A Spork in the Drawer

Who Does Berlusconi Think He Is?

John Ashcroft?

Over the table at which Berlusconi holds press conferences in Palazzo Chigi, Italy's equivalent of No 10 Downing Street, hangs a huge copy of a painting by the 18th-century Venetian master Giovanni Battista Tiepolo. It was selected by Berlusconi himself.

Slap in the middle of the painting is a neat, round female breast. During press conferences, as a commentator writing for the daily La Stampa noted, the breast floats above the prime minister's head "like a halo". This, it was felt, was too much for the sensibilities of a nation that - long before Berlusconi came along - had been feasting its eyes on half-naked Magdalenes and Minervas, not to mention the blatantly erotic statuary of Antonio Canova. Tiepolo's breast, with attendant nipple, had to go.

Photos taken of the most recent press conference at Palazzo Chigi show the central figure has been retouched. An extra fold of clothing has appeared that covers the offending breast.

The prime minister's office is, of course, blaming it on overzealous underlings.

Berlusconi and Romanian president Traian Basescu with the offending painting:



(Alessandra Tarantino/AP)


Uncensored Tiepolo (sorry for the lousy quality):

I wonder how Berlusconi feels about calico cats.

.

Down The Memory Hole

Yesterday CNN reported that the White House had accidentally sent out a release featuring the Reuters story about Iraqi PM Nuri-al Maliki's endorsement of Obama's 16-month troop pullout plan. The CNN story began:

al-Maliki praised Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan in a newspaper report Saturday. CRAWFORD, TX (CNN) – An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama'

I had to pull that quote from my feedreader's cache because today:

UPDATE: CNN has reposted the story elsewhere.

Good job, Liberal Media!

.

Onward And Upward With The Arts!

Unless you're a high school student. For 36 years the Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot has held an art contest called "Student Gallery" which is open to juniors and seniors attending local high schools. It worked well until this year when two students entered works that featured - gasp! - nudity. Nancy "Beth" Reid was initially awarded first place which included a $1,000 prize.

Beth said her self-portrait was inspired by books such as Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” She wanted to reflect the idea that humans have a darker, animal side as well as a social facade.

Because the dark side is bestial, she said she felt she should portray herself in the nude. In the rendering, she is crouching, with most of her private parts hidden, except for a small portion of her backside. “I’m comparing that inner darkness to what an animal feels. They don’t have religion or philosophy or art, or anything that separates humans from animals, from running around in packs naked.”

But here's the thing: Beth's portrait was included in the show anyway. It was the award that was taken away. Says one of the funders of the award:

Says one of the funders of the award:

“I could not believe it,” Trish Pfeifer said. “I thought it was so unethical of The Pilot to take away this award from this child. It brings up issues of censorship and freedom of speech. It was so unethical to hire a judge and not honor that judge’s decision.

“The thing I was so amazed at was the fact that they still included the work but took away the award. If it was so offensive for people to see, why did it stay in the show?”

Beth:

“I think it seems ludicrous,” she said. “And, of course, there’s naked men on the front porch,” referring to a monumental statue of torch bearers at the museum’s main entrance.

So a double (triple?) standard is at work here.

The publisher of the Virginian-Pilot, Bruce Bradley, defends his decision thusly:

“While it’s true we don’t specifically address this in the rules and regulations, the concern I had was to have a 17-year-old girl do a self-portrait of herself in the nude,” Bradley said. “I thought that was inappropriate for the contest.

“This is why we did not name it the first-place winner.”

Worse still:

Bradley told the newspaper’s editor not to publish a photograph of that work, for the same reasons. “I feel it’s an inappropriate picture to run in The Virginian-Pilot.”

Another accepted piece, by Jasmine Childs, was initially accepted then thrown out. Here's the offending artwork:

Such pornography!

But there's some good news: Members of the community are working to raise the $1,000 for Beth Reid and both students have been accepted into Virginia Commonwealth University where they plan to study art.

Perhaps someday publisher Bradley and so many other Americans will grow the hell up.

(As a side note: The commenters on the story are overwhemingly critical of the newspaper's decision but this one strikes me as all to typical of too many:

WORKS OF ART? Submitted by davidm22987 on Fri, 04/04/2008 at 7:38 pm.

This ain't works of art, this is nothing more than SEX! Everybody knows sex sells. A nude painting of a minor? Thats jail offense! Thank you VP for having some moral standards even if the art world don't.

Imagine if davidm22987 ever saw his namesake by Michelangelo. Instant aneurysm!)

[Via Romanesko.]

.

Crisis Averted

In one of the sillier art disputes of late officials of the London Underground decided to ban the display of a poster promoting an exhibition of Lucas Cranach the Elder at the Royal Academy of Arts in London. The offense? The poster, depicted the 16th-century Cranach's Venus, was judged improper because "it breached advertising guidelines on sex and nudity." A spokesperson for the Royal Academy commented dryly:

"We don't have a version B where she's got her clothes on. We're just hoping they change their minds and accept her."

Now comes news that after much laughing at Tube officials they have indeed changed their minds and will allow the poster to be displayed saying, "On reflection, given its context, the Cranach exhibition poster should not have been rejected and we have now approved the ad to be carried on the tube."

Final score: 16th-century German painters - 1, British Comstocks - 0.

Click the thumb to see Venus in all her full-frontal glory.

.

Just Go Away, FCC

Rather than serve as simply a regulator of the public airwaves the Federal Communications Commission these days serves to help large corporations become larger. (This was true under the Clinton Regime as well.) But aside from that it seems the FCC's only other purpose is to engage in Comstockery. So it comes a no surprise to see this:

The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue.

[...]

ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co. The fines were issued against 52 stations either owned by or affiliated with the network.

FCC's definition of indecent content requires that the broadcast "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities" in a "patently offensive way" and is aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs — specifically an adult woman's buttocks."

In the FCC's reasoning concentrating media power into fewer and fewer hands is a good thing. A bare ass is the death of the Republic.

That's some good thinking.

Then there's this:

The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."

That Kevin Martin et al think that the "buttocks" are a sexual organ tells me a great deal.

More than I want to know, frankly.

.

Not So Subtle

By way of BooMan comes this anecdote about Katie Couric (who I dislike - but that's another issue) and the none too subtle ways that influence how news is reported:

She had firsthand experience with what she considered the chilling effect on the media. Two months before the 2004 election, when she was still at NBC's "Today" show, Couric had asked Condoleezza Rice whether she agreed with Vice President Cheney's declaration that the country would be at greater risk for terrorist attacks if John Kerry won the White House. Rice sidestepped the question, saying that any president had to fight aggressively against terrorism.

Couric interrupted and asked the question again. Would a Kerry victory put America at greater risk? Rice ducked again, saying that the issue should not be personalized.

Soon afterward, Couric got an e-mail from Robert Wright, the NBC president. He was forwarding a note from an Atlanta woman who complained that Couric had been too confrontational with Rice.

It goes on to say that when Couric would run into Jack Welch - then head of GE, owner of NBC - he would comment that they didn't see eye-to-eye politically.

It's difficult to excerpt this one without running into the wrath of the Gods of Copyright so I encourage you to click the link and read the whole thing (it's only 7 paragraphs).

But the point here, really, is that we are bombarded with stories and studies purporting to show that news reporters are a bunch of left-wing zealots. Nobody seems to ask the same questions about the editors and, more importantly, the publishers and owners of news organizations.

Couric's current employer, CBS, is headed by Sumner Redstone (who also founded and heads Viacom). In 2004, Redstone, who describes himself as a "liberal Democrat," endorsed Bush for president saying:

"I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Even "family businesses" like the New York Times and the Washington Post have a great many irons in the proverbial fire, many of them requiring approval by various federal agencies so it behooves them to not get on the wrong side of the government. That, combined with the ingrained conservatism of most businessmen/women surely exerts a downward pressure. The producers and editors and reporters are well aware just who signs their paychecks.

Would that less attention be paid to who reporters vote for and more to who publishers and owners vote for and contribute to.

.

I'm Sure Glad The War Is Over

Otherwise Congress wouldn't have the time for this:

Lawmakers, music industry executives and rappers disagreed Tuesday over who was to blame for sexist and degrading language in hip hop music but united in opposing government censorship as a solution.

And now for a bit of cognitive dissonance:

[Philippe Dauman, president & CEO of Viacom Inc.] said his company takes an active role in editing obscenities out of music videos and excising gang symbols or portrayals of violence, but "we also believe that it is not our role to censor the creative expression of artists."

Parse that one.

.

Phillistines II

They get letters edition:

Nudity out of place at TRAF

The Pittsburgh Coalition Against Pornography applauds the Three Rivers Arts Festival and PPG Place for unplugging a video artwork by Carolina Garcia with nudity in it. Mary Thomas' story, (Pulling of nude artwork one signal of change at festival, June 12), seemed to decry this courtesy by the Festival as a move towards censorship.

However, this controversy is not unlike the Supreme Court's decision regarding George Carlin's "seven dirty words" radio broadcast when they observed, "a nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place -- like a pig in the parlor, instead of the barnyard." There is certainly a place for nudity in art, but not in the public thoroughfare where it may assault the unwilling or attract minors.

By the way, nudity in art that is not in the confines of a controlled exhibit is illegal under Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Statutes. So maybe the Three Rivers Arts Festival and PPG Place just decided to follow the law this year. Please keep it up and find an appropriate place next year for art like Ms. Garcia's video.

Dorn Checkley
Director, Pittsburgh Coalition Against Pornography

Guaranteed to give Checkley an aneurysm:

Michelangelo, David, 1504

.

Philistines

Some people need to grow up:

"The need to wash the self with milk and honey," a video installation by Carolina Loyola-Garcia that shows the nude artist bathing with milk and honey in a forest, was removed over the weekend from the "Best of Pittsburgh 2007" exhibition in PPG Place because the corporation felt it inappropriate for its building.

Festival executive director Elizabeth Reiss took the action -- the video display technically hasn't been moved; it's just been covered after being unplugged by the company -- because PPG is within its "rights as a corporate partner to ask us to abide by guidelines they have." She said she can't comment upon the content of the work because she hadn't seen it before it was unplugged by PPG but said she was told that it included full frontal female nudity.

