Art and defamation

By Cameron Skidmore

Art is meant to provocative, confrontational, and emotional.

Whether a piece makes you cry and enter an all intensive fit of rage, our job as the viewer is to present that reaction with honesty. Some viewers, however, find that the art presented is too provocative or just outright offensive, and feel the need to diminish its presence

When Franciszek Kulon plastered dozens of flyers, announcing the opening of his new gallery exhibit, they were adorned with a not so flattering image of then-Town Justice of Liberty, NY, Jeffery Altbach. Altbach, not at all amused by the devilish characteristics he was gifted in the portrait, file a defamation case against Kulon.

Kulon in reaction filed for a summary judgment, claiming that his artistic expression gave Altbach no grounds for a credible case. The court found that Kulon’s depiction of Altbach, which was posted in conjunction with an advertisement of Altbach, were exempt of defamation and was clearly parody, presenting itself as opinion rather than fact.

This case is clearly an example of censorship. Those in power want nothing more than to be exempt from opinions that may harm their image and want to be granted undeniable respect and authority. In this case, especially, we saw an arbiter of the law try to get his way but clearly fails due to the very Constitution he is supposed to know in and out. He wanted to be exempt from letting this artist portray his opinion and in doing so showed the fallacy in his understanding of the constitution.

Related posts:

Humans are creatures of habit we continuously do the same thing over and over, day after day. Ranging from what we eat for breakfast, how we fold laundry, and the routes we drive every day. But very…

Last year was an eventful year with regards to Cyber Security. What will 2020 bring? Many cyber security predictions for 2020 have been made by industry-leading experts. Analysing all these…