibition of
the censored paintings, a punitive gesture tantamount to an admission
of guilt.
The aftermath of the settlement proved
as interesting to First Amendment advocates as the year long legal battle.
On March 10, three days before the reopening of the controversial show,
a protest rally organized by ultraconservative groups was held outside
the museum. William Carter, former chairman of the David Duke campaign
and then chairman of the South Carolina Council of Concerned Citizens,
gathered approximately fifty people with bullhorns and placards for
the rally. A clash ensued when a group composed of approximately ten
First Amendment and gay rights activists arrived to show support for
the returning exhibition. Several activists and a news reporter were
injured in the altercation.
The exhibition opened and closed
without further incident. Robert Sherer continues to exhibit his art
throughout the South. Jennings Rountree never returned to his position
at the museum.
Acknowledgments
The primary sources of information
for the four synopses within this publication are legal documents, radio
and television transcripts, and press articles from the artist’s
bibliography.
Additional information was contributed
by private citizens, members of the press, First Amendment advocacy
groups, censorship watchdog organizations, attorneys, and the family
and friends of the artist.
The material within this publication
was compiled, written, and edited by Richard Melvin, Shane Harrison,
and Robert Sherer from December 5, 1996 to July 12, 1997. The website
was created/maintained by Ben Goldman. email: ben@bengstudio.com
Special thanks to the below-listed
organizations for advice and support during the difficult times.
People
For the American Way • ARTSAVE • 2000 M Street, NW.
Suite 400 • Washington, DC. 20036 • TEL.# (202) 467-4999
National Campaign for Freedom of
Expression • 918 F Street N.W. #609 • Washington, DC. 20004
• TEL.# (800) 477-6233
Individual Visual Artists Coalition,
Inc. • 985 Delaware Avenue, S.E. • Atlanta, Georgia 30316
• TEL.# (404) 627 - 2813
The American Civil Liberties Union
• 142 Mitchell Street, Suite 301 • Atlanta, Georgia 30303
• TEL.# (404) 523-5398
Photographic images, transcripts
of lectures and interviews, copies of select legal documents, resumes,
bibliographies and other materials relative to these incidents of censorship
are available upon request from:
Sherer Studio • P.O. BOX 20484 • ATLANTA,
GA. 30325
|
