» LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: library exhibit sound-off

Following up on the article by Katherine Smith in the April 16 edition of the Daily Campus, the Libraries Exhibits Committee has removed the art piece "Catch and Release," by artist Randall Nelson, that had been located on the Plaza Level in Homer Babbidge Library. At the Gallery Talk on Wednesday, April 22, Mr. Nelson revealed that he had acquired the birds used in the exhibit in a manner which contradicted statements he had made previously to library staff about their acquisition. It was the result of this recent disclosure that we directed him to remove all art pieces in the library containing animal materials. Other sculptural pieces in the exhibit will remain until the scheduled end of the exhibition on May 15. We appreciate interest in the exhibits in the UConn Libraries and hope that the campus community will continue to comment on future exhibits.

- Laura Smith

Exhibit Curator

Homer Babbidge Library

I have found the recent controversy about the art of Randall Nelson which is currently on display in the library to be very aggravating. To say that the library, a place for the protection and propagation of free thought is an inappropriate venue for art seems contradictory to me. Perhaps we should take out all of the books which students might find offensive, or restrict access to the Internet to protect ourselves from its controversial content (whatever that might be). Peace through homogeneity.

The detractors of Nelson's exhibit have singled out only the elements which fifth-graders might be interested in. It seems that all they can see are the swears and penises, letting these few symbols obscure their view of the entire exhibit. For example, Nelson's piece entitled, "Lest We Forget" is a mock vandalized war-memorial such as you might find in a cemetery or a town park. Some people have taken issue with the graffiti which says things typical of a men's bathroom stall such as "fag," "dick," "Johnny was here," that sort of thing.

If this were a real monument, that would be offensive and likely cleaned or removed. But it's not real - it's an art object in an exhibit setting; it should not be taken literally. The artist is asking you to consider this object, this false, vandalized monument, differently than you would a real one, though the art is very realistic. The exhibit is not calling anyone a fag or glorifying war; it is simply presenting a generic war memorial with the generic graffiti that you might expect to see in real life.

The piece starkly contrasts two groups of people. Allow me to break it down a little bit. In our society, monuments are things to be respected, sacred objects, or at least objects that people should know enough to leave alone. Yet it is defaced with ignorant, juvenile, stupid graffiti in a show of complete disrespect and disconnect from the people and ideas behind the monument,

I see the piece as funny and tragic. Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine. Whatever your own personal beliefs are about war memorials or the word "dick," the point is to consider why and how these elements have been combined, and to what effect. Anyone who took the time to look at the entire exhibit would see common themes, most of which are not homophobic, racist or sexist.

The works speak to environmental and personal destruction, commenting on the dark side of our species. To remove this deep and important message from the public sphere would be foolish. Art helps us conceive of our feelings and ideas about the world. Sometimes we have ugly feelings. Sometimes the world is ugly. To ignore these facts by banning challenging art would be an act of cowardice and a refusal to think thoughtfully and openly, and I think that has no place in a library.

- Taylor Warinsky

6th-semester,

music education major