Bush monkey portrait sparks protests

[dr. what]

I can't believe it took somebody 4 years to come up with this

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A portrait of President George W. Bush (news - web sites) using monkeys to form his image has led to the closure of a New York art exhibition over the weekend and anguished protests over freedom of expression.

"Bush Monkeys," a small acrylic on canvas by Chris Savido, created the stir at the Chelsea Market public space, leading the market's managers to close down the 60-piece show that was scheduled to stay up for the next month.

The show featured art from the upcoming issue of Animal Magazine, a quarterly publication featuring emerging artists.

"We had tons of people, like more than 2,000 people show up for the opening on Thursday night," said show organizer Bucky Turco. "Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."

Turco took the show down on Saturday and moved the art work to his small downtown Animal Gallery. Calls to the management of Chelsea Market for comment were not returned.

From afar, the painting offers a likeness of Bush, but when you get closer you see the image is made up of chimpanzees or monkeys swimming in a marsh.

Savido, 23, said he was surprised by the strong reaction to his painting, listed in the catalogue at $3,500 (1,820 pounds).

"It seems like people got a kick out of it," Savido said. "When they really see it, they almost do a double-take. I like to get a reaction from people."

The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-bred artist said he was happy for all the attention paid to his work but said the decision to shutter the exhibit was "a blatant act of censorship."

Savido plans to auction the painting and donate proceeds to an organization dedicated to freedom of expression.

"This is much deeper than art. This is fundamental American rights, freedom of speech," Savido said. "To see that something like this can happen, especially in a place like New York City is mind boggling and scary."

[Pcm979]

Grr. Is noone allowed to critque the Great Leader?

[SirNitram]

Disgusting. 'Don't talk bad about Bush! Don't imply anything bad about Bush!'

[Gandalf]

I guess these guys didn't see that other Bush/Chimp expressions picture that was doing the rounds a while back?

[Joe]

Wow, what a stunningly original painting. Perhaps Mr. Savido will continue to grace us with more displays of these cultural phenomena at the height of their popularity in his future works. It's just so fresh and unlike anything we've ever seen before!

[Pcm979]

The point isn't about the quality or originality of his works, it's that it is being supressed.

[Master of Ossus]

I thought they were quietly taking his portraits down for no apparent reason... oh, wait, that's the wrong guy. My bad.

[Alex Moon]

Grr. Is noone allowed to critque the Great Leader?

Of course they are. That doesn't mean that they have to be provided with a space. The manager obviously didn't like it and didn't want it in that exhibit, and was well within his rights to have it taken down. Furthermore, precisely what kind of constructive criticism was the artist trying to make exactly. Because from what I can tell, his work is nothing more than a lame update to a joke that wasn't funny to begin with.

[HemlockGrey]

So the manager of the building had the entire gallery shut down and threatened to have the organizers arrested over this one painting?

What a dick.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

So the manager of the building had the entire gallery shut down and threatened to have the organizers arrested over this one painting?

What a dick.

Now, now. Don't be too hard on the manager. Actually we didn't know the reason why he found the picture offensive. In fact, he's probably a member of some Animal Rights organization and acted out of clear conscience in defending monkeys around the world from such gross insult.

[JME2]

Bah; it's Bush's own personal Portrait of Dorian Gray...

[2000AD]

Wow, what a stunningly original painting. Perhaps Mr. Savido will continue to grace us with more displays of these cultural phenomena at the height of their popularity in his future works. It's just so fresh and unlike anything we've ever seen before!

IIRC the bush-monkey picture on the net wasa a comparison of faces bush made and faces the monkey made.

Going by the article this is a different picture, where Bush's face is made up of lots of little pictures of monkeys, like the poster i have on my wall of Yoda made of lots of little pics from the SW films.

[Frank Hipper]

Wow, what a stunningly original painting. Perhaps Mr. Savido will continue to grace us with more displays of these cultural phenomena at the height of their popularity in his future works. It's just so fresh and unlike anything we've ever seen before!

Lifting a Family Guy bit to criticise the originality of something else is ironic in the extreme.

[Loner]

IIRC the bush-monkey picture on the net wasa a comparison of faces bush made and faces the monkey made.

Going by the article this is a different picture, where Bush's face is made up of lots of little pictures of monkeys, like the poster i have on my wall of Yoda made of lots of little pics from the SW films.

It's similar to the picture of Ashcroft composed of porn pictures.

[Darth Wong]

Grr. Is noone allowed to critque the Great Leader?

Of course they are. That doesn't mean that they have to be provided with a space. The manager obviously didn't like it and didn't want it in that exhibit, and was well within his rights to have it taken down.

Why didn't he notice how offended he was before the exhibit opened in the first place? And is the gallery private, or is it supported with taxpayer money in any way?

