Controversy Surrounds Art Exhibit at Cardozo

In wake of the highly publicized Brooklyn Museum case in which Mayor Giuliani and many religious leaders objected to an exhibit of a Virgin Mary painting tinged with elephant dung, Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law recently found its own share of controversy surrounding a newly installed art exhibit. The collection of art now located in Cardozo's lobby, includes pictures of guns, gun wall paper, guns painted with glitter, graphic portrayal of the female anatomy, and a video depicting violence to women - causing some students, faculty and administration members to voice complaints to the University for allowing such works to be displayed.

The works in question, collectively entitled Lifer, were curated by Cardozo graduate Kenny Schachter, a world famous artist, curator and dealer who represents emerging artists by displaying their works in exchange shows and exhibitions. Mr. Schachter views this particular exhibit as representing the conflict between "who we are at birth versus the notions of choice and free will, reflecting in some way inborn qualities and idiosyncrasies."

Schacter explains that guns are "fetishist objects obsessed over by many members of society," and that the artist is merely viewing with a critical eye society's love/hate relationship toward violence, and in particular, violence to woman. "Perhaps the artist is reclaiming an object often used against woman and others, making it into another fashion accessory, for which it has practically already become," offers Schachter.

With regard to the exposed female body parts, which is part of a work created by Josephine Meckseper, Schachter clarifies that "if our society mainly views women in such a manner, when a woman herself turns the gaze back on us, why would it be disturbing? Have you seen the way most men view women?" However, some female students have been disturbed by that particular piece. Jamie Rothman, President of the Student Bar Association, says, "The displayed artwork must be screened better. I have personally received many complaints from students at Cardozo who have been offended by it. Further, I see a few teachers who every morning walk by the video that is playing, and pull the plug out."

Another student who asked to remain anonymous, remarked, "This is supposed to be a Jewish school where higher values are maintained, and I am disgusted by the fact that they would allow art that glorifies violence to be displayed. I was embarrassed that it was still up when Benjamin Netanyahu came here to speak. I personally heard Rabbi Lamm complain about it when he walked by." Sara Gershumi, Co-President of Cardozo's Lehman Society, shared a varying opinion, saying, "I don't find the display to be anything out of the ordinary. I think the students and faculty members are just sensationalizing because of the Brooklyn Museum Case."

Joanna Raby, an editor at Cardozo's Law Review, was involved in the Brooklyn Museum case, assisting in the preparation of an amicus curiae brief - a document that expresses a particular view of a court case by a lawyer who is not directly involved. She assisted Marci A. Hamilton, Professor of Constitutional Law at Cardozo, with preparation of the brief, arguing in favor of the Museum that censorship is in violation of the First Amendment. With regard to the display at Cardozo, she maintains, "While I don't support the art itself, I support the artists' right to display the work." She does, however, dichotomize between a governmental action as in the Brooklyn Museum case, and a private action, as would be the case with Cardozo. She explains that "In the Cardozo case the constitution doesn't apply because the museum is privately funded, so if the University did take it down, it wouldn't be a violation of the First Amendment as it was in the Brooklyn Museum case."

Mr. Schachter initially expressed concern about bringing his collection to Cardozo because of complaints that were immediately raised as to the display's content. Two art works were originally censored by members of Facilities Management because, as one member put it, "I'm a man, and even I find this work offensive." Additionally another art piece by Sanford Biggers was found to be a potential hazard after its installation. Sources within the administration have conformed that Jeffrey Socol, Director of Facilities Management, unilaterally pulled off the floor Biggers' work after the artist and an assistant spent over five hours installing the piece. Schachter pronounced, "When I heard about this from the Office of the Dean, I just decided to pull the entire exhibit after the opening, but refrained when I was assured that the work could be reinstalled at the school's expense."

Paul R. Verkuil, Cardozo Dean and Professor of Law, supported the art display, stating, "This show brought younger artists to our campus and provided us with a way to engage a former student in the excitement and scholarly inquiry that takes place at Cardozo every day."

Schachter echoed Verkuil's sentiments, saying, "I think I struck a cord that is more authentic and refreshing than anything in an exhibit in a strictly art context. When was the last time anyone at the school engaged in a dialogue about art? I feel that maybe art can raise consciousness and be a viable means to foster a dialogue about issues concerning us all. I hate to say it, but it is thrilling and exhilarating to have a conversation about actual works of art. After twelve years in the professional art world, I was beginning to think there was no discourse other than that of a strictly commercial nature."