Artist Protests Own Exhibit

Timothy Kincaid

July 14th, 2009

When John Paul Blanchette learned that Barnes and Noble in Framingham, MA, would display his artwork he was no doubt elated. It would, after all, be his first solo exhibition.

Then he heard that one of his paintings was “too offensive” and would not be shown.

“It’s so ridiculous that when I met with (the manager) it took a minute before I was like, ‘Oh, she’s actually serious,”‘ Blanchette said. “There are romance book covers in there that are more offensive.”

You see, the picture in question was of two blue women in their underwear. And they weren’t going to be having no lesbians at the Barnes and Noble.

So Blanchette and a few friends protested his own exhibition.

We’ve not heard Barnes and Noble’s side (I’m waiting for a response), but it doesn’t sound like they are denying it.

Margaret Moore, community relations manager at the store, would not say why she declined to display the 11th painting; however, she did say “it is up to the store’s discretion to decide what we show.”

Yup, and it’s up to my discretion where I buy books.

Richard W. Fitch

July 14th, 2009

At least here in Indianapolis, many of the staff at B&N are members of the LGBT community. Is Framingham, MA still so provincial that they filter out all “alternative style” art?

Burr

July 14th, 2009

Okay, the implication might be there, but it’s an incredibly weak one! They aren’t even kissing! There’s so many pictures of women in bikinis and underwear together out there already that don’t exactly scream lesbian either. Just because the title has love in it doesn’t mean it’s talking about sexual orientation. I really doubt anyone would have flinched if nothing was said and it was just put up there.

It’s Massachusetts for crying out loud..

Alex

July 14th, 2009

This is very strange, considering Barnes & Noble is a gay-friendly corporation (offering health benefits and whatnot to gay couples).

Burr

July 14th, 2009

Well it’s the decision of one franchise, so it wouldn’t necessarily reconcile with corporate.

Alex

July 14th, 2009

That’s true, Burr. For all we know, this particular store might have a lot of conservative customers, who of course would rather complain than shop somewhere else.

John

July 14th, 2009

After reading the comments from the original article, it seems that just the hint of a gay couple together is cause to protect ones children from exposure. In the painting, their bodies don’t even touch. Looks like gay panic strikes again. My biggest offense from this work is how badly it was painted.

Kristie

July 15th, 2009

I’m not seeing how that image was offensive in the least (with the exception of how truly hideous the women’s faces were painted). They’re in their underwear and they look like they’re about to hug. How is that offensive?

You can be sure that if it was a painting of two women in their underwear and they were about to do battle with spears or battle axes it wouldn’t have been so “offensive” to the store. I’ve seen far more explicit covers on romance novels and fantasy novels. The women on those are usually only a few steps away from sort core porn, but apparently images of women getting molested by hot guys or women in fur bikinis fighting vikings is more appropriate.

Ridiculous!

JC

July 15th, 2009

1. I’d say ban the entire show not because of the subject matter but because, judging from the painting in question, it’s horribly bad art.

2. If the artist really felt that strongly about it, he’d have pulled his works, rather than allow the “acceptable” ones to be displayed and protesting, generating more publicity for himself.

Ephilei

July 15th, 2009

Yet B&N has its own lesbian/gay section in stores? Something doesn’t add up here.

Tikihead

July 19th, 2009

He should have shown up at the opening with the forbidden painting printed on a T shirt. Maybe all of his friends could have worn them as well.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.