[Gil Hamilton]

Of course they are. That doesn't mean that they have to be provided with a space. The manager obviously didn't like it and didn't want it in that exhibit, and was well within his rights to have it taken down. Furthermore, precisely what kind of constructive criticism was the artist trying to make exactly. Because from what I can tell, his work is nothing more than a lame update to a joke that wasn't funny to begin with.

It depends on if he owned the gallery or not. It's obvious from the article he does not, so he can demand all he wants, but the person who owns the gallery itself determines whether paintings are pulled from the exhibit. Secondly, the manager doesn't sound like he's got his head screwed on too tightly if he shut down a 60 piece exhibit over one piece and was threatening to arrest people when he saw it. I suppose it's his place to close the entire exhibit, but it just proves that he's an idiot: it's every artists dream to have their works close down an exhibit because it pissed someone off. That builds notoriety and gives the artist a soap box to stand on, which means that this particular artist is going to sell alot more paintings in the future. After all, you can't buy that kind of publicity. If the manager had a brain between his ears, he would have ignored it. Now thanks to him shutting down that exhibit, alot more people are going to pay admission to that gallery and that artist will have made a name for himself. Hell, if you honestly disliked that painting, you would be booing the manager too, since objectively he just gave the artist a career boost.

Finally, since when does free expression have to be constructive? I was unaware of that clause to the First Amendment.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why didn't he notice how offended he was before the exhibit opened in the first place? And is the gallery private, or is it supported with taxpayer money in any way?

Dollars to donuts says that the person who gave them their lot in the public space didn't take one look at the pieces that were going into the gallery, which is usually how it happens.

However, them closing down the exhibit isn't a big deal, since all it did was help out not only the gallery owner but the artist in question. Honestly, you'd think that people would learn to ignore art they found offensive. After all, after Rudi Giuliani tried to give the Met all that trouble over that painting of the Virgin Mary with shit on it, more people went to see it than ever by a large margin. The only reason anyone notices these pieces half the time is that some asshat gets offended and the press does all the advertising the artist could ever want.

[Joe]

Wow, what a stunningly original painting. Perhaps Mr. Savido will continue to grace us with more displays of these cultural phenomena at the height of their popularity in his future works. It's just so fresh and unlike anything we've ever seen before!

Lifting a Family Guy bit to criticise the originality of something else is ironic in the extreme.

Of course it is, that's part of the joke. I was worried no one would pick up on it. I guess my jokes are just too good to be funny, much like Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night.

[Stormbringer]

It depends on if he owned the gallery or not. It's obvious from the article he does not, so he can demand all he wants, but the person who owns the gallery itself determines whether paintings are pulled from the exhibit.

My guess is if this guy is the gallery manager he decides what goes in and what doesn't. So yes, unless he was overruled then he had the auhtority to do what he did.

Secondly, the manager doesn't sound like he's got his head screwed on too tightly if he shut down a 60 piece exhibit over one piece and was threatening to arrest people when he saw it.

It's a second hand paraphrase of what the manager said. I dare say, given that it's a promoter, that he might have embellished his quote a bit in the telling.

I suppose it's his place to close the entire exhibit, but it just proves that he's an idiot: it's every artists dream to have their works close down an exhibit because it pissed someone off. That builds notoriety and gives the artist a soap box to stand on, which means that this particular artist is going to sell alot more paintings in the future.

Probably not. Oh, this one might sell but it's a flash in the pan thing. Eithey way, I doubt he truly cares.

[Gil Hamilton]

My guess is if this guy is the gallery manager he decides what goes in and what doesn't. So yes, unless he was overruled then he had the auhtority to do what he did.

No, he wasn't the gallery manager, he was one of the managers of the public market that was giving the gallery a lot to set up on, according to the article. The gallery owner would have been well aware of was in his gallery long before the exhibit was set up and in fact wouldn't have bought it if he disapproved.

It's a second hand paraphrase of what the manager said. I dare say, given that it's a promoter, that he might have embellished his quote a bit in the telling.

Possibly. Would be excellent publicity, but all things being equal, chances are he wasn't exaggerating that much. I don't doubt that someone who'd shut down an entire exhibit on the basis of a portrait being composed of monkeys would say something similar to that.

Probably not. Oh, this one might sell but it's a flash in the pan thing. Eithey way, I doubt he truly cares.

It's true. Do you know how well ticket sales for that gallery in the Brooklyn Museum of Art went up after people started making a stink over that painting of the Virgin Mary with shellacced elephant shit on it? After Giuliani vowed to cut funding to the museum, it only made more people want to see the exhibit. Trying to ban a piece of art only gives it notority, which makes people want to see it more.

