CENSORSHIP FACT SHEET:
THE CITY AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
1. On January 13, 2009, Puffin Foundation President Perry Rosenstein wrote to artist Mike Alewitz with a proposal to create a major new work of art for a gallery at the Museum of the city of New York, to be endowed by the Puffin Foundation. The letter stated in part:
“We also met with the Museum officials in early December to propose a puffin gallery space in perpetuity donated to the history of social activism in NYC. We will provide funding of over $1 million for this historic contribution to a cultural institution of New York.
In considering options for the inauguration of the gallery we reviewed our relationship with artists over the years.
When we presented your challenging artistic works at the puffin room, in Soho, the exhibition drew large audiences and it helps to establish our exhibition space as a “must see” gallery in New York City. Through the years we have also valued your expertise in critical insight regarding exhibitions held at the puffin cultural forearm in Teaneck New Jersey. We always keep copies of your book on hand because it so clearly expresses a dedication to art and learning.
As we plan out the new gallery for the system Museum of the city, we are proposing that a wall would be provided for one of your murals. There is no better artist whose work expresses the class struggle in America.”
In a follow-up note of October 1, 2009, Perry Rosenstein indicated that he wished have the mural be the “centerpiece” of the gallery.
2. On February 2011, Puffin Foundation offered to pay Alewitz $25,000 for the creation of the work, to include all materials and expenses. He was given a $15,000 deposit - a nominal fee for a project requiring years of work. Alewitz considers this to be a donated work – his real pay was to have the mural on permanent display in the museum. (He has yet to receive the balance).
3. On November 30, 2011, Alewitz presented The City at the Crossroads of History, in PowerPoint form, to a meeting of the chief officers of the Puffin Foundation, representatives from the Museum of the City of New York and the Puffin Gallery Advisory Committee. That Committee was composed of Peter G. Carroll, Executive Director, Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives, and comprised of scholars and activists Esther Cohen, Professor Joshua Freeman, Victor Navasky, Publisher of The Nation, Bruno Quinson, publisher, Professor Christopher Rhomberg and Tom Roderick.
The mural proposal was met with unanimous and enthusiastic approval. In fact, members of the committee suggested that Alewitz prepare his PowerPoint as a video presentation for the permanent exhibit.
4. A few days later, a Skype telephone call was arranged for Alewitz to make the same presentation to Susan Henshaw Jones, who was not present at the meeting. Jones is the museum director with deep ties to the city’s financial establishment. Midway through the presentation, Jones cut off the call. She has had no further contact with the artist.
5. During 2012, Alewitz had a series of discussions with the Puffin Foundation regarding issues raised by Jones.
A letter from the Rosensteins stated in part:
“The narrative you emailed earlier this year provided an excellent review of the stunning visual and in-depth historical references for your work. We’re looking forward to an Alewitz masterpiece gracing the gallery walls.”
While praising the work, the letter raised the idea of eliminating the two panels that pointed to both the past and future visions of the city, which would have stripped the mural of it’s power.
The letter also began to cherry pick visual elements, stating:
“We also recognize the importance of including some less favorable movements (without demonizing or glorifying), such as New York’s nativists or the Women’s Christian Temperance Union.” (Nativists are anti-immigrant, right-wing racists and anti-Semites).
The letter further stated:
“As New Yorkers, we also think that Martin Luther and Coretta Scott King should not be the central figures, as iconic as they may be.”
Worse, Alewitz also received suggestions to include such dubious figures as Curtis Sliwa (advocate of extra-legal police violence), anti-busing bigot Rosemary Gunning, robber-baron Andrew Carnegie and pro-Vietnam War protesters.
6. In response to these suggestions, Alewitz wrote the following:
You've obviously spent a great deal of time grappling with the issue of the mural, and this is reflected in the thoughtfulness of your letter. I very much appreciate this consideration on your part and hope this response will be accepted in a similar spirit.
Museums, philanthropists and historians may approach objects and images with different considerations than face an artist, and I don't want to place myself in the position of being judgmental about these things. I will leave the issues of how history should be presented within museums to historians and archivists who possess a depth of knowledge about such matters. I will stick to what I know about: art and activism. And therein lies what is so critical to understand – this is a work of art. It is not a museum exhibit or a scholarly presentation of history. Because it is the work of an individual, it contains all of their baggage - from their vision, passions and strengths to their quirks and prejudices. All murals do this, including the greatest painting in the world, the frescos of the Renaissance – art that surpasses anything produced in recent times.
