FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Announcement about Jake Beckman, AKAJake, AKA Jake Phoenix Arizona fine artist and abstract acrylic painter of cactus flowers, landscapes, seascapes, starscapes, folks and critters. "I am infamous, the Renaissance Center in downtown Phoenix, AZ has censored the painting called Waiting."
Renaissance Censors Art
I am infamous
November 3, 2003
Howdy all - Pass this along, as I guess I am now infamous.
Renaissance has asked that my painting called "Waiting" featuring a nude done along classical lines, with strategically placed hair and cat, be removed from their window at Renaissance One; the painting also contains two other 'completely nude' dogs and one other 'completely nude' cat, all set against a 'steamy' starscape.
Being thrown out of a building named 'Renaissance' provides additional irony. If I do not remove "Waiting," Renaissance said they will remove it; given its size, I am fearful they might damage it therefore, I have made arrangements for it to be retrieved today. My painting is not the first nude to show there, but I am the first person to get tossed out, and I am not sure why. I find the censorship remarkable given the Renaissance Center is home to a 10-foot tall anatomically correct, nude male bronze prominently on street display at the Southeast corner of the building. There is no attempt to cover up his maleness and yet my painting, which shows nothing, is somehow offensive. Is it because the nude in waiting represents woman as woman, instead of woman as pneumatic sex object? I can not say. No reason other than "there had been complaints" was given.
Although one may think that art is judged on purely aesthetic levels, many pieces that have shown there, pose questions or provoke thought. Why would our decision makers working in the Renaissance Building be afraid of thought? Last month the display contained a show titled "Drugs and Money". This display was not found to be objectionable and was not removed. Should one assume that the workers within the Renaissance Building as well as the management support the concept of drug money and the violence that occurs with it, but do not support the contemplation of faithfulness in marriage?
I am not particularly political, therefore I won't delve into the broader issues of who decides what is art, and whether or not real estate interests, which are profiting from art diversity in downtown Phoenix, should be making statements that imply they will only support the arts on their own terms. I will mention there are others, who are deeply offended and who are raising these issues. Renaissance had no policy with regard to artwork before this point; but now the management wants to preview the art that goes in their window; for all future artists showing there, my apologies. As for my work, I certainly did not intend to create a controversy...there is nothing in that painting that is titillating except what the viewer brings to it. If you wish to view (and perhaps purchase) this 'controversial' painting you can see it at the Paper Heart (5th AVE & Van Buren in Phoenix) at the "White Lace, Promises and Big Black Dogs" show in December 2003. - Jake
Artist's note: At the time of this censorship I was the President of artlink, Inc. Being presidential can place one in difficult situations. I could not sit on the sidelines and say nothing as there was an element in my constituency, which I had to represent. However, I could not express outrage either, as that would have been potentially damaging to artlink, Inc.'s relationship with several downtown Phoenix business and government entities. It was a fine balancing act.
On the upside I learned a tremendous amount during my tenure as the President of the nonprofit arts facilitation organization known as artlink, Inc. Ultimately I and the other artist who was censored got written up in local newspapers several times over this tempest in a teapot.
As for opinions about "Waiting" in the aftermath of being tossed out of the Renaissance Center, most viewers were incredulous, saying "They objected to that painting!!?"
Others thought it had to do with the placement of Cindy Lou Who, my kitten, in my lap. I can imagine any number of objects I could have placed there intimating sexual innuendo. Merely placing an object in conjunction with a nude female is enough to get some people to interpret nearly anything as a visual double entendre. My nude had more coverage than many bikini clad models I see in public ads; indeed I incorporated the placement of the hair and kitten in the lap to provide such coverage by design. It is kind of interesting to discover it had nearly the opposite effect of my intent. For the record, I placed all of my current pets in the painting: the kitten in my lap is Cindy Lou Who, her brother, Chuy, is the kitty playing with a ball (gasp! such filth!) and my big black dogs, Cinnamon and Smiley, also completely naked, accompany me in the painting. Thank goodness I don't own a snake.
A third take on what may have set the censors off was that my nude was not a pneumatic blond, caricature female, or woman as sex object cartoon, but instead a real care-worn figure, implying some people find the concept of a plump matron being worthy of a nude portrait appalling. In the end I don't know what the censors objected to as no reason ever was given, beyond "there have been complaints."