CAA News Today
Open Letter to the New York City Parks Department
posted by Christopher Howard — March 15, 2005
CAA and the National Coalition Against Censorship have co-signed a letter calling for the New York City Parks Department not to adopt a proposed rule banning controversial art.
Alessandro G. Olivieri, General Counsel
NYC Department of Parks & Recreation
The Arsenal, Central Park
830 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10021Re: Notice of Proposed Rule, Title 58, Ch. 2, �2-16
Dear Mr. Olivieri:
On behalf of the National Coalition Against Censorship, an alliance of fifty national nonprofit organizations united in defense of free expression, and the College Art Association, the largest national association of college and university art and art history professors, we are writing to express concern about the proposed new rules governing New York City’s Public Art Program, specifically the proposed ban on art that demonstrates a lack of proper respect for public morals or conduct or that includes material that is religious, political or sexual in nature. In our view, the proposed rule is constitutionally suspect and unsound as a matter of policy, and will inevitably invite litigation and generate more controversy than it will avoid.
As organizations that follow and address censorship-related complaints from around the country on a daily basis, we can attest to the fact that almost any work of art can be construed as being religious, political or sexual in nature. We have recorded numerous complaints against highly regarded, often classical, works of art, couched in just such language. Under this standard, New York would have been deprived of a large number of the public art works that have contributed to the vibrant culture of the city.
The vague language of the new rule creates the potential for arbitrary decision-making as to what might be political, sexual, or religious. For instance, the Maine Monument in Columbus Circle contains partial nudity that some consider sexual or �inappropriate�; the Freedom of Expression National Monument recently reinstalled in Foley Square can be seen as political in nature; Tom Otterness�s whimsical public sculptures frequently provide socioeconomic commentary. Even if such works are approved, the proposed rule would expose the Department to complaints and to requests to remove art that some view as incompatible with its guidelines.
Besides the practical problems it poses, the vague and overbroad language of the proposed rule raises a host of constitutional concerns. Squares, streets, and parks are arenas which the Supreme Court has called �quintessential public forums� that are �used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.� In such places, where the nation�s commitment to the First Amendment is revealed in practice, the Court has declared that �the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed.� Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators� Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).
The department�s proposed rule extends far beyond what the Supreme Court approved in Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts, 524 U.S. 569 (1998). In that case, the Court upheld the NEA�s consideration of �general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public� as one criterion (among many) in making grants for the arts. Finley�s holding is limited to government funding for the arts, and nowhere does the decision authorize the exclusion of entire categories of expression. Indeed, the Court expressly rejected the notion that government can �leverage its power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective criteria into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints�. [E]ven in the provision of subsidies, the Government may not �ai[m] at the suppression of dangerous ideas� � (Id. At 587).
It is not our position that the City is precluded from establishing guidelines for the public display of art. What we object to is the clear indication in this proposal that the Parks Department intends to limit public art to that which is purely decorative and deemed �appropriate� for young children. Public art is a crucial part of civic discourse; the limits proposed would impoverish the cultural and intellectual vibrancy of New York�s public spaces.
Surely a city that is home to world-class cultural institutions and is a major capital of the art world would be an object of ridicule if this rule were implemented. And rightly so. Consider the kinds of works that would be off limits: Michelangelo�s David and Piet�, Rodin�s The Kiss, works by Diego Rivera and Picasso and by such contemporary artists like Maya Lin, Hans Haacke, William Kentridge, and Barbara Kruger.
We would be happy to work with your office, as we have with other communities around the country, to help craft a policy that would respect constitutional principles, provide clear guidance to artists and city officials, and strive to make the City a place filled with �accessible� and �appropriate� art. Please let us know how we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director, National Coalition Against Censorship
Susan Ball, Executive Director, College Art Association
CAA Needs Your Copyright Anecdotes!
posted by admin — March 15, 2005
The College Art Association is preparing to file formal comments with the U.S. Copyright Office in support of a proposal to alter the current copyright law to address the problem of "orphan works"— works that are still in copyright, but where the copyright holder cannot be found and the rights cleared.
Scholars and publishers working in 20th-century art are familiar with this problem: You want to publish a picture or quote a text; you are ready to clear permissions and pay any necessary fees, but you can’t find the artist or author, or an estate. What do you do?
CAA needs your anecdotes as soon as possible, detailing specific examples where you were unable to use material in your research or publication because you could not find the rights holder, or where you were obliged to publish without obtaining permission, after making every effort to find a rights holder. Your stories will be cited anonymously, without identifying information, and sources will be kept confidential.
