Lars Larson... mute my mic!
There is a battle afoot at Willamette University in Salem, just right across the street from the Capitol where the battle over SB 1000 was fought just a few months ago. The fight for civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation was personal for thousands of gay Oregon families, but rarely was the political fight ever personal. Now the dirty tricks, gay bashing and now art-bashing have literally crossed the street and have descended upon the ivory towers. Willamette has attempted to pursue a path of diversity and cultural understanding over the past 6 years under President M Lee Pelton; sadly public perception may now set them back a few years.
John Swanson, the Oregon President of College Republicans and a student at Willamette U., writes a regular column for the student-run newspaper, The Collegian. He is well known for his neo-con views and he regularly writes opinion pieces that border on sexist, racist, and bigoted. Recently, Mr. Swanson crossed the line in his recent column on the lack of school spirit by saying that where he comes from (Jacksonville, Oregon), the only people who don't like sports events and tailgating parties are "limp-wrists". Never mind that his disparaging comments undoubtedly dampened school spirit.
Oh, but it gets better. Swanson continues his illogical rant on school spirit by criticizing the University's support (or complicity) for a show of "offensive, perverse art". The four-piece exhibit features depictions of homosexual couples in embrace (non-sexual) juxtaposed to the text of four anti-gay pieces of legislation (DOMA, Oregon's Measure 36, California's Prop 22, etc.) with connoting Christian religious references. Apparently, Mr. Swanson's education hasn't included art history, civil rights (though he claims to be a political science major) or metaphors, irony, or... juxtaposition for that matter.
In the following issue of the school paper, numerous students, professors, and parents spoke out here, here, here and here against the bigoted opinion piece (for which he was undoubtedly paid and which was removed from the website). The paper apologized for printing it. There has been no retraction or apology from Mr. Swanson. So much for "compassionate conservatism," or a liberal arts education, or intellect.
But that's not all. This week Lars Larson brought the story to air on his radio program (prompted by a call from Mr. Swanson). Lars tried to attack the people in the art itself. Now it's personal and even more sleazy than before. Larson includes a sample of the exhibit on his website with a tagline "Christians everywhere should be offended..." Conservative bloggers have since picked up the gossip.
Perhaps a little more explanation of the exhibit would have been nice to all of those listeners who wanted to be informed about the story, rather than just a blind instruction to Christians.
Would it have been so "offensive and perverse" if the art had been black & white photography? Lithography? Pastels? Pencil? Would it have been "offensive and perverse" if the pieces had not included religious references? Perhaps someone may have wanted to think about the significance and meaning of the art before blasting a cap.
Is art offensive when it makes you think about the current conflict between loving, committed homosexual couples, modern anti-gay legislation, and Christianity? Is thinking offensive? Should society censor art that it finds "offensive"? Should a liberal arts institution be afraid of encouraging intellect, thought, questioning, and diversity? Apparently Lars, Swanson and Oregon College Republicans think so.
Overall, it seems that the neo-con community is attempting to employ the tactics of smear and slander to divert attention away from a potential devil in their midst, Lou Beres. Think about the hypocrisy and irony: art that juxtaposes religion, homosexuality, and the law in an academic environment versus a news story that has the leader of the Oregon Christian Coalition facing charges of sexual misconduct from several of his pre-teen family members. Now really, which is perverse and offensive? The hypocrite and those who have hijacked Christianity, that's what I thought.
Swanson calls Republicans the "party of morality"; if the morality to which he refers to is ignorance, lack of intellect, gay bashing, and sexual misconduct, then the leader of Oregon College Republican Party has a good following and a solid foundation to stand on.
Mr. Swanson, there is an enlightening study that you should read...
The artist that created this 'Icon' series is named Sean Gyshen Fennell. Great job Sean. I've seen one of these in person and it is amazing work. Sean went on the Lars Larson show yesterday to explain his work. Full transcript available here.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 at 11:54 AM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByThanks for letting me know about this story.
