November 24 2009 Press Release

The Cultural Heritage Artists Project of the Orchard Street Shul (CHAP No.1) is a vibrant, collective exhibition, combining the creative work of more than 30 artists who produced new works in a wide variety of media and aesthetic style.

The Orchard Street Shul (Congregation Beth Israel) is a historic orthodox synagogue in an area of New Haven that was largely dismantled during urban renewal of the 1960s, and the building is one of the last reminders of the period when this neighborhood was the center of a diverse community of immigrants and migrants. The impetus of this Artists Project was to partner with this small congregation to share the history and legacy of the building and community, in an effort to raise its visibility and help support its preservation.

The Project invited new work responding to the environment, history, or architecture of the Orchard Street Shul, with the intent of celebrating the heritage of this traditional congregation and the richness of the neighborhood. The criteria for participation were specified—the artist must visit the Shul as an important step in developing an approach to the challenge of creating work based on this particular site. In addition, each artist was asked 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.”

The artist participants, who come from diverse cultural backgrounds and geographic regions, were advised of these guidelines for the exhibition at the outset. The Project's Artistic Committee reviewed all proposed works in terms of these guidelines, and ultimately found that Richard Kamler's work fell outside of the guidelines.

Although his initial concept of broader community engagement was encouraged, Mr. Kamler did not complete the research nor preparation for the exhibition in a way that would focus on the Orchard Street Shul as required.  Consequently, when finally presented for review, the project was not accepted by the Artistic Committee.  With adequate time, Mr. Kamler was asked to continue to develop his idea in a form that the Artistic Committee felt would meet the guidelines, but he declined.  As a result, his work was not included as part of the exhibition. The Artistic Committee respects the reputation and career of Mr. Kamler, and regrets not being able to include a work by this artist.

The Artistic Committee is comprised of participating artists who are committed to the concept of working together to create new forms of collaboration and community partnerships. The engagement with the Shul required forging new approaches to finding common ground between artists and this community partner. Only through community-building, understanding and research have we been able to successfully bring this creative expression to the public. The Artistic Committee stands by its commitment to respect the Orchard Street Shul, as agreed in the initial guidelines, and is excited by the high quality of work inspired by this building, community, and its neighborhood.

The works in the exhibition range from the historical and the pictorial, to the abstract, and include provocative works addressing ongoing debates within the local community and across New Haven in general. Some of the works engage community directly as participants while others are more narrative. All of these works, however, fall within the original guidelines that asked artists to respond to a particular community and give voice to specific partners.

Ultimately free expression must include the right of artists and partners to define the guidelines for their exhibitions, and by extension, the right of refusal for works which fail to meet the guidelines.


http://culturalheritageartistsproject.org/PressReleaseNov24.html

What the NCAC Told its Supporters

The NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship), in its newsletter and in its annual report, provided its supporters with a description of Richard Kamler's proposed project that is markedly different from the proposal that was submitted to the Artistic Committee of the Cultural Heritage Artists Project.  
 ___________________________________________________

unedited description from the NCAC Newsletter:

Organizers of the Orchard Street Shul Cultural Heritage Artists Project requested that artist Richard Kamler modify his installation at The John Slade Ely House for Contemporary Art in New Haven.  Organizers expressed concern that an element of the work, interwoven pages from the Koran and the Torah, may offend viewers.
 ___________________________________________________

unedited description from the NCAC Annual Report (image is on the cover)

Cover: Right Around the Corner by Richard Kamler
The work consists of a table with a paper tablecloth of interwoven pages from the Torah and the Qur’an.

 ___________________________________________________

Richard Kamler's proposal-
as submitted and reviewed by the Artistic Committee of the Cultural Heritage Artists Project

- Tearing up the Bible and the Qu'ran and weaving/meshing them back together
- 1" wide strips of sacred text
- 2 Jews and 2 Muslims sitting at the Tablecloth
- a bowl with Hebrew and Arabic voices

- later addition: cover the tablecloth with plexiglass, and provide an electric etching tool for viewers to mark the protected tablecloth with electronic markings

- later addition: bowl with closed Bible and Qu'ran

- later addition: specified that the 2 Jews and 2 Muslims should be community leaders of the Orchard Street Shul and the Masjid Al-Islam

The artist would not consider separating the components.
____________________________________________________

We all knew that the insurance companies would not allow the public to use power tools unsupervised, and so the question of asking the public to etch into the protected work got little discussion.

