‘Any museum or public institution has a responsibility to protect its visitors; like it or not, safety trumps artistic expression. The situation on Saturday was totally out of control. As Michael Bilsborough put it on his SVA blog:

“Even if Klaus issued the cut-off directive, it might be unfair to wolf-cry censorship. Censorship entails a greater degree of deliberation for the purpose of personal or political gain. If an aggressive performer is bleeding, flinging urine, and staggering around, maybe a prudent adult should hit the Panic Button. Intervening into the escalating altercation might have prevented a catfight or worse.” (post is here: http://www.schoolofvisualarts.edu/ce/blog/?p=1201, and offers a pretty thorough round up of events)

Ultimately, in a public institution, the safety of visitors, performers, staff, etc. necessarily trumps artistic expression. It’s easy for Ann to now claim that she was just in character, that she had no intention of getting in a violent altercation, etc., but as soon as the fight between Georgia and Ann began, the safety of everyone around (including the performers themselves) has to be taken into consideration — and, at the time, it seemed pretty volatile to me.

I also think that Morty’s excuse that PS1 should have known what they were getting into by allowing Ann to perform is not entirely fair. Being invited to perform, to share your work with an audience, is a privilege. There is an implicit agreement between the performer and the museum/gallery/whatever that they will mutually respect one another. When a museum gives a performer an audience, they’re placing trust in that performer to act responsibly — this goes beyond a matter of taste. Flinging around urine, stripping naked, insulting a fellow artist (perhaps the greatest breach of this trust of all…), and provoking a fight all show Young’s lack of respect for PS1, her audience, and, for that matter, the Brooklyn is Burning curators who invited her and presumably vouched for her.

I also think it’s insulting for Young and some of her supporters to say that the only reason people react negatively to her work is because she’s an aggressive female. I think it’s safe to say that if a male performer had acted in the same way, the performance would have also been shut down. Moreover, had PS1 allowed a male performer to stand up and insult a female artist publicly (let alone provoke or engage in a confrontation with her) without comment, I’m sure there would have been an outcry. I wasn’t uncomfortable with and offended by Ann’s performance because there was a display of female aggression, but because there was a total lack of respect for everyone else in the room, Georgia especially.
a. // 02 Mar 2010, 8:31 pm ‘

‘Any museum or public institution has a responsibility to protect its visitors; like it or not, safety trumps artistic expression. The situation on Saturday was totally out of control. As Michael Bilsborough put it on his SVA blog:

“Even if Klaus issued the cut-off directive, it might be unfair to wolf-cry censorship. Censorship entails a greater degree of deliberation for the purpose of personal or political gain. If an aggressive performer is bleeding, flinging urine, and staggering around, maybe a prudent adult should hit the Panic Button. Intervening into the escalating altercation might have prevented a catfight or worse.” (post is here: http://www.schoolofvisualarts.edu/ce/blog/?p=1201, and offers a pretty thorough round up of events)

Ultimately, in a public institution, the safety of visitors, performers, staff, etc. necessarily trumps artistic expression. It’s easy for Ann to now claim that she was just in character, that she had no intention of getting in a violent altercation, etc., but as soon as the fight between Georgia and Ann began, the safety of everyone around (including the performers themselves) has to be taken into consideration — and, at the time, it seemed pretty volatile to me.

I also think that Morty’s excuse that PS1 should have known what they were getting into by allowing Ann to perform is not entirely fair. Being invited to perform, to share your work with an audience, is a privilege. There is an implicit agreement between the performer and the museum/gallery/whatever that they will mutually respect one another. When a museum gives a performer an audience, they’re placing trust in that performer to act responsibly — this goes beyond a matter of taste. Flinging around urine, stripping naked, insulting a fellow artist (perhaps the greatest breach of this trust of all…), and provoking a fight all show Young’s lack of respect for PS1, her audience, and, for that matter, the Brooklyn is Burning curators who invited her and presumably vouched for her.

I also think it’s insulting for Young and some of her supporters to say that the only reason people react negatively to her work is because she’s an aggressive female. I think it’s safe to say that if a male performer had acted in the same way, the performance would have also been shut down. Moreover, had PS1 allowed a male performer to stand up and insult a female artist publicly (let alone provoke or engage in a confrontation with her) without comment, I’m sure there would have been an outcry. I wasn’t uncomfortable with and offended by Ann’s performance because there was a display of female aggression, but because there was a total lack of respect for everyone else in the room, Georgia especially.
a. // 02 Mar 2010, 8:31 pm ‘

Ann Liv Young’s disrespectful art school performance was wrongly directed towards a fellow artist. I don’t think her performance was shut down because of the nature of her work in general, but because it was a direct attack on Georgia: not a general ‘fuck you’ but a really inappropriately specific “fuck you georgia.”

Ann Liv Young’s disrespectful art school performance was wrongly directed towards a fellow artist. I don’t think her performance was shut down because of the nature of her work in general, but because it was a direct attack on Georgia: not a general ‘fuck you’ but a really inappropriately specific “fuck you georgia.”

” Censorship entails a greater degree of deliberation for the purpose of personal or political gain. If an aggressive performer is bleeding, flinging urine, and staggering around, maybe a prudent adult should hit the Panic Button. Intervening into the escalating altercation might have prevented a catfight or worse. Or maybe PS1 thought Ann Liv Young’s performance spilled over into uncooth hysteria, and censorship doesn’t apply, since antics aren’t really content. Maybe Admiral Klaus ruled that Ann had jumped the shark when the mad clam bared its teeth”

http://www.schoolofvisualarts.edu/ce/blog/?p=1201

It kind of sums the whole situation up well. And I think the curators response above is well put. And sometimes artists don’t talk about their pieces before hand, sometimes they just do what they want for attention. Which obviously seems the case here. I mean if this was really a “performance” and not an attack, why didn’t she talk to Georgia before hand to let her know she was going to attack her, that would have been an easy solution…