UCLA art controversy: censorship or "curatorial process"?

The exhibition may be over, but Los Angeles artist Maya Lujan is still seething.

Lujan, 34, participated in UCLA's 2008 Wight Biennial exhibition, titled "Group Effort: Collaboration as Process and Form," which opened Sept. 25 and closed Oct. 9 at the New Wight Gallery at UCLA's Broad Art Center.

Lujan's large scale artwork "White Magic and Xanadu," appeared in the show -- but not the way the artist had in mind.

The symbol on the wall (at far right) was installed Sept. 23 along with the sculptural pieces, but was removed before the show opened -- according to the artist, without her permission.

"It's just sort of unheard of for them to handle it without the artist's permission," she said.

Lujan proposed the work with another artist, Kristin Botshekan, but Botsekan dropped out before the exhibition.

Although the student curators did not provide Culture Monster with their reasons for taking down the symbol, which Lujan calls a "mandala," Russell Ferguson, chairman of the UCLA art department, confirmed that the decision probably had something to do with the fact that the form resembles a swastika.

Webster's defines a mandala as a "Hindu or Buddhist symbol of the universe," usually depicted as a circle enclosing a square.  Lujan says the word can encompass any form with an inner shape, in this case the small square of bare wall enclosed by four arms. The form, she says,  "carries the association of aiding the viewer into a trancelike state."  She says that among the differences between her form and a Nazi swastika is that hers is oriented at a different angle.

In a Sept. 24 e-mail to Lujan, Alex Segade, one of the show's curators, wrote that all four curators "love your installation" but were "wondering if the wall mandala is absolutely necessary and if you would be open to taking it down? We've received a lot of questions about it and I am afraid it is being misread by the public."

Lujan asked for "a more detailed explanation" and added: "If you can give me a very strong and honest reason to remove it, I might consider it." Instead, Lujan says the curators removed the form, constructed of pieces of velvet, without waiting for her OK.

Ferguson left the decision up to the curators and said their choice should not to invoke the  "serious charge" of censorship. "Obviously the artist is upset about it; on the other hand, it seems to me within the norms of the curatorial process," he said earlier this week. 

Added Ferguson, "Nobody is accusing her of putting up some neo-Nazi symbol; on the other hand, it was not a kind of low-key thing." He said curators were misled by the fact that in her proposal Lujan described this part of the work as a "velvet painting" and that the proposal materials did not make clear what the finished installation would look like or "it would have been dealt with before."

The curators -- Segade, Matthias Merkel Hess, Jennifer Gradecki and Wu Ingrid Tsang -- said via e-mail Thursday: "Regarding the project Maya Lujan and Kristin Botshekan proposed, we decided not to include the wall piece because it was not in the spirit of the show we wanted to present...." No reference was made to swastikas.

Lujan believes that a study she provided along with her written proposal did indeed suggest the intended shape of the form. Said Lujan: "What I would ideally like is another opportunity to show in the gallery, and I would like another opportunity to show my work intact and unedited. I just felt the whole time it was up it was not what I intended."

-- Diane Haithman

Photo caption: Maya Lujan's "White Magic and Xanadu" as it would have looked before the "mandala" --an image that some perceived as being a little too close to a Nazi swastika -- was removed. The photo, by Ben Duggan, was shot Oct. 3, while the show was still open: "I put it [the mandala] back up for the shoot. I kind of had to sneak in there and do it. We got the shots and left," Lujan said in an e-mail.

Comments

[TheTruth]

I wouldn't have thought that looked like a swastika unless it was pointed out in the article - not much more than the Recycle or Hazardous Waste logos. In my opinion, this is just a reaction to fear of controversy, and an intolerance for an artist's first amendment rights to free speech. Republicans. Fascists. Even Jewish people. If an artwork is inherently hateful or inciteful (and I have NO idea what this piece of art means as I haven't seen it or studied it), then people can lodge complaints. But to remove it definitely seems Orwellian.

