Asymmetrical Information

As a Harvardian who observed (but did not participate in) the erection, as it were, and destruction of the giant snow scupture, I must say that article (written by one of the builders) doesn't quite tell the whole story. A bunch of very drunk guys made their creation, a creation removed by several girls, ranging from feminists (railing against patriarchal oppression and symbols of sexual aggression, as a later Crimson response pointed out) to conservative Catholics (disgusted by the obscenity and convinced they were exercising as much "free speech" in moving snow as the guys were in moving snow) to apolitical types who didn't want their visiting grannies and the ubiquitous tourist families accosted by something not permissible for under-17s to see in movie theaters. A few of the drunk guys got violent and physically accosted some of the girls, who retreated and waited until the builders had gone off to pass out in their beds. Yeah, there's more to it than just "we were doing art, and silly fundy prudes suppressed our free speech rights."

> Yeah, there's more to it than just "we were doing art,

What is the basis for suggesting that drunken frat boys "sculpting" a penis out of snow isn't art?

Is it their recent alcohol consumption, their presumptive skin color, their group affiliation, their media, their choice of subject, their choice of venue, their lack of govt funding, the "squares" that they "challenged"?

On the campus of our engineering school, some underclassmen constructed a rather large butt in front of the administration building after a particularly heavy 1997/1998 snow storm, then took digital pictires of themselves 'humping' it (fully clothed, but then it was about 20F, and dark, when they did this). The images later made their way around the residence hall network shares.

Something about being at an 80/20 (male/female) campus really throws some odd loops into what qualifies as humor. Funny thing was, the structure stayed intact for several days, until passers by took pity on the melting structure and decided to kick its butt.

I went to a university where an excess of snow and enthusiasm led to the construction of a similar structure. I don't remember if it even made the school newspaper or not. Any adult woman who doesn't know how to cope with an ethanol-induced prank needs to have a sense of
proportion here.

When I was in college, the promotion for a production of Lysistrata included carrying a gigantic pink papier mache phallus through the dining halls every night.

Would we have been exercising free speech removing them? I think several of them were high...

Could argue it would have been more pro-fem to let it sit and melt over time, in effect - letting Mama Nature emasculate it ...

(ok, i don't really have a position on this, i actually just wanted to use the word 'emasculate')

I have to say that higher education is in a pretty sorry state if there are white male students who genuinely and sincerely believe that when you sculpt a giant snow-penis, you can expect anything other than it being cleared away the next morning? Or am I missing something here?

Well D^2 - not very much, but here's the confession of someone who "cleared it away":

The penis “sculpture” was not an official Harvard installation, and the men who put it up had no permission to do so. It was perfectly within my rights to take down this object which was incredibly offensive to me. As a student of Harvard University, neither I, nor any other woman, should have to see this obscene and grossly inappropriate thing on my way to class. No one should have to be subjected to an erect penis without his or her express permission or consent.

Nonetheless, I take your point - tempest in a teapot. But, I ask you, what else happens at Harvard?

I was more offended by the language of the confession of the penis-destroyer than the act. If she had said: "it offended me, so I acted; I do feel bad about the artists' time I destroyed", I would be inclined to cut her some slack. (She did note that it was in a public space.) But instead she was arguing, effectively, that (a) artistic depiction is equivalent to reality, and (b) she represented all Harvard students and/or women. Neither of these things is true. Also, neither is the sort of thing a 21 year old is likely to have thought up for herself. Rather, she almost certainly got these ideas from some victimology class.

Perhaps I am just too much of a simpleton, a little beneath the IQ curve of this blog, but as someone who is a college male, and lives on a college campus this debate is inane. No college guy, builds a large snow penus for art(that would require more visual sensibilities than most people in college have in general). He builds a giant penus because he and his friends thinks it is funny. In this case they were wrong.

I think we would all do well to remember that even though a drunken "artist" has his or her right to free speech, their right ends the moment it intrudes on someone else's right. In this case, there were no doubt many people that expressed their right to not have to see vulgarity exposed. Now, I encourage these protege's of the avant-garde to build their phallic representations of beauty as often as they please, but to do it in a private place and exhibit in a manner in which those who want to partake can.

What? And not 'scandalize the neighbors'? Egad.

Like the "female" snowwoman's creator said, its just snow.

Its clear the Harvard phallus was just a prank made by a bunch of adult beverage impaired (drunk) persons (guys). The reason they thought it funny is because it would offend someone's precious sensibilities. It gently mocked the very people who were upset by it. The rest of the passing patrons would laugh or critic it on its merits both as "art" and prank - good realism, proportions are a little off (these are guys after all), saw the same thing in high school. Ha-ha or Ho-hum.

The creators were happy because it stoked the prudes. The prudes are happy because the offensive "thing" was removed. Everyone's happy now. Literally, there's nothing to see, move along.

(P.S. If I can make the snow in my laneway offensive in some way, will someone come and remove it? Just thought I'd ask.)

> No college guy, builds a large snow penus for art(that would require more visual sensibilities than most people in college have in general). He builds a giant penus because he and his friends thinks it is funny. In this case they were wrong.

What part of the above is relevant in determining whether destroying said art is acceptable?

WRT "funny", how many and what kind of "that's not funny" evaluations are necessary to reach the "knocking it down is okay" decision?

> I think we would all do well to remember that even though a drunken "artist" has his or her right to free speech, their right ends the moment it intrudes on someone else's right. In this case, there were no doubt many people that expressed their right to not have to see vulgarity exposed.

