Sunday, July 7, 2013

Central Adirondack Art Show revisited

SOoo... the piece I entered into this show is entitled "Two Birds, with One Stoned". I made it on April 20, 2013 (i.e., 4/20). Some of you will understand the play on words in the title. I often try to make my titles as creative as I can and consider the titles to be part of the work. The paperwork for this show included triplicate forms for which I wrote my name, address and the title of the artwork. I was careful to make it very clear that the title was "Two Birds, with One Stoned". When I went to the opening reception, the title was not correct both in the program (where it was listed in a general list and in the "winners" list) and was not correct on the wall tag. Did the organizers simply make a mistake which is somewhat understandable (assuming the title was the standard cliche)? Or was there some censorship of the title? A friend of mine who is familiar with the folks at View told me that it was DEFINITELY censorship of a suggestive title. That would really be too bad if it is the case. For god sakes, we need to lighten-up a little as a society, I think. It's reminiscent of the last time I heard Tom Petty's song with the lyrics "Let's get to the point; and roll another joint". The "joint" was bleeped out on the radio. WTF!? Is that really "dangerous" enough to censor? BTW, another show that I am currently a part of has once again, spelled my name with a "ph" instead of a "v"... even though EVERY e-mail and form I have sent has my named spelled with a "v". Argh!


  1. You have every right to say aaargh. Of all the groups in this world one would think that art-related people would be the least censorial. Those who consistently misspell your name do not deserve your attention at all.

  2. If they didn't like the whole package, including the title (a title is not to be dismissed or open for others to change!), they just shouldn't have accepted your piece. Minimally, they could have requested YOU to change the title. It would be interesting to confront the jurors with this and get it straight from the horse's, mouth. Terrible.

  3. Just to be clear, in this case, the jurors in this case were only involved with the awards. But I appreciate your support Howard.