Has John Ashcroft been in Pittsburgh lately?

.

Define "Orwellian"

It think I may have covered this before but it bears repeating. In the UK:

The late Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that the meaning of a word was derived from the way it is used in language. Not according to McDonald's. The fast-food giant is currently lobbying dictionary publishers to change the meaning of the word McJob — or remove it altogether — on the grounds that it denigrates the company's employees.

[...]

In 2001, the term finally entered the Oxford English Dictionary, which defined it as "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, especially one created by the expansion of the service sector." And it has remained there ever since. But not for much longer if McDonald's gets its way.

[...]

The company is leading a "word battle" on behalf of the wider service sector. The object, according to David Fairhurst, a senior vice-president of McDonald's, is to change the definition of McJob to "reflect a job that is stimulating, rewarding ... and offers skills that last a lifetime."

Let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Fairhurst's definition is correct (please, stop laughing). It's still irrelevant. The point of a dictionary is define words as they're used not as how some corporation want them to be used.

This simple bit of logic seems to be escaping more than a few people:

This time, however, could be different — not least because of the size of McDonald's war chest and its lobbying power. The campaign has already the garnered the support of heavyweight business figures such as Chambers of Commerce Director General David Frost. More impressively, Conservative party Member of Parliament Clive Betts last week introduced a motion into Britain's parliament condemning the pejorative use of McJob. Betts believes the OED should redefine the term: "It would be helpful if the dictionary took the lead on this. It's not a proper and true reflection of the service industry today."

Again, all of these justifications are beside the point.

Or are they?

The point, really, is to control the language in order the increase the profits of a large corporation. Not that McDonald's, Chambers of Commerce, or politicians will admit this.

Distressingly, the pressure may be working:

At first the OED, Britain's dictionary of record, explained that it merely recorded words according to their popular usage. A statement from a company official said it was not their role to redefine meanings assigned those words according to the preferences of interest groups.

Representatives of McDonald's responded by arguing that the OED's definition was "outdated" and "insulting."

So, the OED is turning to the public, inviting people to submit opinions on the definition of a McJob: "We're analysing the situation at the moment and evidence for the usage of the word," OED representative John Simpson told TIME. "It's a continuing process."

Sounds like the OED is considering caving.

As someone who actually owns all twenty volumes (!) of the Unabridged OED II I find this whole thing particularly disturbing.

No more caving-in to power.

.

Sanity

The FCC loses one:

A federal appeals court tossed out an indecency ruling against Rupert Murdoch's Fox television network yesterday and broadly questioned whether the Federal Communications Commission has the right to police the airwaves for offensive language.

In a 2 to 1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York ruled that the FCC went too far in issuing a 2006 decision against Fox Broadcasting for separate incidents in 2002 and 2003 after singer Cher and celebrity Nicole Richie each uttered an expletive on live television.

[...]

The court yesterday sided with Fox, which is owned by Murdoch's News Corp., writing that the FCC's "new policy sanctioning 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious."

During a December 2002 Billboard Music Awards show on Fox, Cher dismissed her critics, saying, "[f-word] 'em." During the following December's Billboard show on Fox, Richie said: "Have you ever tried to get cow [excrement] out of a Prada purse? It's not so [f-word] simple."

NYT:

Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.

“We find that the F.C.C.’s new policy regarding ‘fleeting expletives’ fails to provide a reasoned analysis justifying its departure from the agency’s established practice,” said the panel.

Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had no comment about the ruling.

What's good enough for George and Dick should be good enough for everyone.

And I noticed the irony that none of the news stories I've so far read on this issue have actually used the forbidden expressions.

Fucking cowards.

.

Censorship

Plame:

An ex-spy whose unmasking led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide vowed on Saturday to press on with lawsuits against Cheney and the CIA for the sake of freedom of speech.

[...]

Plame and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York on Thursday against top CIA officials for blocking publication of her memoir on national security grounds.

Everything indicates that Plame was very serious about her job so I very much doubt that she's spilling national security secrets in her book.

This is the CIA (and the Administration?) trying to save themselves from embarrassment.

.

Censorship Averted

Meanwhile, in South Dakota:

Heather Morijah will get to keep her “MPEACHW” license plates after all.

State officials reversed their position on Monday, rescinding a recall notice of Morijah’s personalized license plates, which encourage the impeachment of President Bush. The state Division of Motor Vehicles sent Morijah a letter last month saying the plates were being recalled because someone had complained about the message.

DMV director Deb Hillmer told the Journal in an interview Thursday that if Morijah didn’t turn in the plates voluntarily, the state might send law officers to confiscate them.

[...]

“I’m glad the state did the right thing. And I feel truly that they did the right thing,” Morijah said. “This whole experience has been one of the most significant of my entire life. And I will never forget it as long as I live.”

If states can create "Choose Life" license plates then they damn well have to permit everyone else to express their political and social views on their vanity plates.



(Photo by Steve McEnroe)
Morijah makes her statement.

.

Banned In China

I don't know whether to be proud or appalled.

.