Summary of the U.S. Copyright Office Initiative
The U.S. Copyright Office has begun a proceeding to seek information about "orphan works." Orphan works are works (images/photos, letters, books, works of art, and others) that are still formally protected by copyright, but where a potential user—scholar, teacher, artist, publisher or other person or institution—is unable to clear rights because a) there is no copyright information associated with the work; b) the information is inadequate or inaccurate; or c) attempts to contact possible rights holders have proved futile (no one at last known address; publisher out of business, no responses to letters, etc.). Examples of such orphan works might be unsourced/uncredited photographs in older books; foreign works without copyright information; unsigned works of art; and letters written by persons who died within the last seventy years but who left no (findable) heirs. For CAA members, the problems posed by orphan works can be considerable. The Copyright Office has recognized that there is some value in being able to use these works, even if rights cannot be cleared. The Copyright Office issued a Notice seeking information on the "orphan works" problem on January 26, 2005.
The problem of finding the holders of rights in orphan works has been exacerbated by the recent extension of the term of copyright, which has postponed the date on which certain older works would otherwise enter the public domain (usually if the author has died before 1923). However, the problem of orphan works is certainly not confined to older works; information accompanying far newer and even recent works may also be inadequate for a user today to find the rights holder.
What CAA Is Doing
The College Art Association, with many others (including libraries, museums, public-interest groups and associations), plans to file comments in response to this Notice. CAA will ask the Copyright Office to recognize the substantial problems posed for individual users, publishers, museums, libraries and others by their inability to clear rights in orphan works. As part of the proceeding, the Copyright Office will consider proposals for ways to improve this situation. These might include amending the copyright law to permit uses of orphan works without users being unduly fearful that rightful copyright owners might emerge to claim a copyright infringement. This is an opportunity for us to make our voices heard in Washington on how copyright affects us!
Advocacy Update
posted by admin — September 16, 2004
In advance of the November 2004 United States presidential election, CAA would like to provide our members with information on where the Democratic and Republican candidates stand vis-a-vis federal funding for the arts and humanities.
George W. Bush, the Republican Party candidate for president, has not once requested a budget cut to either the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) or the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) during his tenure as president. His first budget, in fiscal year (FY) 2002, called for level funding for both the NEA and NEH. His second budget (FY 2003) called for a modest cost-of-living increase for each of the endowments. His third budget (FY 2004) included a $26 million increase for the NEH’s budget and level funding for the NEA. The increase to the NEH’s budget in FY 2004 funded the We the People initiative, which is designed to encourage and strengthen the teaching, study, and understanding of American history, culture, and ideas. The president’s fourth budget (FY 2005) includes an $18 million increase for the NEA and a $27 million increase for the NEH. The requested increase for the NEA will fund a major new initiative, American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius, which will combine arts presentations with education programming to provide Americans with access to their cultural and artistic legacy. The requested increase for the NEH will continue to fund the We the People initiative.
John F. Kerry, the Democratic Party candidate for president, opposed efforts to reduce funding to the NEA and the NEH in the mid-1990s. The Senate last voted on an amendment to cut funding for the NEA in 2000; as with similar proposals in previous years, Kerry voted against the amendment, which was rejected 27 to 73. According to the Kerry campaign, he has secured millions of dollars in federal funds for arts and cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts while serving in the U.S. Senate, which benefited the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Peabody Essex Museum, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the New Bedford Whaling Museum, Old Sturbridge Village, the John Adams Collection at the Boston Public Library, and the Museum of Science, Boston.
Report from Washington: Humanities Advocacy Day and Arts Advocacy Day
posted by admin — July 16, 2004
CAA cosponsored this year’s Humanities Advocacy Day (March 15-16, 2004), hosted by the National Humanities Alliance, and Arts Advocacy Day (March 29-31, 2004), hosted by Americans for the Arts; both took place in Washington, D.C. These two events brought together a broad cross-section of national cultural organizations, academics, and grassroots arts leaders to promote the arts, arts education, and the humanities to Congress by requesting increased support for federal cultural agencies.
