Disturbing Artwork
Update 1 - This Post was actually written on 11/17...after the first BudComm meeting at the High School. This past Tuesday, 11/21, all of the artwork that had been displayed while the Play was being presented had been removed. I do wonder how many people saw the piece...and felt the way I did - this was not appropriate.
This past Tuesday, the Budget Committee had its meeting at the High School (as opposed to normally holding them at the Town Hall). As usual, not everyone goes home right away; small discussions about almost anything often spring up. Given that it was the High School this time, I started to look at the artwork up on the wall around the lobby - often, this is done.
To say that this caught my eye is an understatement. I found it disturbing to say the least and I have waffled yes-I-should / no-I-shouldn't since Tuesday night.
Yeah I know - big bad conservative trying to censor the free expression of our students. I'm trying to ridicule budding artists that are only trying to express their innermost feelings. I'm supposed to be FOR the First Amendment, right?
Two things keep coming to mind - the first is the brouhaha that happened when the Fallen Alumni Memorial was first brought out in the papers. I Posted my thoughts here, and here is the main thrust of it:
In a email to School Board members, Chairman Derek Tomlinson voiced concerns over a suggested graphic that depicts, amongst other military uniform items, a military weapon.
Tomlinson stated to School Board members heading up the memorial Margo Weeks and Kurt Webber, "I think you should seriously look at alternatives before we take this to the students."
Again, realize that what he is talking about is an almost uniformly symbol of honor and respect for a fallen comrade - an upside down rifle with its bayonet stuck into the ground, a helmet placed on top, and a pair of empty boots.
Now, PLEASE do not read me wrong - I think that the actual graphics on the Fallen Alumni Memorial are fitting. The elements etched on the stone do a fine job of representing the those that have given their all for their country.
Now, contrast that with this (I have deliberately put it after the jump - if you are already having a bad day, you may wish to skip it). And ask yourself this:
Which is worse - the rifle or this? Which one would be more appropriate to really be seen in a high school with young, impressionable students in it?
Again, my feelings that this is not appropriate in a high school - courts have always decided that students do not retain full First Amendment rights when on school grounds. We hear so much about violence and that we should combat it - I would be hard pressed to consider this non-violent.
Isn't this a double standard?