By
First of all I would like to point out that I consider myself a friend of both Sean Fennel and John Swanson. I do not believe that Sean’s work was intended to be anti-Christian, nor do I believe Swanson is anti-gay. The “limp-wrist” comment he made in the Collegian was wrong, and he has apologized for it on several occasions. The comment that Swanson has not apologized for the article is an inaccuracy. The comment that Swanson regularly writes “sexist, racist, and bigoted” pieces is without merit. Recently he apologized to the gay club on campus for his comment and received their weekly gay pride award for his courage to do so. He has also in his capacity as Chairman of the OFCRs addressed Log Cabin (gay republicans) meetings.
The final inaccuracy is the link between traditional conservatism and neo-conservatism. In the old sense neo-conservatives were New Deal liberals disenchanted by the new-left foreign policy. In the more modern sense it is the desire for greater foreign intervention in order to promote [classical] liberal ideals. The neo-con focus is foreign policy, not social policy.
By
While I am not particularly fond of the Willamette College Republicans (being a College Democrat and a rather liberal one), I think the big issue at hand over the article in our Collegian is not the fact that one editorialist may be occasionally more blatant than others, but that we at all consider censorship of media (whether it be artwork depicting homosexual couples with a political statement, or a distasteful editorial), to be reasonable. Conservatives like to point out music and art as being critical of conservative ideals, while liberals can be equally critical of editorials or unpopular opinions that are especially harsh on the liberal agenda. Lars Larson and the other GOP goons are proof positive of the rights intolerance for exploration of ideas.
I firmly disagree with Swanson's characterization of homosexuals as 'limp-wristers', but that does not discount his right to say such things. That aside, I think Wickre characterizes Swanson incorrectly. He assumes that by going to the Log Cabin Republican meetings as well as appologizing for an offhand comment he made, he can somehow be the Gordon Smith of Oregon politics and be all right in the BRO camp. Think again. Time and again, the Republican Party has shown a completely disdain and lack of compassion for people of minority ethnicities, alternative sexual preferences, and the poor.
Regardless of your definition of neo-conservative or old conservative, one thing is for sure. The Republican Party's real messages are the offhand comments of John Swanson and his cohorts from Willamette College Republicans to the national RNC.
Andrew
By
If only I was as enlightened as you folks! Then I would see how the gay community sees no hypocrisy in labeling some people's ideas/opinions as "hate speech" (whether it is verbal, written, "art" etc) but are outraged that someone would criticize yours.
And for the record Mr. Wickre, you and Mr. Swanson get no points for your endless public apologies. Either from me or that radical homosexuals.
I give Sean more credit for going on the Lars Larson show than I give you college Republicans who refuse to stand by your words.
Perhaps instead of bowing to race-baiting and accusations of bigotry you should have a college Republicans art class where you do painting of a nucleur family, you know, the ideal family for raising kids, and have pages of the Lawrence v. Texas decision ripped up at the bottom. See how tolerant everyone is of that art.
By
I thought some of you might be interested in reading the acdtual transcript of Sean's interview on the Lars Larson show yesterday. I taped it and transcribed it for Sean.
Below is the transcript.
Sean Gyshen Fennell
Lars Larson Show
11 October 2005
LL: Sean Gyshen Fennell is an artist at Willamette University. How are you doing Sean?
G: Doing pretty well Lars, how are you?
LL: Glad to have you on the program but I’m not real happy about that art work. I mean it’s a private university you can put what you want on the walls. I’ve had a lot of people trying to figure out what this art work means. These naked figures of people who appear to be in embraces that would indicate they are homosexuals and then torn up pages of something at the bottom of the photos. Why don’t you tell us what it’s all about.
G: I’d love to. First of all the goal of the icon project is to yield art that investigates societal constructs and visually stimulates the viewer. And to facilitate discussion which is why I am very happy to be on your show because that is what the work is intended to do. The text that is in the background is actually some of the measures that were passed, including gay marriage, Measure 36 and the smaller icons that are below are the Patron saints such as St. Anthony of Paudu or St. Patrick who are the patron saints of the oppressed people and excluded people. And the figures in fact, in the icons are homosexuals and its trying to draw lines between these and investigate the current political and religious climate.
LL: Does one of those figures work for Kate Brown, the senator?
G: I am not familiar with that.
LL: Sure, you don’t know the people you took naked pictures of?
G: I know them very well but I don’t know what they are doing now. I actually moved to St. Louis. I am attending graduate school.
LL: OK So here’s the concern I have. Why would you show a ballot measure passed by Oregonians overwhelmingly torn up at the bottom of the picture like that?
G: Well, it is actually not torn up. It’s in its completion there is gold leafing over the entire image which I guess gives it an appearance of being torn.
LL: So it’s not really torn up?
G: No, it is not torn up. It is in its completion.
LL: It’s in completion?
G: All the text is there it is just that some of it is obscured with gold leaf.
LL: Okay, So it wasn’t intended to look torn up.
G: No
LL: Okay. Now the figures appear to be posed in a way that I thought it looked like icons like you’d seen in Russian icon, the little kind of circles around the head and a little gold leaf.
G: Exactly
LL: So you are depicting homosexuals figures in photos as saints.
G: I am referencing Byzantine Icons and religion through those forms. I do not consider the objects to be venerated in any way. I am merely using visual language.
LL: No, now what’s the visual language when you depict homosexual figures in a photo as saints?
G: I am referencing the saint figures as well as drawing attention the fact there are saints within the religion such as St. Anthony of Padua for oppressed people yet the religion in of itself is oppressing individuals and saints themselves have been martyred. And…
(interrupts)LL: How is religion oppressing homosexual people?
G: Well, I mean it’s pretty clear within the legislation and in your show that all Christians should be offended by images like the ones I made…..
LL: Well no no, I am bothered by images if they if they if they are comments on religion by taking homosexual figures and portraying them as saints. I don’t think any religion on earth makes people saints by their personal behavior or homosexual behavior. And I don’t know how it is you think religion oppresses people with regard to their sexuality. You have a choice as to which religion you participate in. Tell me which religion oppresses homosexual people.
G: Well right now Catholisim especially the Vatican is saying homosexuals cannot be ordained. I mean for example……
LL: Well well but that’s the rules of their group. If you are a homosexual and you want to be ordained, you go to a different church.
G: Well are you saying homosexuals should not be able to be Catholic?
LL: Well that’s what the Catholic church has decided. Does a church have the right to set the standards for its religion?
G: I believe………..
LL: I mean for example. If… I like I like to drink whiskey on occasion. I try to do it in moderation and I try to do it only on the weekends with friends and when I am not going to drive. But if I wanted to join the Mormon church Sean, I can guaran damn tee you that the Mormons are not going to let me in as a whiskey drinker. If I say, well you ought to change your rules and let whiskey drinkers into the Mormon church they’d say Lars, one of the tenants of our religion is that you don’t drink booze. So why would a booze drinker want to join the Mormon church? Why would a homosexual want to become ordained as a member of a church that doesn’t..you know that does not believe that homosexuals should become priests?
G: Well drinking whiskey Lars is a choice where I do not believe homosexuality is a choice and there are these people who have been brought up as Christians…………
LL: No but joining a church is a choice, becoming a religion is a choice. Can we agree on that?
G: Joining a religion is a choice..
LL: I could choose to become a Catholic tomorrow, I could choose to to convert to Judiasm tomorrow so but why would I want to join a church that doesn’t respect the way I conduct my life?
G: Well possibly that was the church you were brought up in and that is the community you feel comfortable in and perhaps that is the faith you actually believe in yet it discriminates against you and you should still have the choice to join that religion, I believe.
LL: Do you think the people should be offended by your art work?
G: If people are offended by my art work I think that is fine. The work in of it’s self is there to facilitate discussion and hopefully draw connections and get people to start thinking about that there are certain societal constructs that prohibit people from doing things and…
LL: You’re trying to get people to think differently, right?
G: I am trying to bring a different prospective to these issues that have intertwined through out history. I mean homosexuality in the church and art is nothing new. It has been there for an extremely long time.