Really, only a complete imbecile would attempt to ban a piece of art like that if their attempt was to make it so no one would see it. I'm suprised you aren't saying what a moron this manager is. After all, if you really thought the persons painting was that bad, then this guys actions objectively were the exact opposite of what you wanted. If he had just ignored it, then almost no one would have ever heard of it and it would have went away silently. Now that he tried to have it censored, it's the best advertisment an artist could get. You can't pay a publicist for that kind of attention. Now he's not only going to have alot more people see his work, but he's got a soap box to stand on to declare to the media "Look at me! They attempted to supress my work for political reasons! They try and take away my free expression!" and the press will listen. Really, apathy is the best way to make art go away. If it really is all that offensive, ignore it.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't like rezzing dead threads, but I figured that this story should have an epilogue, since an article was posted about it in todays Post Gazette (since the artist in question is from Pittsburgh).

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04355/429620.stm

Controversial 'Bush Monkeys' painting transforms young artist

He traces roots to Pittsburgh suburbs

Monday, December 20, 2004
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two weeks ago, Chris Savido, who grew up in the Pittsburgh suburbs, was just another young artist in New York City trying to get by, working a day job at a jewelry store and painting in his free time.

One painting changed all that.

"Bush Monkeys," a portrait of the president made up of dozens of primates swimming in a marsh, enraged the manager of a upscale market with gallery space in lower Manhattan, pushing him to shut down the entire 60-piece show last weekend.

Savido, 23, became a one-man First Amendment cause overnight.

Digital images of the painting have been distributed on the Internet by media outlets across the world, from Reuters to the New York Times to Al Jazeera to an Australian radio station.

"It's pretty wild," Savido said. "It's one of those one in a million things."

Savido, who was born in Wilkinsburg and grew up in Churchill, started drawing at an early age, and art has been his focus ever since.In high school, he took art courses at Carnegie Mellon and the Center for the Arts in Shadyside.

After graduating from Syracuse University in New York, where he studied illustration, Savido moved to New York City to find work.

Many of his paintings are surreal depictions of dream-like landscapes filled with monstrous creatures. A few are on display at the Shadow Lounge in East Liberty, which is owned by a cousin, and Mad Max Tattoo in Mount Oliver, which has a print of "Bush Monkeys."

The Bush portrait, he said, stemmed from his frustration with the president's mixing of religion and politics and the war in Iraq, where three of his Pittsburgh friends are serving in the military.

"I felt powerless," he said. "I wanted to do something with symbolism to get people to think."

In the painting, Bush's eyes, nostrils, lips, and hair are swarming with chimpanzees, a reference to the "shared biological ancestry of all humanity," Savido writes on his Web site, www.workmade.com.

Savido spent more than 60 hours working on the portrait, and the publishers of Animal Magazine, a publication for emerging artists, decided to feature "Bush Monkeys" in the latest issue.

They also decided to put the painting on display at a show at the Chelsea Market public space, with a list price of $3,500.

Bucky Turco, the show's organizer, said he let a director at the market see all the paintings weeks before the opening and he heard no complaints.

On Dec. 8, however, the day before the exhibit opened, a manager called Turco and said a Bush supporter had threatened to boycott the market if Savido's painting was not taken down.

Turco removed the painting, but he decided to put it back up for the exhibition's opening, which attracted more than 2,000 people.

When the market manager saw the painting, he ended the party. The following Saturday, Turco said, "I got a call and they told me, 'You need to take down this show today, otherwise we're seizing the art and you're going to get arrested.'"

A Chelsea Market representative could not be reached for comment.

Turco did as he was told, but he also called a local television station. Soon, dozens of television crews and newspaper reporters descended on the market, and word of the incident quickly spread.

The 18-by-24-inch painting is now on display at Animal's small gallery in the East Village, but Turco and Savido are hoping to find a bigger gallery space soon. A group of volunteer lawyers that help artists have offered to assist them.

"Everybody's work came down because of my painting," Savido said. "That's not fair. This is our livelihood."

In the meantime, the soft-spoken artist is trying to adjust to the media spotlight. He's received many e-mail messages from both Bush supporters and detractors.

"People want to make it a partisan thing," he said. "Whatever their agenda, they want to skew it that way."

Savido has decided to auction the painting, and he is thinking about giving some of the money to a free speech organization. But, not willing to back down from controversy, he's also considering using the money to buy bulletproof vests for soldiers in Iraq.

And he has no intention of moderating the images in his future paintings. "I'll still paint what I feel," he said. "I've never been one to shy away from expressing what I think, and that's not going to change."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks to the market manager who had the gallery space shutting down the entire exhibit, an artist who no one would have ever heard of, and probably would have went away with no one hearing about him, now has been put on the map and has gotten national attention for his work. Before, his painting may have sold for a couple hundred dollars max if anyone picked it up, now it's sure to sell and at $3500. Fortunately, the artist in question is taking the high road and donating it to either free speech organizations or to buy more bulletproof vests for his buddies in the military. Still, this just shows if you honestly disapprove of art, the best thing to do is ignore it because banning it only creates notority and notority sells.

However, what is interesting is that his choice to use monkeys to make the Bush face wasn't out of the lame old "Bush = Chimp" joke, but as a reference to human evolution, due to him being frustrated with Bush's religiously motivated policies. That's actually a pretty good one there.