[PeterPatnter]

Hey c'mon -- OBVIOUSLY a swastika. Who's this Lujan trying to kid? Doubletalk such as "different angle" doesn't cut it. On one hand, the curators can be seen as somewhat high-handed in not "waiting" for Lujan's OK (how long would they have had to wait?) -- but ultimately it was not the curators but Lujan who was high-handed in her initial flamboozling of the curators by misdescribing her "mandala" and omitting a clear image or indication of what it would be. All in all, it seems all but certain that she led the curators down the primrose path very INTENTIONALLY, i.e. that she KNEW they'd have declined to accept the piece if they'd known what it was. Now the real question: what is her underlying motivation in trying to slip a swastika into a UCLA art show? Was it "merely" the ubiquitous (and obnoxious) compulsion of all budding artists to attach some shock value to themselves, or does she actually have some societal/philosophical attachment to swastikas?

[Hirad Dadgostar]

It does not take a lot of foreign travel or study to know that the symbol has been around for centuries before it was hijacked by the Nazis. Of course, even if a person were not aware of this, I'm certain that most would figure it out -- either on the initiative of their own research or simply by asking. It is too bad that these curators felt compelled to appeal to the lowest common denominator with their man-handling of Ms. Lujan's work. It is obvious from their actions that the Broad Center has no confidence in the intelligence of its audience or its place in the art community. What an unfortunate insult to its visitors and an embarassment to UCLA's fine tradition.

[Sean K]

peter patnter: The symbol is NOT a swastika. Not just because of the angle, but because IT JUST ISN"T!!! Look at it! A swastika is composed of a cross with a single 'foot' or 'attatchment' at each endpoint on the cross, perpendicular to the cross and leading to the left or the right. This symbol curves back on itself because of the extra lines that ARE NOT PRESENT IN A SWASTIKA. I'm sure this symbol is probably just as old if not older than an actual swastika. If this symbol is a swastika, then most peoples kitchen and bathroom floor tiles are covered in swastikas. In fact, any grid or sheet of graph paper is covered in swastikas, if thats what YOU choose to see. What this article tells me is that UCLA sounds like it has a pretty pathetic art department. That's just sad for a city with as much art history as ours.

[Chuck Hodi]

Well, looks like the curator's didn't look deep enough. There were other swastika like images in this exhibit.

[T Le]

It is a swastika but what is the symbolism behind it? Is it Buddhism or Naxis. One has to look at the whole picture. If we judge the swastika this way then should we look at the rising sun of Japan the same way? Or even the atom bomb which US drop on Japan. The symbol for Buddhism has been around longer than Christianity. Peace man!

[Anne W.]

It's true that it's an ancient, international symbol. It's also true that it has prohibitive modern associations. I think the curators were right.

If the artist wants to display a swastika, she can do so on her own property. UCLA has no responsibility to do it for her.

[russell]

I think it is a "van" -- those are buddist symbols that spin the other way. I think those symbols need to be "de-powered" anyway. It is about time somebody re-purposed them.

[Lance]

I don't know about the swastika but that triangle on top of the rectangle with the two smaller squares underneath is surely a penis. What the heck what she trying to pull? She is surely sexist...I suggest she be locked up immediately for her hatred towards men...NOT!

Come on people, they are lines of paint on a wall. Swastika or not, big deal. Grow up.

[Hollywood Dodger Mark]

I can tell you this, if it was an avante-garde Klan outfit we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Lauri J]

This is NOT a swastika! At least, not a Nazi symbol swastika. The Nazi’s symbol was an equilateral cross with bars off each arm bending to the right and the entire symbol sat on two points, so it was more like an "x" than a plus sign (+). It is unfortunate that since the Nazi party chose this symbol, thousands of years of prior use and symbolism have been erased from all human memory. All that is ever seen when ever a cross with arms appears is the "symbol of infamy" used by Hitler's army. I think that while anger at that part of history is real and justified, let's remember that there is more to similar symbols than Hitler’s legacy and move on.

[boogie]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Blah, Blah, Blah. The whole 'art scene' is irrelevant!

[Ugh]

I'd have thought it was a swastika, until I read the little card next to it that would hopefully let me know that this is the buddhist one. I've had many sightings of "swastikas" on little ornaments that hang in some of the stores in Chinatown, but I just remind myself what it used to mean, and I get over it. That's how you get around the "misreading by the public". Put a little picture of an ancient one next to it if necessary.

