Conservative Student Boxed out at Pratt

Liberalism in a Box
James writes:

You don’t have to be an art critic to see something tasteless going on at Pratt Institute. Since 1887, this venerable New York institution has been dedicated to educating “artists and creative professionals to be responsible contributors to society.” Yet teachers and administrators at Pratt have been nothing but irresponsible in their recent dealings with a fifth-year drawing student named Steve DeQuattro.

Mr. DeQuattro is a political artist. He uses his background in graphic design to illustrate the dominant political culture of his world. At Pratt, this means creating work that addresses, as he wrote to me, the “growing bureaucracy, higher tuition, new buildings for administration, new offices, and departments, and left-wing bias, all at the expense of the students.”

As part of his recent work, Mr. DeQuattro has designed a cereal-box-like sculpture that he calls, ironically, “Sustainable Liberalism in a Box” (the graphics are pictured above). He has developed a piece that takes the ubiquitous Apple iPod ad campaign to address abortion. He has designed a sobering five-foot-wide mural that tracks the Democratic Party’s record on race, from Jefferson’s slave-holding days up through the racially charged speeches of Senator Robert Byrd and Vice President Joe Biden.

As a senior in the school, Mr. DeQuattro has been working on this art in preparation for a group show for Pratt’s graduating students, which is scheduled to open on April 23. While his faculty advisor has been supporting him, his peers have not. Mr. DeQuattro says they recently wrote a letter to his professors, calling his work “offensive” and complaining about exhibiting alongside him. Last week, the chair of the fine arts department stepped in to prevent Mr. DeQuattro’s participation alongside the other students in the group show--an unprecedented move in the history of the department, says Mr. DeQuattro, despite the fact that none of his work is pornographic, libelous, or in violation of the laws of free speech. Mr. DeQuattro's advisor did not return a request for comment.

For the administrators and students at Pratt, the problem isn’t political art itself, says Mr. DeQuattro, but the nature of his politics, which are conservative. He says his school takes a liberal position on politicized discourse, just as long as that discourse does not deviate from a left-wing position. Pratt’s opposition to Mr. DeQuattro’s art only underscores the importance of his work. Mr. DeQuattro is asking for outside help in convincing the institution to support his exhibition.

Mr. DeQuattro's case illustrates the art world's double standard towards political art. From Jean-Louis David’s Death of Marat to the works of George Grosz to Picasso’s Guernica, political commentary has had a place in the history of art. Artistic expression can help us understand politics in ways that other forms of commentary cannot.

Yet the relationship of artist to audience often tells us much about the validity of political work. Art that preaches to a wholly agreeing public is little more than propaganda. Most self-described political art today falls short in this regard and is of limited value outside of its political utility, because it almost exclusively presents left-wing arguments to a left-wing public. Rather than standing apart from their audience, works like Shepard Fairey’s promotional designs for candidate Obama to Richard Serra’s visual denunciations of Abu Ghraib pander to existing assumptions and reaffirm the politics of their surroundings.

Audience resistance and censorship, by contrast, can sometimes illustrate the value of an artist’s political message. Such work may encourage the audience, however resistant, to see its politics in a new way. Sometimes this censorship is largely self-constructed, as in the case of David Wojnarowicz's “Fire in My Belly,” where a bad internal decision at the Smithsonian to remove the work from display was taken up by protesters as an opportunity to advance a political and monetary agenda. In that example, the work went from excluded to another form of propaganda, quickly landing in the permanent collection at MOMA. Other times the censorship is more serious, as now in China, where the state crackdown on Ai Weiwei speaks to the continued validity of his artistic project.

By these definitions, Mr. DeQuattro has the makings of a political artist, because as a conservative artist he currently stands outside of the politics of his own time and place. Regardless, student work deserves an especially generous standard for display. Mr. DeQuattro’s art should be supported by the same institution that invited him to hone his craft over the past five years. He should be afforded the same rights given to his classmates and allowed to exhibit in the group show. The fact that his politics are not shared by his peers does not render his art as irrelevant or “offensive.” Instead, it is a reason his political art is valid and deserves to be shown.

Groundhog Day on the Upper West Side

Another day, another resolution from Community Board 7. This volunteer board of neighborhood residents, hand picked by Councilwoman Gale Brewer and Borough President Scott Stringer, voted unanimously last night to oppose the conversion of the Alexander Hotel into a mens shelter, a story I first broke here.  

The resolution, though noble, left some questions unanswered:

  • What good is a non-binding resolution from CB7 when the Department of Homeless Services runs scared from its constituents
  • Why was a strongly worded amendment to that resolution narrowly voted down?
  • Where was the resolution condemning DHS's bad behavior last week?
  • What effect will Brewer's opposition have when she in fact advocated for the bad legislation that created this problem in the first place?

As one neighborhood resident put it in his comments to the board (video above): "Tomorrow is Groundhog Day, and I feel like we're reliving what happened previously on 94th Street and even the last couple of meetings. ... the people in this community care about what is happening to our property values and what is happening to our neighborhood."

The Columbia Spectator has published its own account of the evening:

Residents took another step Tuesday night in what has been a long—and loud—fight to keep another homeless shelter from coming to the Upper West Side.

At its full board meeting, Community Board 7 unanimously passed a resolution strongly opposing a transitional shelter at the Hotel Alexander on 94th Street...

“The community board is doing their part of the game,” 94th Street resident Itzhak Epstein said.

Epstein said he’s glad the resolution passed, including the call for a “fair share” analysis to examine the concentration of homeless shelters on the Upper West Side, but he’s not convinced it will carry much weight since community board resolutions are non-binding.