CAA member Phoebe Farris of Purdue University joined CAA Executive Director Susan Ball for Humanities Advocacy Day. They visited the offices of key members of the Senate and the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which deals directly with funding for federal cultural agencies, in addition to meeting other legislators. Farris, Ball, and other humanities advocates from around the country called for Congress to support President George W. Bush’s budget request of $162 million for the NEH in fiscal year (FY) 2005. This funding will support, among other things, the We the People initiative to enhance understanding of American history and culture; education programs to strengthen teaching and learning in schools, colleges, and universities; preservation and access grants to save unique historical, cultural, and intellectual recourses; and challenge grants to strengthen the institutional base of the humanities.
At Arts Advocacy Day, newly elected CAA President Ellen K. Levy joined CAA representatives Marta Teegen and Rebecca Cederholm on Capitol Hill to promote several important arts policy matters. They urged Congress to support a budget of $170 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in FY 2005, including President Bush’s request for $18 million to fund American Masterpieces, a major new initiative at the NEA that will combine arts presentations with education programming to provide Americans with access to their cultural and artistic legacy.
Levy and Cederholm visited the offices of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Representative Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), and Representative Jerrold L. Nadler (D-NY), among several others, to urge them to continue supporting legislation that would allow artists to take a fair-market-value tax deduction for works of art donated to nonprofit institutions. Levy, Cederholm, and other arts advocates also called on Congress to require the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adopt immediate reforms that would ensure timely processing of visa petitions related to nonprofit arts groups. Many nonprofit organizations confront untenable delays and uncertainties while getting approval of visa petitions for international guest artists and scholars.
Teegen visited members of the House Ways and Means Committee to discuss the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003. As reported in the May issue of CAA News, the Senate passed legislation that gives the president the authority to impose restrictions that prevent the import of cultural materials into the U.S. that have been illegally removed from Iraq since August 1990. The House has yet to vote on this important legislation, which is part of a larger, broadly supported tariff bill.
Know Your Rights: What to do if You’re Stopped by the Police
posted by admin — July 15, 2004
The ACLU has provided a advice regarding your rights if stopped or questioned by the police. To access this information please go to the ACLU Website.
Know Your Rights: What to do if You’re Stopped by the Police
posted by admin — July 01, 2004
The ACLU has provided a advice regarding your rights if stopped or questioned by the police. To access this information please go to the ACLU Website.
CAA Responds to FBI Investigation of Steve Kurtz and Members of the Critical Art Ensemble
posted by Christopher Howard — June 15, 2004
Letter to the Editor at the New York Times
To the Editor:
David Staba’s June 7th article highlights the vulnerability of the freedom of artistic expression since the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. Based on Staba’s report, Steve Kurtz’s detention and the grand jury investigation being faced by him and some fellow members of the Critical Art Ensemble appear unwarranted. Such actions adversely affect art and arts-related institutions and chill the right of Americans to question authority.
The College Art Association urges Congress to carefully review the USA Patriot Act. Since some of these provisions are likely to be abused, we strongly support not renewing the USA Patriot Act.
The artistic freedoms established by America have long been sources of national pride and have been emulated by other nations. Revoking the extreme measures incorporated into the USA Patriot Act will insure that the US once more becomes the standard against which we measure artistic freedom of expression throughout the world.
Ellen K. Levy, President
Susan Ball, Executive Director
College Art Association
Click here to read David Staba’s article in the New York Times
CAA has also sent a letter to the US Attorney in Buffalo, NY involved in this case to express our concern that a Joint Terrorism Taskforce (JTTF) has issued grand jury sobpoenas to call members of the Critical Arts Ensemble before a grand jury. Our letter states that we fear that the JTTF’s actions could exert a chilling effect on speech, including artistic freedom of expression.
Join CAA for Advocacy Days in Washington, D.C., in March
posted by admin — March 16, 2004
It’s not too late! You can still sign up to participate in Humanities Advocacy Day and Art Advocacy Day!
Once again, the College Art Association will be a national co-sponsor of Humanities Advocacy Day and Arts Advocacy Day; we strongly encourage our members to participate. Both events help to support increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Participants in both Humanities Advocacy Day and Arts Advocacy Day will receive legislative and policy briefings and advocacy training before making group visits to members of Congress. CAA’s deputy director will be available to schedule all visits, and CAA staff members will accompany participants in Washington on congressional visits.
Humanities Advocacy Day will take place March 15-16, 2004. Held in Washington, D.C., this event provides a unique opportunity for concerned citizens to communicate to Congress the vital importance of federal support for research and education in the humanities.
