Inventing new artistic formats to challenge the dominant cultural paradigms is fraught with unforeseen hidden obstacles. Although others have gone before us, studying the trials of their trail-blazing work only confirms that the route to open culture is not an easy one.
In keeping with the intention of celebrating heritage and cultural diversity, we ask that all work produced for this project maintain respect for the synagogue as the spiritual home of an ongoing segment of New Haven's Jewish Community, and as the legacy of past generations.
One of the more interesting texts on this subject comes from the dance world, with Carol Marie Webster's sharing of her own experiences, learning, and doubts in "The Rubber Meets the Road: Community Arts Activism and Cultural Hegemony." Dance is collaborative art, and therefore the assumed cultural commonalities and differences may emerge differently, and the power structure may be clearer, as a real "director" is animating the collaboration. We have much to learn from these collaborations, which are potentially sincere sharing among equals. In this essay Webster asks the right questions:
. . . Hegemonic language is communication that expressly elevates one culture or cultural ideology, to the detriment and expected subordination of another. Attentive to Chukwudi Anthony Njoku’s assertion that identifies language as the “very root” of a community’s spiritual communion, I recognize language as the glue for the binding and affirmation of community.[6] Language in this sense functions as an activity and a space: It is a central space where individuals perform out their belongingness and community identity.
In community art practice, might we not think of the very rituals, of the customs, of a people/s as a form of language? I am thinking of Jonathan Culler's interpretation of Ferdinand de Saussure's semiotics, using the example of custom as language: that when a man wears a grey suit he is merely wearing a suit, but when he wears a bright yellow one he is making a statement. From outside our culture, this makes no sense, but inside the cultural language of our time, we get it. (p 111 Ferdinand de Saussure, by Jonathan D. Culler - if google books is accurate)
The language of this Community, the Orchard Street Shul, and the presumed language of its neighbor, the Masjid, is the language of ritual custom. What is the "sign" given to a specific Community - and to its specific neighbor -- when their (shared) basic laws and customs are violated? Is this not a sign of disrespect?
______________________________________________
Note: The by-laws of the Orchard Street Shul specify "Orthodox", and the name "Shul" is itself a key indicator of tradition. That there are many Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and others who within their own traditions have modified or abandoned traditional ritual customs is irrelevant, even if that includes some members of the specified communities, and the majority of the artist-participants in CHAP.
That the artist in this case claims that he had legal "work-arounds" is of course of interest - but relevant only if he communicated this to the Artistic Committee of CHAP, to the communities in question, and was prepared to make this documentation a part of the proposed installation. If the artist did have evidence of "work-arounds", true arbitration by the NCAC, including verifying that all parties were discussing the same description of the work and the same information, might have been helpful here.