However, the artist should have been a bit more forthcoming in her supplemental materials to the curators, at least - the fact she was sneaking the symbol in after the fact for the photo shoot, means that she understood full well that it would cause controversy.

So was she trying to make a true artistic statement, or just trying to draw attention to herself.

[Elmo]

I guess that's why the exhibition is called a "group effort."

[frank]

What has happened to freedom of expression? The swastika was a Tibetan good luck symbol for hundreds of years before Hitler used it to promote the Third Reich. The interpretation of it now becomes subjective, does it not?

[John Ferrer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the swastika's and the Tibetan universe symbol's legs go in different directions; as in the swastika's legs point to the left whilst the Tibetan one to the right. This could be true, vise versa, or completely faulty, someone's bound should know (:

[Kevin]

It's only censorship when you're not allowed to display it yourself. If someone else doesn't want to display it, well...that's that good taste.

[Barbara]

Sounds like the artist wasn't honest w/the curators. Anyone would know that a swastika or swastika-like symbol would be insulting to those who were victims of the Nazis, so why not be up front about it from the start.

Doesn't look like very interesting or good art to me anyhow.

[Michael Buitron]

Looking at the contemporary art exhibited at UCLA's Hammer, one would never know that two wars are being waged in the middle east. It seems that UCLA's art student/curators have fallen into the same trap.

Some artists and curators at ULCA's Broad Art Center spend a little to much time looking over their shoulder to curry favor of LA's collectors, galleries, and curators.

[Svetlana Mintcheva]

Clearly, whatever the swastika in the piece was supposed to mean, its contemporary association with the Nazi symbol are unavoidable - especially when the rest of the piece does not provide clear guidance as to how it should be interpreted. Of course, some people would find the display of such a symbol disturbing.

Yet, the possibility that someone may be offended cannot be a reason for the curators to mutilate what was, in my understanding, an installation, not just a compilation of independent pieces. This would be analogous to covering a part of a painting containing, say, an offensive ethnic stereotype, or even a swastika. While curators have the right to select work for a show, they hardly have the right to modify the work they have selected to reflect their own ideas of what is proper and improper. If the work as a whole does not fit the idea of the show, it should be rejected as a whole, not "edited" for content.

Besides, the swastika (the actual Nazi swastika) has been used in art many times to craft powerful comments on historical imagery and its uses. No image in itself should be off limits to creative exploration. On other hand, an artist cannot naively insist that she/he can use an image while avoiding the specter of its historical associations.

[Lou Hailu]

The U.S. flag has 5o stars.
do the stars represent Wiccanism (Wiccan religion)?

[myillusion]

I think that this show recognizes the fact that we are in the midst of a war and begs the direction of the country to focus on more productive ways of investing funds, that would be, space advancement and research. If we think about the teachings of Stephen Hawking, he insists that the fundamental survival of our planet /human is space travel. The swastika-mandala is a good luck charm for aviators.

[Dora Glasberg]

Both the Scandinavians and American Indians used the swastika long before the Nazi's appropriated it as THEIR symbol.
Besides this 'cross' has an extra piece at the ends that alters it.

[hrob27]

To those of us who know something about the history of symbols, we know that first of all, this is NOT a swastika; second, we also know that the symbol as it stands today was basically stolen and rearranged by Hitler to change it from a symbol of peace to the now commonly known symbol of war. I do believe that although they meant well, the curators jumped the gun and should have allowed the art piece to stand. However, those bloggers here who are criticizing UCLA should know that the university has one of the finest art programs in the country, and the school should not be disparaged just because of one human error.

[Hugo]

First, it does not look like a swastika. Second of all, those of you who are very sensitive to that image, I understand, but remember Hitler got the symbol from a Native American symbol (which meant prosperity), he simply flipped it counter-clockwise. Third, if you art people can't be thick-skinned or open minded enough, what hope do the rest of us have?

And fourth, the curators messed up. Either you censored Lujan's work, or you failed in following up with the artist with due diligence. Had you done your jobs correctly, you would have discovered Lujan's so-called objectionable image, and you could have just uninvited her from the show. That they took the middle road only shows the mediocrity of the curators; local museums and galleries would do well to remember these figures of mediocrity so as not to hire them.