So, how do the suggestions fit within that framework? The issue of making the top part of the mural as one piece, instead of a triptych, seems like an odd request. Why tell an artist how to organize picture planes and substrates – these are only tools for visual expression–no different than palette, scale, chiaroscuro, depth of field, or any of a number of other compositional elements.
My decision to use a triptych reflects the place of this mural in art history, and the place of history within my art. Central to what I do as an artist is my belief that history is a living, dialectical process. I believe we have a past, a present and a future. The past is often buried beneath lies and misinformation and to understand the struggles of today, we have to reveal chapters of the past that official histories may neglect. The image of a slave ship arriving at Wall Street, for example, is not a condemnation directed against particular individuals, living or dead, but a historical reality that needs to be faced by society.
I place the more distant past into a separate panel, in order to make this point. Obviously the past also exists in the center panel, which is a more contemporary view of history. The same issues of slavery, child labor, etc, still exist today. But to simply make history into one big bowl of porridge weakens our ability to honestly confront our past. Of course, that is just my opinion - other artists would undoubtedly have different beliefs and therefore different approaches. But they are not painting this mural – I am, and I have a responsibility to present my beliefs forthrightly and honestly.
If we allow that this is a work of art, then some of the other suggestions fall into perspective. They should be left up to the artist to see how particular options might fit in to an overall composition. Most of the suggestions made are excellent, but that does not necessarily mean that they fit within the myriad of considerations that go into developing visual imagery. I have many thoughts of my own that I decide not to use because they just are not right for a particular moment or place.
The immigrant rights movement, occupy Wall Street, bicycle advocates, Quaker and Dutch historic struggles – all logical and thoughtful ideas to be considered within the overall context of how I have designed this mural. I thank you for them. Other suggestions are more problematical – for example, the idea of just including an anti-immigrant Nativist with a coherently arranged group of progressive activists, may make sense to archivists, but to an artist it makes no more sense than throwing an ashcan school trolley car into a Monet lily pond.
The same thing is true about including individuals on the lower portion of the mural. I enjoy getting suggestions and I'm always glad to consider them. But I can’t paint a mural that is composed of some sort of an approved list. It’s not that I am unsympathetic to a host of concerns that the museum may have – it’s just that the mural then ceases to become art. It becomes a political statement. That is not how this project was proposed to me at its inception, or even in your letter. If you want, as you state, an Alewitz “masterpiece,” then you have to let me do my job.
Finally: I understand a reluctance to make predictions about the future, even as ambiguous, humorous and magical as the one I present. But again, this is a work of art. It is not a political program, a scholarly historic document, or a programmatic blueprint of action. It's Alewitz having fun and dreaming about a world where buildings float in space and we all sit down, orangutans and machinists, to enjoy a slice of the good things of life. If you take away this ability to dream, it denies our future. I still believe humanity has a decent shot at survival – why should we bother with any of this if we don't share that fundamental optimism? And yes – let us all imagine and celebrate a world where weapons of destruction are forever buried in the ground.
Remember – you are holding meetings and discussions about issues that may not be on the minds of the viewer. They want to see a cool mural that makes them laugh or cry and makes them go wow. We can’t just be correct, good art needs to be entertaining and inspiring.
This letter was delayed, because events in the real world intervened. Notably, I was providing the banners for the national antiwar conference that took place in Stamford last week. Things are happening. People are organizing, inventing new methods of struggle and proposing innovative solutions to the worlds problems, and that fills me with great optimism for the future. This is going to be the best mural of my life. I've worked over the past year researching and developing the imagery. But really, I have spent my entire life preparing to paint this mural – from the time I organized my first anti-war demonstration as a high school student in 1967.
If the museum has concerns, I have no problem with them posting a disclaimer or hanging other artworks that they feel are necessary. You can also consider hanging the work for a limited time, to see if you wish to live with it permanently. But please - let’s not kill this vision with a thousand small cuts.
This mural will be an important contribution to the movement and ultimately it belongs not to me, or Puffin, or the museum – but to the people of New York and the working class as a whole – because it embodies the spirit of their struggle. I want to paint an amazing and challenging mural that is going to be embraced by the people of this city – nothing less!
Alewitz received no response to the above letter and continued to work on the mural.
7. On February 24, 2014, The City at the Crossroads of History was completed. The Puffin Foundation informed Alewitz that the museum was refusing to exhibit the work. Puffin has referred further communication to the museum and refused further comment. The museum has not responded to requests by the National Coalition Against Censorship to discuss the situation.
8. On January 19, 2015, Museum Director Susan Henshaw Jones used the occasion of Martin Luther King’s holiday to break her yearlong silence and issue a statement justifying the censorship, saying only that the mural “did not meet the curatorial standards or purposes of the museum.”