To the Republicans, Democrats and Bi-Partisans: Difference between revisions

From Censorpedia

No edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
====Date: [[:Category:1995 - 2005|1995 - 2005]] [[:Category:|]] [[:Category:|]]====
====Date: [[:Category:1996|1996]]====


====Region: [[:Category:North America|North America]] [[:Category:|]] [[:Category:|{location3}]]====
====Region: [[:Category:North America|North America]]====


====Subject: [[:Category:Nudity|Nudity]] [[:Category:Political/Economic/Social Opinion|Political/Economic/Social Opinion]] [[:Category:|]]====
====Subject: [[:Category:Nudity|Nudity]] [[:Category:Political/Economic/Social Opinion|Political/Economic/Social Opinion]]====


====Medium: [[:Category:Sculpture|Sculpture]] [[:Category:Mixed Media|Mixed Media]] [[:Category:|]]====
====Medium: [[:Category:Sculpture|Sculpture]] [[:Category:Mixed Media|Mixed Media]]====
----
----
[[File:Hopper2.gif|left]]
'''Artist:''' Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp
'''Artist:''' Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp


'''Confronting Bodies:''' City of Pasco, Washington
'''Confronting Bodies:''' City of Pasco, Washington


'''Dates of Action:''' 1996
'''Date of Action:''' 1996


'''Location:''' Pasco City Hall Gallery
'''Location:''' Pasco City Hall Gallery


'''Description of Artwork:''' Rupp’s bronze sculpture depicted a woman “mooning” the viewer, and was titled "To the Republicans, Democrats and Bi-Partisans." Hopper’s block prints showed a nude Adam and Eve touring sites in Germany.
'''Description of Artwork:''' Rupp’s bronze sculpture depicted a woman “mooning” the viewer, and was titled ''To the Republicans, Democrats and Bi-Partisans''. Hopper’s block prints showed a nude Adam and Eve touring sites in Germany. (The print on left is titled ''Mannaheim Corner'', below right, ''Max Joseph Strasse''.)


'''The Incident:''' City officials excluded the works from the exhibition at the City Hall gallery referring to its “noncontroversial” art policy. However, they provided no guidelines as to what was “controversial” and had not previously instituted the practice of screening art for acceptability.
'''The Incident:''' City officials excluded the works from the exhibition at the City Hall gallery referring to its “noncontroversial” art policy. However, they provided no guidelines as to what was “controversial” and had not previously instituted the practice of screening art for acceptability.
 
[[File:Hopper1.gif|right]]
'''Results of Incident:''' The artists, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and supported by the National Coalition Against Censorship and First Amendment Project, sued the city. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that artists Sharon Rupp and Janette Hopper’s First Amendment rights were violated when the city of Pasco excluded their artwork from the exhibition. The Court rejected the city’s arguments that the censorship was justified on the basis that children might have seen the pieces. The court noted, “The mere fact that the works caused controversy is, of course, patently insufficient to justify their suppression.”
'''Results of Incident:''' The artists, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and supported by the National Coalition Against Censorship and First Amendment Project, sued the city. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that artists Sharon Rupp and Janette Hopper’s First Amendment rights were violated when the city of Pasco excluded their artwork from the exhibition. The Court rejected the city’s arguments that the censorship was justified on the basis that children might have seen the pieces. The court noted, “The mere fact that the works caused controversy is, of course, patently insufficient to justify their suppression.”


'''Source:''' First Amendment Project, NCAC
'''Source:''' First Amendment Project, NCAC, http://www.uncp.edu/art/hopper/Adam%20and%20Eve%20Print/gallery.htm


[[Category:1995 - 2005]]
[[Category:1996]]
[[Category:]]
[[Category:1990s]]
[[Category:]]
[[Category:20th century]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:]]
[[Category:]]
[[Category:Nudity]]
[[Category:Nudity]]
[[Category:Political/Economic/Social Opinion]]
[[Category:Political/Economic/Social Opinion]]
[[Category:]]
[[Category:Sculpture]]
[[Category:Sculpture]]
[[Category:Mixed Media]]
[[Category:Mixed Media]]
[[Category:]]
[[Category:Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp]]
[[Category:Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp]]


{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-style: italic;">To the Republicans, Democrats and Bi-Partisans</span>}}
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__

Latest revision as of 14:59, 8 January 2012

Date: 1996

Region: North America

Subject: Nudity Political/Economic/Social Opinion

Medium: Sculpture Mixed Media


Hopper2.gif

Artist: Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp

Confronting Bodies: City of Pasco, Washington

Date of Action: 1996

Location: Pasco City Hall Gallery

Description of Artwork: Rupp’s bronze sculpture depicted a woman “mooning” the viewer, and was titled To the Republicans, Democrats and Bi-Partisans. Hopper’s block prints showed a nude Adam and Eve touring sites in Germany. (The print on left is titled Mannaheim Corner, below right, Max Joseph Strasse.)

The Incident: City officials excluded the works from the exhibition at the City Hall gallery referring to its “noncontroversial” art policy. However, they provided no guidelines as to what was “controversial” and had not previously instituted the practice of screening art for acceptability.

Hopper1.gif

Results of Incident: The artists, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and supported by the National Coalition Against Censorship and First Amendment Project, sued the city. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that artists Sharon Rupp and Janette Hopper’s First Amendment rights were violated when the city of Pasco excluded their artwork from the exhibition. The Court rejected the city’s arguments that the censorship was justified on the basis that children might have seen the pieces. The court noted, “The mere fact that the works caused controversy is, of course, patently insufficient to justify their suppression.”

Source: First Amendment Project, NCAC, http://www.uncp.edu/art/hopper/Adam%20and%20Eve%20Print/gallery.htm