Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and one of his constituents on Tuesday sued the Architect of the Capitol, alleging that the constituent’s First Amendment rights were infringed upon when his painting, which depicted police with animalistic features, was removed from the Capitol building.
David Pulphus, Clay’s constituent, was a 12th grade student in St. Louis when his artwork, “Untitled #1,” became the winning entry in the Congressional Art Competition for Missouri’s First District. Clay’s district includes Ferguson, Missouri, the scene of the shooting death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown by city police.
The artwork became the subject of an unusual controversy when conservative media outlets, and eventually police groups and Republican members of Congress, noticed that it depicted police officers with animalistic features.
Less than three weeks after the Independent Journal Review, a conservative outlet, first wrote about “Untitled #1,” the Architect of the Capitol informed Clay that the piece would be taken down permanently.
“In a January 17, 2017 letter to Representative Clay addressing this fourth removal of ‘Untitled #1,’ the AOC stated that, based on consultation with ‘industry experts’ and his own review, he had ‘determined that the artwork in question does not comply with the [House Office Building Commission] artwork prohibition [of artwork depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature],’” a court filing from Clay and Palphus read.
“The AOC did not further detail how ‘Untitled #1’ depicted such subjects or detail any input that may have been received by ‘industry experts,'” it continued. “Nor did he acknowledge that he had previously determined that ‘Untitled #1’ complied with the suitability guidelines and all other requirements when the Painting was accepted and hung on May 26, 2016.”
The filing also noted, according to testimony from the Architect of the Capitol, that the removal of “Untitled #1” constituted the first instance that a piece of art had been “removed from the Capitol campus on political grounds.”
Speaking outside the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse Tuesday morning, according to a press release from his office, Clay said the removal of “Untitled #1” marked an attack on free speech.
“[T]his case is truly about something much bigger than a student’s painting, it is about defending our fundamental First Amendment freedoms which are currently under assault in this country,” he said. “And that includes the right to artistic expression … even when that creativity is considered objectionable by some, and applauded by others. That right is strongly protected by Supreme Court precedent.”
Congressman Clay has an excellent point. Whether he has a whip hand in this political environment is an open question.
To Matt Shuham and the rest of TPM:
I will point out, once again, that the painting shows some cops and some protestors with “animalistic features.”
It is a mystery to me why TPM continues to follow the lead of losers like Rep. Duncan Hunter and the right-wing outrage factories in noting only the artistic treatment of some of the cops.
Wholeheartedly seconded.
Just take look at Chief Wiggam on the Simpsons. His features are also quite porcine.
Congressman Clay’s press release described the piece this way:
I’d say this is an “artful” way to describe it.
The St. Louis American described the piece this way:
I’d say this is false/misleading. As far as I can tell, there are three officers, two of whom have animal heads. One of them is apparently the head of a wild boar/feral hog. The second is hard to identify. One of the protesters has an animal head, which appears to be canine, or perhaps feline. The marchers are incidentally moving toward the police, because the police are in the middle of the route the marchers are taking.
From this story, it seems like a good case might have been made against the painting in the beginning, but once it was deemed to be within the rules, it ought to have stayed on the wall.
It’s tempting to conclude the artist depicted the cops as pigs and the protester as a black panther. Regardless, this reflects one young person’s experience of social trauma. It’s a valid statement.
It’s also inevitable that it’s become a political hot potato. What a stupid waste.