Nestor wrote on Sep 8, 2006 9:01 AM:
" Like I said before, I think the art is great. Next we can have portraits of Arrafat, pictures of their wrecked homeland (homeland?), and then maybe a slide show about Martin Luther, or maybe we could have a booth at GL with headphones so we could replay a Sat Night Live show and listen to a song Lorne Micheals allowed listing who in our country with great stature is Jewish. The we could go thru the Baptists, then........
I don't think so. "
Gundersen Apologize wrote on Sep 8, 2006 6:20 AM:
" As a Christian who believes that Jesus was a Jew, Gundersen has offended me personally. I would like to hear an apology from Gundersen's spokesperson. "
We will probably never know wrote on Sep 7, 2006 3:04 PM:
" We will probably never know who is behind this fiasco. If the paintings had remained, most would probably be sold by now. Yet, that person or persons responsible for this do realize what they have done. It could have been an artist competitor of Clara's. It could have been some low-level administrator attempting to throw his weight around. It could have been some anti-Jewish character attempting to spew his hate wherever he could.
We will never know. But Mrs. Riek and GL fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. "
Not a big surprise wrote on Sep 7, 2006 10:28 AM:
" Truth be told - if Gundersen Lutheran could have made substantial money from the exhibit and sale of this art - it would have stayed put regardless. My guess is that people of some authority and monetary-value spoke out and the powers that be responded. Health care is business folks. Maybe more time needs to be spent censoring the art before it is hung. Either way - this whole issue is unfortunate but predictable in the conservative, homogeneous community of La Crosse. "
Rights wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:50 AM:
" Having the right to include or exclude doesn't make it appropriate. The fact we all have the right to be rude or act like jerks doesn't make it OK. "
I dont think it was GL that blew this one ... wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:35 AM:
" if anything it was the newspaper. What was the point - health-care instituitons with religious affiliations are hypocritical about "religious art"? We havent heard a reply from GL about the issue. Artists are not allowed to express themselves? GL has had a longstanding relationship with this artist and her organization, evidently selling a lot of their artwork via GL. Is GL obligated to display whatever this artist creates -if so why? Can an institution try to determine what its patrons may deem offensive, and do something about it? If this stuff is offensive to anyone, what about it is offensive. None of these questions were addressed by this poor attempt at journalism. "
Agreeing with... wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:25 AM:
" excellent point(1st post). What if you owned a business and someone came in and hung a painting you didn't like? You would have every right to take it down. That is hardly suppression of free speech. Now, if it was hung in a public park or something, that would be different. If a group came in,say from Madison, and sued to have it removed-THAT would be suppression of free speech. "
DJ wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:10 AM:
" While Gundersen Lutheran may in fact be a private institution, it serves the general public. In this capacity, it is open to public criticism and well should be. Further, it accepts federal and state funds in its operation and is involved in interstate commerce which makes it much more than just a private intitiution. In its role as a medical facility, like many others, it frequently displays the works of local artists. In this it is not unique. "
Brian G Smith wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:25 AM:
" Who wants controversy in an HOSPITAL ? It's a place for healing. Nonetheless, I submit that the controversy will, in the end, help the Artist. "
Mikey wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:12 AM:
" I have not seen the paintings, but it does seem to me that the whole idea of art is to arouse feelings in the viewer and the artist. Some art offends - like some Robert Mapplethorpe photos - and is meant to. Other art offends when it is unintended. In either case we ought to be open to the feelings and question their origins. I think Gundersen may have blown this one. "
Excellent point, but what about free choice? wrote on Sep 7, 2006 4:43 AM:
" While I might agree with some of the writer's points, we should not lose sight of the fact that Gundersen Lutheran is a private hospital, not an art institute or museum, and not a government-owned organization. Gundersen Lutheran, like any other private person or organization, has the right to choose what paintings are located in its front lobby and hallways. That right, which each of us cherishes in our own homes, should not be overlooked in this unfortunate series of articles in the LaCrosse Tribune. "
Advertisement
