Censorship at the York U Bookstore

This sort of censorship is absolutely ridiculous! I believe that stef lenk and Shannon Gerard's work is not only artistic, but education, and should not be stifled by a few close-minded individuals.

I agree with everything that lenk said except for stating that York U "is known as Toronto more "arty" universities". Please!

York is like that.

They like to censor everything in their power. There was more than on scandal in that past involving York administration attempts to supress free speech using methods as drastic as suspending students for daring to exress their opinion. The previous president Lorna Marsden was such a big joke, and it seems Mamdouh Shoukri is doing no better.

I say that an all out NUDE PROTEST IS IN ORDER - IF NOT NOW THEN IN jUNE WHEN IT'S NICE AND TOASTY.

Wait, the professor is afraid his university-aged son might see a crocheted dink?

Well, if the artists really did want to be accepted by the mainstream of a Toronto university, they wouldn't have put a goddamn piercing in the penis. Yes, artistic freedom/expression blahlahlahlablah but it would be ingenuous to think that the arists wouldn't consider that the piercing (in addition to how afraid people are of penises already... and York's well-known record of facist censorship) would be inflammatory. YET they decided to include it anyway, so I think their outrage is a tad bit misplaced if not naive.

All that aside, wow a crocheted dink! That poor professor's son... I wonder if the boy is allowed to look down at his own at all lest he catch the gay.

hearing stuff like this makes me miss Scandinavia. i continue to be mistified by this society's hang ups about images of sexuality while remaining open to depictions of violence.

Seriously? Piercings would be inflammatory? Have you stepped onto U of T campus lately? It's not metal everywhere, but nobody gives a crap.

Dick piercings? Yeah, I would say that's pretty inflammatory to the general population when you discount hipsters, piercing freaks, sadists, etc.

Although maybe you're right, we all do encounter dick piercings on a daily basis, on our way to work, on our way to school. I know I do everyday!

I just don't get why a penis piercing is any more "offensive" or "inflammatory" than any other ol' regular piercing. Strictly speaking, a penis is a body part, like an earlobe, lip, or eyebrow that might be pierced.

Yeah, I might wince at the sight of a real pierced penis in this kind of context, thinking of the immense pain involved; come to it, I wince at seeing a dozen rings in someone's face as well. But "offended" would hardly describe my sentiment.

I imagine anyone who's genuinely *offended* by a public pierced penis -- in an educational/artistic situation -- is probably offended by public penises in general.

Your last sentence is precisely my point.

Richelle said "taint"!

tee-hee!

Chris-- I'm one of the artists (the one responsible for the pierced penis) and I'm not outraged in the least. I'm not surprised by the censorship at all. I wish I was.

The point of the exhibition (pun intended) isn't to gain acceptance from the mainstream, it is to start a dialogue about fear and I think the censorship strengthens that conversation.

What I feel upset about (not angry upset, just befuddled) is the apparent unwillingness of the bookstore to give us any concrete answers about who was afraid of the work. All we know is that the loudest opposition came from "a professor." They won't give us any names. I would like the opportunity to speak with him about why he took it as far as removing the work without speaking directly to us first.

It is my understanding that he lives on campus with his family and didn't want his son (a small child, not university aged) to see the penis.

My own 6 year old son helps me with the project and understands what it is about. He helps me pick pebbles from our backyard to serve as the lumps inside the crocheted privates.

So I guess I want the chance to talk with this prof and hopefully help him get that I'm not some inflammatory punk-- that my project is personal, educated and considered.

The poster you can see in the right hand side of the photograph-- that huge thing-- is an artist's statement that explains the project. It is almost as big as my cut out figures. It includes my website address, from which folks can email me.

It is next to impossible to miss the context and the intent of the work in light of the artist's statement.

Those in opposition to the work could have emailed me about their concerns, asked questions about the project, or even bitched me out, but I have not heard directly from any of the censors at all.

I am disappointed about that, not angry or surprised or confrontational, just like-- let's talk about it. But I don't know who I'm supposed to talk with since it is all kind of faceless to me.

Thanks for clarifying, Shannon. I guess from reading the article, it seemed like you two were a bit shocked that it would be reacted to so strongly... which doesn't make any sense to me. Did you expect any other kind of reaction from the stuffy Powers-That-Be?

All that aside, I commend you for what you're doing and I think it's ridiculous that they're keeping information from you. I hope it works out.

This article leaves too many important questions unanswered - Is this really censorship? York did not forbid exhibition of the work... as it's now up in the Art Gallery... where staff can discuss it with patrons if they find it problematic.

By what agreement was the work put in the Bookstore window? Did the store reserve the right to refuse exhibitions? Did the artists/or whoever arranged the 'in-store' exhibition discuss the content of the show with the bookstore management first (as much as we might hate the 'power of property', it legally exists)? Did the bookstore exercise due diligence in finding out what would be put in their window?

If, as Shannon suggests, the desire of the artist is to initiate discussion, then perhaps a venue where discussion with informed, knowledgeable 'guides' (e.g., the art gallery) is the best place for the work.

The manager of the York U Bookstore saw the exact same figures with the same crocheted parts (and the same piercing) on display in the art window of Pages Books and Magazines on Queen West, where it was installed for three weeks without incident. We got all kinds of positive feedback after that experience.

He agreed to show the work from October 26th through December 9th with full knowledge of what it looked like and with an apparent support of the ideas behind the project.

That said, he also insisted that the gallery-- a separate entity from the bookstore who have programmed the bookstore space before-- print a large version of their logo in addition to vinyl lettering that indicated the installation was associated with the gallery and not the store. He also had that huge artist statement printed explaining the context of the project and directing people to my and stef's websites for further information.