LL: Good point. Sean I’m up against a clock but I appreciate your time sir. Thank you very much.
G: Thank you very much
By
Thank you Sean's mom. You must be a proud mom--and rightly so.
If anyone wants to read a pdf of the interview--I've created one here. It can also be found in the last line of the post.
Bryan H.
Gay Rights Watch
By
Andrew-
I think if you re-read the post, nowhere will you find anyone advocating censorship (though the headline does say “mute my mic”...bad Brian), nor do “we all consider censorship of media...reasonable”. I certainly do not. To reference Mark Twain "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Our constitution allows anyone to open their mouth and remove all doubt, but that doesn’t mean that they have any immunity from criticism.
Mr. Wickre-
Kudos for engaging without being presumptuous or asinine. You get more points than Daniel does.
Daniel-
Really, come on. Who said hate speech? Maybe it would be more productive for the College Republicans to have an art session and paint a picture with a mom and a dad, 2.3 children and 1.2 pets. THAT would definitely raise some eyebrows. And why not Lawrence v. Texas? How about Loving v. Virginia? Li v. Oregon? Roe v. Wade? Maybe divorce statutes should be included? Or how about the first amendment? Maybe the equal protection clause of the constitution? But then again, to copy someone's idea can be the greatest compliment...and it doesn't seem like you are that generous.
Who’s to say that competing ideas don’t deserve a place at the table (other than you and Karen Minnis)? It seems like you’re pissed that anyone could have an different idea of what constitutes an ideal family. Maybe you should move to China; I hear they are forced to all believe the same thing, but it might be tough being forced to only bear one child (and you had better hope that your one shot isn’t born gay...good luck!). The documents in the art aren’t ripped, they are painted over with gold-leaf...read the transcript.
Sean’s Mom-
You should be very proud of your artistic and bright son.
By
Daniel-
"nucleur family, you know, the ideal family for raising kids"
Can you please provide links to unbiased sources that prove this statement?
PS- N-u-c-l-e-a-r.
By
Thank you, Sean, for your thoughtful comments. And thanks to your mom for sharing them. Best wishes to both of you.
By
This controversy over Swanny's comments is rather silly. John has the right to express his views, no matter what they may be. As a student and a campus leader, he doesn't like it. What's the big deal? There is something called the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. You can't mandate or legislate what and how people think. So much for diversity. If a person happens to diasgree with the gay rights movement, he or she is immediately labeled a racist and homophobe. So much for tolerance.
By
Oh Waaaahh.
Spoken exactly like an abusive partner. I'm always amazed at the suprise the opposition has the second you don't take it well when you've been hit in the face. Or when we're expected to swallow it if you can't get insurance for your children because some fundy used power and money to scare the crap out of their own faithful sheeple.
Then if we show any display of protest- be it art, or vocal, or assembly- is criticized by some heartless whacko, hell bent on stirring up more support for the continued abuse, and denial of rights and resources.
Oh- sinsinsin- God forBID if we should ever stick up for ourselves. How twisted.
Why don't they just hit us in the face and say we're the ones with the problem, it's really our fault, they're doing it because we make them. Its exactly the same thing.
By
Anonymous--if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And there's a difference between disagreeing and calling a group of people limp-wrists. Is that what defines gay people for "Swanny"? So it sucks to be called a bigot--how do you think it feels to be called a limp-wrist or fag and have thoughtful art and relationships called offensive and perverse?
By
There is a big difference between disagreeing and his comments.
When you use slurs towards a group of people, that's not disagreeing. That's being a bigot, a homophobe, racist, sexist, etc. depending on which group the slur is aimed at.
You can disagree with a group of people without resorting to slurs. Using slurs isn't being tolerant of people.
You may have the freedom of speech, but people also should have the freedom to not have slurs hurled at them.
The moment you start talking about fags, limp wrists, etc., you've crossed the line.
By
Yawn... You boar me
By
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Above comment was removed because it was spam.
» Post a Comment