Hey, hey, ho, ho, political art has got to go!

Much pearl-clutching has occurred in San Jose over citizen complaints about the potential insensitivity of public art like the Fallon statue (does it glorify white supremacy?) and the Americana painting (does it glorify violence against the police?). Opp Now co-founder Christopher Escher wonders if the city should even be in the business of funding political art at all.
There's a simple conclusion San Jose city government can draw from the kerfuffles around the Fallon statue and the Americana painting: Politics and Public Art don't mix. And there's a simple fix: the City should revamp its Public Art guidelines to avoid funding, condoning, and publicizing art of a political nature (explicitly or implicitly) that might make residents and taxpayers feel offended, erased, diminished, or excluded.

That means get rid of the Fallon statue because it can be seen as white triumphalism. Get rid of Americana because it can be seen as inciting violence against police. Get rid of Vote, which is also in the Holding the Moment show, because it calls into question, just like the rioters of Jan. 6th in Washington, D.C. did, the legitimacy of elections.

Public art is not private art: its curators have a higher responsibility to be inclusive and sensitive because it is funded by all the residents of the city.

There are universes of topics for artists that do not invite charges of racism and oppression and violence.

I realize that sounds very middle of the road and bourgeoise of me, and can anticipate that many will say this will make for less interesting art. So be it: but we have speed limits, sign ordinances, property line setbacks, design guidelines, and ADA ramps for a reason: to make sure the public space works (as much as possible) for everyone. Public Art is, by definition, part of the public space, and should be sensitive to the same principles of fairness and consensus as other public activities. We do not ask our Department of Transportation to create dangerous streets in an effort to "provoke discussion" about traffic.

As a final thought, I would suggest that artists' explanations of their own work in the Holding the Moment "Artists Comments" section vividly illustrate how conspicuous this problem is and debunk City and artists' claims of nonpartisanship and a desire simply to "provoke discussion."

Eric Bui, for example, in his "Americana." comment says the work was "inspired by the worldwide protests in 2020 condemning the rampant police brutality that continues to plague the United States." That is loaded language, and his claim that police brutality is "rampant" has no factual support and would be considered inaccurate misinformation by serious experts in the field. Given the more than 100 police injuries and a potential homicide of a police officer defending the Capitol against violent protestors, this painting and Bui's comments are, at best, misguided and tone deaf.

Similarly, Judy Rookstool, in her "Vote" comment says that "This ballot box ... is now framed by danger. Foreign interference has threatened our election process." This is a baseless, Trump-like conspiracy theory, which only serves to delegitimize elections, and bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the mindset that rioted and took over the Capitol on January 6.

Honestly: these artists can do and say as they wish, but does the City really want to even get close to condoning and funding these types of dubious and potentially dangerous artistic statements?

Regards,

Christopher. Escher

co-founder Opportunity Now

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity.