Geekman's World: Evil Devices

Mom tried to co-op my discussion yesterday with a comment about something entirely different. On Slashdot she would be flagged "-1 Off Topic". But since this isn't Slashdot and she isn't the only one who has raised the issue I'll give her some stage time:

"Check out what remained of my angry letter in the Vancouver Sun today.
Just regret that, the Device to Root Out Evil, reminiscent of Emily Carr's coastal churches is being shipped to Calgary of all places, the seat of righteousness."

That is, the Vancouver Parks Board has removed Dennis Oppenheim's somewhat controversial sculpture "Device to Root Out Evil" from Harbour Green Park in downtown Vancouver, and will be sending it to the Glenbow Museum in Calgary.

Now of course, it's somewhat ironic that a religiously controversial sculpture can find a home in Calgary when it can't find a home in Vancouver. That being said, there are a couple of points to consider.

First of all, I'm not sure how many of you have had to look at this thing in person. When you're downtown, you feel cramped. Everything is sterile, angular, and artificial. And when you have time to walk down to the water, all you want is to be exposed to that open greenspace with a view of Stanley park. When you went to Harbour Green Park, you ran into this angular thing that felt like it was going to fall on you.

Now I'm not saying that we should never have thoughtful outdoor sculptures (and let's face it, even Device is a huge improvement over those Goddamned whales and bears that Vancouver subjected us to... God-DAMN those things are hideous... I mean, the Darth Vader and Batman ones were kind of cool, but only as a sort of countercultural statement. Anyways...) Nevertheless, I feel that an outdoor sculpture, when it's a a sort of urban-oasis-space like Harbour Green Park, should be a little more organic and unobtrusive. Placed in the environment of a park, Device felt belligerent and ugly. It actually looks pretty amazing in the gallery space.

The next issue may get me in a bit of trouble. If tomorrow, the Vancouver Parks Board decided that they were going to erect a 12-foot tall statue of the virgin Mary in a public space, many of us would probably be pretty upset, and rightly so. Why? Well it's simple: the public space belongs to ALL of us. As such, any use of the public space should reflect the sensitivities of everyone it belongs to, including those of us who don't believe in Jesus.

Hmm... unfortunately that also means that the parks board has to respect Christians who might have a problem with a sacrilegious symbol being placed in a public space.

Now, don't bust my balls, okay? Device to Root Out Evil is trying to be sacrilegious. It's placed a church, something sacred to Christians, and turned it upside-down. And if that weren't obvious enough, the ironic title contextualises it as an indictment of what the artist sees as a corrupt church that doesn't have the moral authority to provide ethical leadership. Pure aesthetics aside, the sculpture is coloured by its artistic intent.

And that's fine. The best art is often the art that provokes controversy, and thus, discussion. In a tolerant society, Device, even as a sacrilegious symbol, has a right to be created and displayed in a private space: that's freedom of expression. But tolerance works both ways. Device shouldn't be installed into a publicly-owned space any more than iconic representations of Christianity should. Certainly, nobody who thinks that all references to "God" should be removed from our constitution can turn around and tell me that Device should be allowed in a public park. That's just trading one type of intolerance for another.

We've worked hard to create a secular society, and we are uncompromising in our expectation that Christians must respect all aspects of that secularism. It would be hypocritical for that society to then publicly impose disrespect of a particular religion. It's called compromise. And let's face it: it's the only way that democracy works.

I don't believe anyone has interpreted correctly what Oppenheimer was trying to say with this sculpture. This is not an attempt to target christians at all. The upside down church is a symbol of all religions and you notice there is no cross on this structure. It is merely a bare-bones structure that represents all religions. The fact that it has a steeple, which many religions have a form of, to connect them to heaven if you will just makes it easier to turn it upside down. What the artist is trying to convey is that an institution that was set up to eradicate evil and unite us has somehow become the source of the most evil in the world: the opposite of what was originally intended. Just look of the effect of christianity here on the west coast and across Canada. It caused indigenous
peoples to lose much of their culture and experience a lot of grief through the attempt to instill religions by separating them from the parents and the culture that they had been familiar with. All over the world conflicts are the direct result of the very institution that was put in place "to root out evil." If the park board wanted to fill the park board with art then they have to be ready to accept that good art is going to be controversial. To see this particular piece as sacrilegious or blasphemous is giving it such a very narrow focus is something I don't believe the artist ever intended. I don't think it will do better in Calgary.

Mom: I don't see how your interpretation is very different than mine other than semantics.

I realize that this is the sort of argument that measures in nanometers precisely where you want to draw the boundaries between free speech and good taste.

The problem with contentious art in a park is that the park is a space that people of differing beliefs have to share, and for one group of people to place a sculpture whose message thumbs its nose at the beliefs of another group of people doesn't seem like a very good conception of "sharing".

Furthermore, I don't agree that "good art" is necessarily controversial. Is Bill Reid's Spirit of the Haida Gwaii at the Vancouver airport controversial? Not really. I guess that means it's not "good art".

Public art can be good, beautiful, organic, structural, historically evocative, even functional. But save the political messages for the gallery space where they belong.

Controversial doesn't have to mean confrontational, you know. It just has to mean that it can spark debate. Bill Reids wonderful Spirit of Haida Gwaii is indeed controversial among the Haida since the subjects is Haida then of course were not going to find it controversial. Even the Pieta in the Vatican or the Scream has sparked controversy. So yes, I think that most good art is controversial, not contentious. I just don't believe that most people found "the device" worthy of excommunication. You either liked it or didn't but that is the case with most art. If you are so touchy that you can't abide anything the least bit controversial in your tender life then you are in trouble. Everyone has to face life as it is and sheltering from it is not the right way to live.

I find it odd that despite all the controversy it was up for this long in the first place. Probably something to do with a contract I'd assume. However, I noticed the article you linked to makes little mention of the residents in the area around the park. I can't help but think that it may have had more to do with the people with expensive condos complaining about their view being blocked than it had to do with the controversial nature of the work.