Is the latter right general, that is, can it be expressed when the artist is not a drunken frat boy?

After all, there is lots of "vulgarity exposed", so it's worth knowing about a general right to destroy it.

Or, does the right only apply to certain "vulgarity", certain artists, or when expressed by certain observers?

Joseph said, "He builds a giant penus [sic] because he and his friends thinks it is funny."

Interesting; I had exactly the same reaction to Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" (and yes, I thought it was wickedly funny, on one level).

Does that mean anyone who wishes can destroy it? After all, it was made with public money, just as this sculpture was made with public snow...

You put up something made of snow in a public place, it's likely to get kicked down anyway. You want to call it 'art' and ensure its survival for a while, then you get the relevant permissions before "sculpting" and hire a security guard afterwards.

Otherwise...drunk guys built something out of snow, others tore it down, what's to debate?

The erectors should have noted that they were simply following Canaanite religious traditions, erecting "sacred poles" to denote sites in which sacrifices could be offered to the Fertility Gods and ritual sex acts performed to enhance personal fortune and fertility. You can read all about it in Kings and Chronicles. Neat stuff, that ole time religion!

> Otherwise...drunk guys built something out of snow, others tore it down, what's to debate?

There's the "we're offended" justification of the tear-down and the fact that there'd be hell to pay if a politically favored group had built something comparable and their structure was torn down by drunk frat boys.

Anony-mouse,

[D]runk guys built something out of snow, others tore it down, what's to debate?

You mean if it were a giant peace symbol built out of snow by Harvard women, and it was the drunk frat guys who tore it down, we'd be having exactly the same discussion? I doubt it.

Michelle:
You mean if it were a giant peace symbol built out of snow by Harvard women, and it was the drunk frat guys who tore it down, we'd be having exactly the same discussion? I doubt it.

Of course we wouldn't be having the same discussion; we'd be discussing whether or not sending the students "sensitivity training" or whatever the administrative punishment they were assigned to was appropriate.

You mean if it were a giant peace symbol built out of snow by Harvard women, and it was the drunk frat guys who tore it down, we'd be having exactly the same discussion? I doubt it.

Are you actually suggesting that if people deliberately and without the influence of liquor constructed a device in no way construable as obscene, with a possible political message, AND it was then torn down by intoxicated derelicts, that it would even be on the same level of debate?

That's just a little more happy powder than I'm willing to sniff right now. I'm not defending the precise behavior of the disassemblers, but to try and argue this incident on the grounds of artistic expression is ludicrous. Somebody fetch us Bill Waterson post haste, please, he's got enough material here to re-launch his greatest creation.

Anatomically correct vulva raises controversy

Collegetown, LU - Observers here today were rendered dumbstruck after female students constructed a large, detailed snow replica of the female vulva on campus property, only to see it torn down by an angered group of males.

Declaring the work to be the "ultimate liberation of the female anatomy," a clearly inebriated group of womens' studies majors built a six-foot-tall replica of the female privates, in sufficient detail to cause four serious accidents on adjacent Rose Street.

The evening then took an even stranger turn when a contingent of males from the local Newman Group chapter angrily tore down the structure, declaring that their "optical virginity" was "defiled."

Witnesses were so confused by the events that they had no comments whatsoever to offer; an attempt at commentary about "artistic expression" from one observer was quickly subdued by the others, who gave the errant commentator the slapping of a lifetime. Attempts to draw comment from local law enforcement officials were met by prolonged laughter, which had not yet ceased at press time.

> I'm not defending the precise behavior of the disassemblers, but to try and argue this incident on the grounds of artistic expression is ludicrous.

We're trying to figure out why destroying this edifice is acceptable/good yet destroying others is bad.

Other public phalli have been deemed "art" and surely phalli aren't the only obscenity, so if you're going to hang your hat there, you've got some distinguishing to do.

Yes, we know that it really comes down to is "It was built by drunken frat boys and destroyed by righteous women". Maybe the reticence to admit and defend that "principle" that is suggestive.

Sell it however you will, but at this point my wallet remains closed. This "sculpture" was built on open property, with no advance arrangements or permissions in place for an artistic exhibition (obviously, given the circumstances). There was no more 'right' to build it than there was 'right' to take it down, especially since we're still talking about SNOW here.

If the men in question really want to pursue this in civil court that's certainly their prerogative (whether they will win or not is another question, and I bet that the offended parties would be more successful counter-suing, but I'm not an attorney). Whatever -- without the appropriate pre-permissions for the work in question I don't see that they have ANY more protection under the law than do I if sombody comes along and kicks down my sandcastle at the beach.

If you actually have an answer for that objection and not just another "but what about under THESE non-identical circumstances" protest, then hit me with it.

Question:
"If the Harvard guys had clear rights to rearrange "public" snow into whatever form they found aesthetically pleasing, explain to me why the "Harvard" women did not have clear rights to also rearrange "public" snow into whatever form they found more aesthetically pleasing even if that meant just putting back into natural snow form"

> This "sculpture" was built on open property, with no advance arrangements or permissions in place for an artistic exhibition (obviously, given the circumstances).

I'm pointing out that the reaction would have been very different if a comparable structure had been built by members of a favored group under the same circumstances and destroyed by drunken frat boys.

Some animals are more equal than others....

Okay, I can agree with that.

Comments are Closed.