First the letter is asking for "Professional Artistic" opinions, those with
resumes with some clout. I only assumed that those with serious
qualifications would have made some opinion by now, and would not need
debate. If one is not aware of the issues at hand, and has not made an
opinion by now, they surely don't fall into the category of "serious
professional opinion" that Sturges legal defense team is looking for.
Second, I think the vast majority of artists, curators and critics, do not
deem Mr. Sturges to be a poronographer which is the main question on the
Thirdly, whether or not Sturges is in bad taste, disturbs, bothers,
inflames, stimulates, bores, or is controversial, should not be a criteria
for protection under the First Amendment.
The Christian extremists are moving in a strong coordinated force. Now
maybe I'm just a little edgey about all of this, but I seem to have read
somewhere in the papers about clinics being bombed, and that appears to be
coming from the same groups that are attacking Sturges. Now perhaps we
should debate whether the clinics should be bombed along with whether
Sturges bothers or disturbs us enough to void his rights. I for one would
suggest that Jock not start his car in the morning without a thorough
inspection. I for one do not think for a moment that one has to be Looney
Tunes (r) in order to think his life is in danger.
Debate if you like, but your house is on fire.
At 08:07 AM 2/23/98 -0800, Bill Agee wrote:
>At 7:56 PM -0800 2/22/98, Richard Sullivan wrote:
>>>We "could debate" is an interesting phrase. I guess for Mr. Wood this is
>>>question is opened and closed. I am not so sure. Perhaps a little debate
>>>would be healthy instead of the usual knee jerk reactions from left AND
>>>right. I am on another list where it is politically incorrect to have an
>>>opinion which expresses even a doubt about the implications and uses of
>>>photographing nude children. I think debate rather than assumption is
>>The argument over nude children in art seems to have been settled during the
>>Renaissance. Many of the churches are filled with them and funded by Papal
>>commissions as well. And yes, with real little boy genitalia as well.
>>Knee jerk? Come on Karl. These folks are going for blood and if you think
>>they'll stop at Sturges and Barnes and Noble you are wrong. If Sturges
>>under direct attack, I would say that we can afford a nice debate.
>>represented by major galleries throughout the country and has had major
>>shows. I think the overwhelming curatorial opinion is that he is not a
>>He didn't just arrive on the scene yesterday, he has been debated
>>the art community. A jury deliberated for less than 15 minutes and found him
>>not guilty on the first go round. How much more do we need? Knee jerk? No
>>Do I like his work personally? Not much to not at all.
>>Do I defend his right to present it? All the way!
>>Sorry to start this off topic argument but I think this is important.
>I have very much enjoyed your thoughtful posts on the alt photo list,
>however, I must rise to defend Karl's right to ask a question. I think the
>force and passion of your response indicates that you have clearly made up
>your mind on the issue and debate or discussion is not something your are
>willing to entertain. I think it is unfortunate to attempt to shut off any
>debate--in this case with a listing of "facts" about the situation during
>the Renaissance and the reference to the jury aquitted him in 15 minutes.
>I was happy to see him get off that time and contributed money through ASMP
>for his defense, however, my ears perk up when I observe what appears to be
>an attempt to shut off legitimate debate on any topic.
>All the best,
>Laguna Beach, CA