Arts Advocacy Day will take place March 19-21, 2004. Also held in the nation’s capital, this event brings together a broad cross-section of America’s national cultural organizations to underscore the importance of developing strong public funding for the arts, humanities, and arts education, as well as other programs within the federal government that have an impact on the visual and performing arts.
For information on how to participate in Humanities Advocacy Day and Arts Advocacy please contact Marta Teegen at mteegen@collegeart.org.
Join CAA in Washington for Humanities Advocacy Day and Arts Advocacy Day
posted by admin — March 16, 2004
Once again, CAA will be a national co-sponsor of Humanities Advocacy Day and Arts Advocacy Day; we encourage our members to participate in both events.
Humanities Advocacy Day will take place March 15-16, 2004. Held in Washington, D.C., this event provides a unique opportunity for concerned citizens to communicate to Congress the vital importance of federal support for research and education in the humanities.
Arts Advocacy Day will take place March 29-31, 2004. Also held in the nation’s capital, this event brings together a broad cross-section of America’s national cultural organizations to underscore the importance of developing strong public policies and appropriating increased public funding for the arts, humanities, and arts education, as well as other programs within the federal government that have an impact on the visual and performing arts.
For information on how to participate in Humanities Advocacy Day and Arts Advocacy Day, please contact Marta Teegen at mteegen@collegeart.org.
Support Academic Freedom in Foreign Language and International Studies
posted by admin — March 15, 2004
Background – In October 2003 the House passed by unanimous voice vote HR 3077 to reauthorize Title VI — the section of the Higher Education Act (HEA) dealing with foreign language and international studies. It was referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee which is likely take it up during 2004. The House bill contains several improvements over present legislation, but it also includes an advisory board for Title VI projects. The HR 3077 advisory board would have extraordinary powers to investigate individual faculty members and specific classes on campus that are of concern to many because of its significant potential for politicization.
The Senate HELP Committee staff is currently hoping to write and complete its own bill sometime early in the year. [Note that the Higher Education Act is scheduled to be reauthorized by the end of September 2004.] The Senate HELP Committee may or may not choose to incorporate the House amendments to Title VI in their own bill. However, since HR 3077 passed the House without significant dissent, several majority members are said to be giving the House amendments very serious consideration.
Appropriate actions to take now – Congress will reconvene in mid to late January. We understand that many in our community wish to express their views about the HR 3077 advisory board and other provisions in the House bill. The following are some suggested ways of acting on this:
1. Make calls to Senate HELP Committee staff briefly expressing your concerns to frame the debate. Below is a list of talking points for a conversation. [A contact list for Members and key staff follows.] If you have a Member on the committee, then call that office. If not, then call the committee offices of Senators Gregg and Kennedy, the chair and ranking minority members respectively. You might also contact your own Senators about this issue.
Points for a conversation:
a.) The House passed International Education bill (HR 3077), which is part of the Higher Education Act and would reauthorize Title VI. The Senate has not yet really started to deal with this issue but it is important that you know of concerns about the House bill.
b.) In general, there are many aspects of the bill that are quite good and merit support, not the least of which is that all Title VI programs are extended in tact.
c.) The House bill also creates what it calls an “advisory board” that, in fact, is much more. This board has the power to “investigate” individual faculty members and specific classes on campus and it can issue reports. An advisory board ought to be truly advisory. It shouldn’t have broad, nearly unlimited powers and it should not be free of reasonable supervision by the Department of Education. What’s more, the composition of the board is too narrow to reflect the broad range of needs in international education.
d.) The Senate may choose other, alternative mechanisms to strengthen how Title VI meets its mission. If the Senate chooses the advisory body approach, I urge a properly constructed advisory board: that its powers are well defined and simply advisory; and that it falls under the supervisory authority of the Secretary of Education, as do other advisory boards for comparable programs such as the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.
e.) Please urge the Senator to make sure that any Senate bill addresses these concerns.
2. Write/fax letters to your Member on the Senate HELP Committee, or if your state is not represented on the committee, write to Senators Gregg and Kennedy with a copy to your two Senators. [Note: Because of security procedures, letters take unpredictable amounts of time to reach members of Congress. Therefore faxing letters before or instead of mailing is preferred.]