“I’m in favor, but as I said, ‘strongly oppose’ means the community board can’t do anything,” he said. “What will the mayor’s office do? Nothing. It’s a done deal, the government will go on and do as it wishes.”

Will this government, in fact, go on and do as it wishes? Is our local representation more intractable than foreign dictatorships?

If the recent community pushback is any indication, the mood of this neighborhood has changed. Its residents are starting to question their leadership, especially those that hide behind a rhetoric of benevolence while creating legislation that is good for no one. This was the message that came out from the community group Neighborhood in the Nineties when it recently indicated how concerned residents can continue to express their opposition to the shelter and the legislation that opens the way for more:

What Should WE do? 1. Get on the phone.
START with City Council Member Gale Brewer.
SWAMP HER OFFICE WITH CALLS: 212.788.6975
Gale founded the Task Force that took on the hotels in the name of affordable housing (a worthy, but unattainable goal). Although the bill was passed in Albany, it is her responsibility as our representative to take steps to stop the flooding of this district with more special needs populations.
Ask Gale Brewer to use all her resources, do all that is in her power N O W !!!:
· Issue a City Council Resolution, hold Hearings, have a News Conference demanding an end to No-Bid Contracts that waste our taxpayer dollars while doing nothing to provide real housing for the homeless
· Issue a City Council Resolution and hold Hearings on the issuance of no-bid contracts by the Mayor’s Office and City Agencies. There should be a Moratorium on rich contracts to buildings owners for housing special needs/homeless populations immediately. The City needs a long-term plan to house the homeless in appropriate facilities throughout the City NOW!!
· Request that she show up at the Community Board meeting Tuesday. [ED NOTE--she did not show up to last night's meeting, and instead Brewer was shouted down at a protest in Brooklyn concerning her opposition to a new neighborhood charter school]

Below is a post-mortem report on the CB meeting from Aaron Biller, president of Neighborhood in the Nineties--

Department of Homeless Services Runs Scared From CB7 Protest


Aaron Biller, president of the community group Neighborhood in the Nineties, speaks out against the homeless shelter at the community board protest.

James writes:

Hundreds of Upper West Siders packed the small conference room of the Community Board 7 tonight for what was supposed to be a face-to-face with New York City's Department of Homeless Services and Samaritan Village, the people attempting to open a 200-bed men's shelter in a tourist hotel on West 94th Street. The hotel is being forced to close thanks to disastrous legislation in Albany that had been trumpeted by this community's local representative, Councilwoman Gale Brewer. (Go here for the complete story.)

Peter Thorne from WPIX Channel 11 showed up, along with several newspaper and online writers--only thing is, the Department of Homeless Services and Samaritan Village declined to appear. The meeting therefore did little to answer residents' concerns about why a shelter has been proposed for a family neighborhood, a block from a school, that is already saturated with such facilities (and where few residents but the politicians had a problem with the tourist hotels). As one resident, Miriam, said in her statement to the board: "this has become a middle-class family neighborhood. People have put their blood, sweat, and tears into this neighborhood." Why, she wondered, should taxpayer money go to undermine the sweat equity and investment that residents have spent restoring their neighborhood by paying for a homeless shelter to move in?

One answer came from a representative from the office of Congressman Jerry Nadler, once a resident of 94th Street himself. City government is able to offer lavish deals to landlords to use their buildings as "emergency" shelters because the city can tap into Federal money from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Such a story goes to show the damage that wasteful federal dollars can do to a local population when used to override market conditions. Through federal taxpayer money, each of the SRO's tiny rooms could be rented for homeless use at thousands of dollars a month, above market demand. That's a powerful calculus. As one resident put it to me, associates in his law firm can't afford to live on the Upper West Side, but thanks to sweetheart deals from the Feds, a large homeless population can.

Councilwoman Brewer herself declined to show for the meeting. Several questions therefore remain unanswered, for the DHS, and for Brewer:

1. Can the shelter be fought on legal grounds? Is the shelter consistant with the requirement of "permanent housing" stipulated in Albany's legislation?

2. Could anything be done, through rezoning, to allow the hotels to continue operation? If tonight's protest is any indication, only the SRO Law Project (Brewer's advocacy group) and the hotel workers union have a problem with them.

3. What can be done to have the permanent tenants of the hotel stay put, which could prevent the shelter from moving in? Some have been offered $50,000 each to vacate their apartments.

4. How much did Gale Brewer know, and when? Faced with community unrest, Brewer has attempted to reposition herself as an opponent of the facility. She should be applauded for taking this position, but Homeless Services has reported that Brewer's office was in communication about the proposal before it was first announced to the public.

5. If Brewer knew about it, why did she do nothing to stop it before it became a done deal? Were her actions guided by union pressure or a backroom deal with the city to deliver the shelter to DHS, which has now backfired. 

6. The Upper West Side has become a centrist community. When will the neighborhood start seeing local and state representation that is more in line with their interests (rather than merely the interests of trade unions--see Brewer's own friends list). The radical control of the Upper West Side's Democratic Clubs cannot be sustained now that the neighborhood's voters have realized the damage that bad legislation, proposed by their representatives, can do.

IMAG0094
The tense scene at tonight's meeting. 


Peter Thorne has filed an excellent report on the DHS disappearing act for WPIX 11. Full story here:
 

UPDATE! Reports continue to come in:

Leslie Albrecht of DNAinfo on the DHS no-show (including a cameo by yours truly in the brown plaid shirt)

Gina Lee of the Columbia Spectator