The mixed voices was a beautiful element, welcomed by all, and therefore barely discussed.

The bowl with the closed Bible and Qur'an was accepted, as long it was respectful.

As for the other components, they proved to be mutually exclusive.

Locating Community Members willing to participate was Richard Kamler's job, as artist, and we read his ambiguous proposal with the understanding that he had begun this process.

We eventually realized that he may not have found Community Members willing to sanction the installation by sitting at the cut sacred texts and engaging the close examination of the texts that Richard Kamler set as the purpose of the Installation/Performance.  This became especially clear when the NCAC, after taking up the the cause,  told CHAP that to avoid "censorship" we could find two Jewish and two Muslim community members willing to sit at a Tablecloth that violated the long-held traditions of their communities.

To help the artist, to get this work shown, we tried to find community members who were willing to do so, but to make this work about the Orchard Street Shul and the Masjid Al-Islam, we needed to find Community members of these communities. We reported back that one Community Leader would do so, but not sitting at a tablecloth which violated the long-held religious practice of the Communities in question.  Others reported that they needed evidence that there was no religious violation, but in fact there no evidence to give them. Others said that it was a clear violation, based on the information that the artist provided.

Working with a November 30 deadline, a final independent meeting actually took place with one community member who said that he would consider participating in an alternative location, but there was no time to communicate this, as the Press Release had already gone to the press (but not to us) 10 days before the agreed upon date.

In October, prior to the intervention of the NCAC, the work was accepted with closed, uncut Bible and Qu'ran, asking the artist to supply the names of the Community Members who had agreed to participate and to clarify that the discussion was about this Community -- which was the focused and purposeful topic of the Exhibition. 

 ___________________________________________________

Compare what the NCAC told its Supporters to what it told the Public in a Press Release:
http://culture-challenge.blogspot.com/p/what-ncac-told-public.html

The NCAC's omission of the proposed participation of Community Leaders from traditionally observant Orthodox Jewish and Muslim religious organizations in communications to supporters is worth noting. Anyone with common knowledge of the religious practices of these Communities could fill in the blanks in this story with that information.

Hegemonic language in Artistic Practice

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.

from a letter to the NCAC on July 19, 2010

As the NCAC refused to discuss our case with us, and as the months went by, it became increasingly evident that they may have read a different description of Richard Kamler's proposal than the one that was reviewed in September 2009.  Finally, in an April 9 2010 telephone call, we agreed that there might be differences in facts, and the NCAC agreed to look at our correspondence.

We decided to begin with the most essential component: the original proposal from the artist, the one submitted for review.  This was sent to the NCAC by email on April 14, with a short note. It was sent again, on July 19, with the message below. It was sent a third time in September, as a simple forward.

We await a reply.
____________________________________________________________

The time has come for the NCAC to remove the inaccurate description from the NCAC website. . .

The discrepancies between the description of what Richard Kamler posted to our "google networking site" and what appears even now on your website are clear.  Anyone reading that proposal would conclude that "actual books were cut", and that "religious taboos were violated." 

The real tragedy here is that the NCAC could have helped to resolve this case.  This case could have served as the impetus to clarify important conceptual issues, to open the discussion of what it really means to work with communities which have laws, traditions and precepts which are different from mainstream society. 

With the understanding that the work in fact could not speak to this Community because of the religious "taboos,"  we thought, until we read the NCAC press release, that we were discussing the following questions:
   

-What obligation do we have to respect cultural groups with laws and traditions different from our own when we enter into a partnership or dialogue with them?

-What are the free speech rights of groups to construct artists' projects with specific parameters? 

The NCAC press release and blog, however, do not address philosophical issues. The wording serves to suppress the real issues by focusing on unverified facts, thereby recontextualizing the entire discussion.

Since December we have been asking how you could have had such incorrect and incomplete information about our exhibition.  Clearly there were gaps in communication.  It is quite possible that your source was someone who had information that was not provided to us. It is quite possible that this source assumed that the artist gave us this information. It is also quite possible that your source misunderstood how the artist came to us, or who we were, or what the exhibition was about.  Furthermore, it is possible that your source may have been misinformed about our motives and experience, including the fact that we were all artist-participants and all unpaid.

For more information, you might refer to our website. 

Our corrections to the NCAC blog are here:
Notes on the NCAC Press Release,
http://orchardstreetshul-artistsproject.org/NCAC-blog_facts.pdf
point by point disrepencies, in pdf format