Points to make:
a.) As the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee prepares to act on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I write to share information about Title VI programs at [University of ____, or other institution] as well as some observations on the House passed bill, HR 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act.
b) Provide evidence of outstanding Title VI activities that contradict recent charges against Title VI, such as:
* alumni who have gone on to serve in high level government or business positions, including the Department of Defense and other
security agencies (identify where and who if appropriate, and/or numbers of students who went on to work for the federal government in the last few years);
* faculty consultancies or other service with government agencies (give a few examples listing agencies and world areas);
* strategic languages taught mainly or only in Title VI institutions;
* exemplary outreach and/or websites for K-12, government, media and business that present a multiplicity of viewpoints;
* other activities that address recent national strategic needs, etc.
c) Assert that Title VI programs do not promote any one intellectual paradigm, ideology, or political agenda, and if appropriate and
possible, indicate examples of intellectual balance.
d.) Make the point that there is much that is good in HR 3077, not the least of which is an extension of all programs in tact.
e.) Express your concerns about the HR 3077 advisory board (points noted above). Indicate that Title VI had an advisory board once before and that a new, properly constructed Title VI advisory board is not objectionable.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Republican Members
Judd Gregg, NH
Chairman
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
393 Senate Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510-2904
TEL 202-224-3324
FAX 202-224-4952
gregg.semate.gov/body/e-mail.htm
Committee Majority Staff: Tracy Locklin 202-224-6770
Bill Frist, TN [Senate Majority Leader and members of the HELP committee]
461 Senate Dirksen Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4205
TEL 202-224-3344
FAX 202-228-1264
Staff: Andrea Becker
Michael B. Enzi, WY
379A Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-5004
TEL 202-224-3424
FAX 202-228-0359
senator@enzi.senate.gov
Staff: Scott Fleming
Lamar Alexander, TN
302 Senate Hart Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4206
TEL 202-224-4944
FAX 202-228-3398
Staff: Kristin Bannerman
Christopher S. Bond, MO
274 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2503
TEL 202-224-5721
FAX 202-224-8149
kit_bond@bond.senate.gov
Staff: Julia Jolly
Mike DeWine, OH
140 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3503
TEL 202-224-2315
FAX 202-224-6519
senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov
Staff: Lindsay Morris
Pat Roberts, KS
109 Senate Hart Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1605
TEL 202-224-4774
FAX 202-224-3514
Staff: Jennifer Swenson
Jeff Sessions, AL
335 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-0104
TEL 202-224-4124
FAX 202-224-3149
senator@sessions.senate.gov
Staff: John Little
John Ensign, NV
364 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2805
TEL 202-224-6244
FAX 202-228-2193
Staff: Lindsay Lovlien
Lindsey O. Graham, SC
290 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4003
TEL 202-224-5972
FAX 202-224-1189
Staff: Jessica Efird
John W. Warner, VA
225 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4601
TEL 202-224-2023
FAX 202-224-6295
senator@warner.senate.gov
Staff: J.K. Robinson
Democrat Members
Edward M. Kennedy, MA
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
317 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2101
TEL 202-224-4543
FAX 202-224-2417
senator@kennedy.senate.gov
Committee Minority Staff: Jane Oates 202-224-0767
Alt: Kathy Kruse 202-224-4543
Christopher J. Dodd, CT
448 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-0702
TEL 202-224-2823
FAX 202-224-1083
Staff: Mary Ellen McGuire
Tom Harkin, IA
731 Senate Hart Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1502
TEL 202-224-3254
FAX 202-224-9369
tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov
Staff: Ellen Murray
Barbara A.Mikulski, MD
709 Senate Hart Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2003
TEL 202-224-4654
FAX 202-224-8858
Staff: Rebecca Litt
Jeff Bingaman, NM
703 Senate Hart Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3102
TEL 202-224-5521
FAX 202-224-2852
senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
Staff: Carmel Martin
Patty Murray, WA
173 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4704
TEL 202-224-2621
FAX 202-224-0238
senator_murray@murray.senate.gov
Staff: Jamie Fosteau
John F. Reed, RI.
728 Senate Hart Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3903
TEL 202-224-4642
FAX 202-224-4680
jack@reed.senate.gov
Staff: Elyse Wasch
John R. Edwards, NC
225 Senate Dirksen Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3306
TEL 202-224-3154
FAX 202-228-1374
Staff: James Kvaal
Hillary Rodham Clinton, NY
476 Senate Russell Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3204
TEL 202-224-4451
FAX 202-228-0282
clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html
Staff: Susie Saveeda
Independent Member
James M. Jeffords, VT
413 Senate Dirksen Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4503
TEL 202-224-5141
FAX 202-228-0776
vermont@jeffords.senate.gov
Staff: Sherry Kaiman