January 29, 2010
I am writing to you as an artist and as the coordinator for the Cultural Heritage Artists Project of the Orchard Street Shul, concerning our recent experience of alleged censorship lodged publicly against us by the NCAC, resulting from our decision not to accept a work submitted by Richard Kamler. Charges of censorship are a serious matter, and one assumes that the NCAC, as a coalition of professional and civic organizations, does not make decisions casually and without due process. As a strong supporter of free speech, however, I am unable to reconcile my experience with the NCAC and the judgments against our artists’ collective with what I would like to believe is the usual practice of any body charged with public trust.
We are all, presumably, thoughtful people of conscience, so when decisions regarding the proper ethical course in any given situation are so radically different, this is usually an indication of a complex situation, perhaps even one which poses unexpected and novel questions. This particular case involved difficult conceptual issues that our Artistic Committee grappled with through several meetings and many hours of discussion. Our process of deliberation brought us to new insights, and we were (and remain) prepared to discuss the novel problems posed by new forms of Community Art and Cultural Heritage projects, in which artists create work out of a process involving more than just a singular personal vision.
Ultimately, we reluctantly concluded that Mr. Kamler’s multifaceted installation/performance work fell outside of the guidelines for our project, and our rejection of the work triggered the NCAC to raise the accusation of censorship. On learning of the pending announcement of the NCAC, and prior to the release of your statement, I initiated contact with the NCAC because I understood that one of the functions of the NCAC was to attempt resolution in cases of misunderstandings. I spoke personally with Svetlana Mintcheva, the program officer.
At the time I believed that she and I were having a conceptual and logistical discussion, focused on the inherent contradictions of Mr. Kamler’s proposed installation/performance, consisting of a new work developed specifically to engage the members of the particular community which was the object and subject of our exhibition and project.
Community Art and Cultural Heritage projects do present new challenges. To fully comprehend such conceptual challenges in any given situation, however, one must first begin with basic fact-checking: the call for participation, the guidelines for the project, the dates of review, the nature of the organization, etc. And then, most certainly, the next step is verification of the actual facts, charges and statements in a complaint of censorship.
I was therefore stunned to read the statements in the NCAC press release and blog presenting not only a simplified version of the case surrounding Richard Kamler’s work, with no mention of the inherent contradictions, but a litany of “facts” so inaccurate that none of us involved with assessing Mr. Kamler’s proposal recognized any such statements.
We were most disturbed by the unattributed quotations in the NCAC statements that Mr. Kamler’s work was not accepted because it “might offend somebody” or that the decision was made out of “fear some members of the community may be offended.” Although we recognized that Mr. Kamler’s work might have elements of controversy, no member of our Artistic Committee ever made such general statements concerning lack of respect or offense without a direct link, in the very same sentence, to the community which was the object and subject of our Cultural Heritage Artists Project.
Because there is no attribution and we have no proof of where they might have originated, we must challenge these statements and the NCAC assertion that they reflect our position. They do not, and we do not believe these statements were made by anyone involved with our decision-making. Consequently we raise the entire question of with whom the NCAC spoke to get its “facts” about this disagreement.
It is for this reason that on December 30, 2009 I asked for a copy of the complaint against the Cultural Heritage Artists Project. This was motivated not only by the disputed statements of the NCAC, but by posted comments on the internet containing inaccurate “facts” and perceptions about the project, the organization, and oddly, my own professional accomplishments. I was quite surprised by Ms. Mintcheva’s January 7 reply to my inquiry. Apparently the NCAC can make public accusations of censorship against organizations, but is not obligated to inform the accused of where the complaint originated, or its content. Such secrecy seems to belie the very principles of a free speech organization.
I also found it disturbing that the NCAC, after assuring me that its statement to the press would be released on November 30, changed the date, without notice to me, to ten days earlier, so as to coincide with a release by the artist Richard Kamler. The artist certainly has a right to communicate his position to the press, but the NCAC, by linking its statement to his, gave credibility to additional misperceptions of the situation.
Honest misunderstandings may have formed the basis for what amounts to misrepresentation, but this is precisely why in our free society we cherish the right of open discourse, including the rights of defendants to be given the opportunity to refute supposed facts that inform decisions.
What is perhaps most disturbing is the NCAC’s apparent lack of interest in a process that would insure fact- checking and fact-correction in matters of dispute. It is my hope that this current exchange might lead the NCAC to collaborate with its professional affiliates to develop a policy for due process, as a policy that would be made available to the public. Consistent due process would not only lead to fairer assessments, but would also encourage dialogue around the unusual conceptual challenges posed by situations that are layered in their complexity. This would be a positive step towards enabling us to work together to protect the free exchange of ideas in our ever-changing cultural landscape.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Beth Rubin
Artist and Coordinator
The Cultural Heritage Artists Project of the Orchard Street Shul
The reply to this letter finally came after 6 weeks, after numerous calls to the NCAC requesting a reply. That letter did not answer the question of due process or how the NCAC gets its "facts"