So-- he knew what the work looked like and what it was about, but there was a definite feeling of jumpiness.That said-- it was apparently not his initiative to remove the work. There was pressure on him from other bodies-- none of whom I have names for, none of whom have contacted me.

One one hand, I am not disappointed to see the work move to the gallery lobby since I have a video component installed there as well. Now the whole project is in one space. The figures are also not behind glass anymore, and as Greg says, the lobby of the gallery is staffed with folks who can engage interested or worried visitors directly.

All in all, I think this removal of the work from a less engaged space-- and into a less commerical venue-- is positive. I think the "censorship" actually serves the work in terms of initiating conversations.

However, the idea of putting it in the bookstore in the first place was to give the work broader exposure, beyond the limitations of the gallery context. At the store, hundreds of folks saw the project who wouldn't go to a gallery. Does the gallery space privilege the "type" of person who isn't going to necessarily have a problem with a pierced dick? Maybe.

This might be a sweeping generalization on my own part, but I think it is at least true that less folks wander through the gallery at York than go to the bookstore on a given day.

So, in many ways, I'm not disappointed to see it moved. I like having the support of and a relationship with the gallery. I am disappointed by the decreased exposure for the work, especially during October (cancer awareness month) but perhaps this kind of article and our discussion here serves a similar interest.

The question of whether or not the issue is a really one of censorship is great.

As part of that consideration-- I understand that the AGYU is only connected with the University in terms of space and their name. The University doesn't have any ability to compromise or influence the programming decisions of the AGYU within their own space. The AGYU receives no funding or support from the University.

I think the gallery is in a positive position to complicate the "values" of the school- and to offer a broader perspective to students and faculty, etc out there.

But there also the obvious challenge of bringing those students, faculty, etc into the space at all. Maybe this situation helps to do that.

In trying to keep the post accessible and short it was unavoidable to leave some questions unanswered.

The York Bookstore asked the AGYU to program projects for their windows. The York Bookstore owner knew what was going to be in the window as he was the one to drive the work from Pages to York. The AGYU's curatorial process was completely transparent. AND the work was up for 7 days before the higher-ups told the Bookstore to tell the AGYU to take it down. (that was a mouthful!)

The AGYU is independent from the University proper, they are not governed by the same body and the gallery operates on councils funds. York University has no control or say about anything that is displayed inside the AGYU.

As I mentioned in my post stef and Shannon are in the dark about the details. However, they didn?t arrange to have their work on display (although they agreed to it), the installation was curated by the AGYU. The AGYU thought that the York Bookstore window display would be a fantastic venue for an installation that was both fun and educational.

Why is it that art should only initiate discussion inside the confines of a gallery? It limits the discussion to those who venture inside.

Richelle-- what is the game where if you say the same thing at the same time, the first person to punch the other in the arm gets a free drink?!

Right on!

I completely agree:
Why is it that art should only initiate discussion inside the confines of a gallery? It limits the discussion to those who venture inside.
This was one of the reasons to programme the work at the University's bookstore, absolutely. Case in point... I was told by the bookstore that while people could choose to go into the gallery to see the work, in the large front window of the bookstore, they were forced to look at it! This is, for them, a reason for the work to come down and 'return' to the gallery.
But this work has something very relevant to say that affects all of us.
There is no niche audience for 'cancer. The work is formally accessible (a game and crochet dinks and boobs, the video which uses the theme song from the TV show "facts of life"), and totally inviting, using a visual and written language that we can relate to in order to empower us. IT should be seen by as many people & demographics as possible.

I am very pleased (now), that this has become a way for us to discuss the work of stef and shannon and a platform for us to speak about all of these issues together, with the artists.

York University is issuing the statement that the bookstore needed to have the work taken down due to other programming commitments. They have said we had been asked to take down the work because of an issue with space, not censorship. They stand behind the statement that YorkU does not censor artistic expression...

AGYU would not speak publicly about its removal if this were the case. In fact, we have programmed work in this space before, and the installation by Toronto artist Ruppert-Dazai remained in place for over 4 months (May-Aug 2007).

I hope that we can keep discussing the work and the reasons why it solicits such a strong response. Here, the work is put back on display and is getting the conversation it deserves.

Emelie Chhangur

Little Monday Morning Update:

The York University Bookstore manager was good enough to call me and stef on Friday to clarify his position.

I am not comfortable telling his whole story on here, but did agree to post and let people know that he has responded to our inquiries.

In his opinion, there has been a huge miscommunication over the agreed upon dates for the exhibition, with the bookstore thinking the work would only be up for a week. He also expressed how much the subject matter of the work affected him personally.

I am very uncomfortable mediating a he-said-she-said situation. I am very uncomfortable leaving this post. This is not my story to tell. But since my complaints above are focussed on the fact that the bookstore has not given us any details, I felt I at least owed it to them to say that the manager has attempted to add his own voice to the conversation.

It should just be made clear (I'm aware this is somewhat repetitive) that we as the artists were asked simply if we would exhibit our work in the bookshop window. This arrangement was with AGYU, and we had/have little to do with the bookstore (or anybody else's) involvement. We are both appreciative that the bookstore has been in contact with us to explain their end of things, as well as their personal support for our work, but any further conflict really has little to nothing to do with us. I feel like it's important to point out that we are on a public forum and speaking directly is important from all angles. By that I mean that queries as to the bookstore's view on the matter, or York University's view on the matter, or spectators' views on the matter, really do need to be addressed to those parties, mostly because we just don't have any other answers, and it's not a good idea to paraphrase what other people have told us.
It's great people are concerned, and really helpful that all parties have weighed in, but really, we just made the work, at the end of the day.

I saw your show at Canzine ... SOOOOO GOOOOODDD!!

what do u hel