If Art Could Kill: Anatomy of an "Art" Attack: An Interview with Stephen Pearcy

 by Bruce L. Thiessen  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Stephen Pearcy on his piece, T'anks to Mr. Bush, the war in Iraq, Andres Serrano, and Sinead O'Connor.

History is littered with shrapnel from prior modern "art" attacks on morality, American culture, democracy, and the like. The deleterious sequelae trailing from these attacks are an embarrassment on American culture. When we reflect back on artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe, and his seven perverse portraits depicting human figures engaged in vile sadomasochist acts, and on Andres Serrano's blasphemous piece depicting a small crucifix submerged in Serrano's own urine, we ponder why these items were termed "art." 

One of the most shocking "art" attacks of late is an unspeakably offensive expression that reflects an utter disregard and disrespect for the United States, for the President as Officer in Chief of the military, and for patriotism across the nation. Northern Californian "shock artist"/attorney Stephen Pearcy is the perpetrator of this attack. His weapon of choice was his infamous work entitled, "T'anks to Mr. Bush," a piece that depicts a stars-and-stripes-covered map of the US being flushed down a toilet with the words, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." Those of us who come from the creative community are finding ourselves increasingly drawn into a culture war against American values. It is a civil war, but the unexpected strikes from the likes of artists adhering to an extremist agenda are making this anything but civil.

How did this repugnant piece of weaponry land right on top of the Department of Justice in Sacramento, where it is now proudly displayed? The artist may have called the shots, but I believe it was his impulsivity, emotional reactivity, and ideological extremism that ultimately ruled.

The following is an interview with artist/lawyer Stephen Pearcy, who so graciously allowed me to engage him.  Let's face it: It took courage for him to step into my right-wing ring.  As right-wing/left wing dialogues go, this one was fairly civil, and I don't mean "as in civil war."  There were no cheap shots exchanged.  Personally, I was proud of my restraint.  I made it a point not to pass a fist past this pacifist.  As I do my best to present both sides to you, the public, I ask that you carefully read, ponder, and become engaged into what your tax dollars are funding, and to what is being called- "art."

Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen: Will you kindly introduce yourself to those who may not have had the time to keep up with the latest national news or follow the developing story as it concerns your work?

Attorney Stephen Pearcy: Sure. My name is Stephen Pearcy; I live in Berkeley, California with my wife, Virginia. We grew up in Sacramento, so we have many roots in that area. My wife and I are both attorneys. Before we went to law school, we earned our bachelor degrees at UC Davis in mathematics.

Although we live in Berkeley, we also have a home in the Land Park neighborhood of Sacramento, and we stay there occasionally. We only moved to Berkeley last August. Before that, we lived in our Land Park home year-round. While we lived there, we often placed political messages in front of our home. We started doing that soon after 9-11 because we grew very concerned about Americans' tolerance with the Bush administration's increasing disregard for constitutional and human rights.

Our Sacramento home became a focal point in February 2005 after we placed a display of a soldier on our home with a noose around its neck and a sign reading, "Your Tax Dollars at Work." Within days of the first news report, a trespasser climbed our home in front of television cameras, tore down our display and then gave a news interview. The following weekend, we replaced the display, this time with a sign that said, "Bush Lied, I Died." As we replaced our display, we had a great deal of support from local community activists. Members of the Veterans for Peace held and stabilized the ladder for me as I stapled up that second display.

Within a few days, however, our second display was also torn down by a trespasser/vandal/thief. That wrongdoer was also interviewed by a news reporter. The following week, the right-wing group, Move America Forward, held a candlelight vigil across the street from our home. At that event, an even larger crowd of anti-war and free-speech supporters gathered on our side of the street to defend and support our soldier displays. About 400 people in total were present.

Eventually, the crowds and media went away, but the dialogues continued.

A few months ago, I was invited to submit my "political protest art" for consideration as part of an art exhibit sponsored by the California Lawyers for the Arts. The exhibit was to open at the Sacramento County Public Law Library and remain for two months, whereupon it would travel to the CA Attorney General's office. I submitted my soldier display and a painting that I made two years ago to place on my front lawn on the 4th of July. The painting depicted an outline of the US with an American flag in place of the states all shown going down a toilet. The caption read, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." Both of my pieces were accepted, and both went on display in the exhibition at the public law library. After two months, various pieces were moved from the law library to the AG's office. My painting was one of the pieces moved; the soldier display is still at the law library.

Within days of the opening of the exhibition at the AG's office, right-wingers staged a public outcry, and another media frenzy arose. My political protest art was once again at the center of the controversy, which culminated last week, when about 600 people gathered in front of the AG's office to support and oppose the art exhibition.

Dr. BLT: To allow our readers to place the controversy in context, please tell us a little bit about where you were born, where you grew up, your current living/work situation, and the role your background and upbringing may have in terms of influencing and shaping your work.

Pearcy: I was born in Kansas, but that won't shed light on anything because I was only there for three months. My dad was a navigator in the US Air Force, so we moved a few times and ended up in Sacramento when I was three. The most influential roles of my background were my college and legal educations. Both taught me how to think and reason carefully, analytically and logically.

Before I returned to college to earn my bachelor's degree, I was a full-time Sacramento County Sheriff's deputy. I worked on patrol and in the jail, and I saw a lot of civil rights deprivations. In law school, and afterward, I read many, many cases involving outrageous conduct by police and other governmental officials. My experiences have taught me that there is a compelling need for improvement in the entire criminal justice system. There is a lack of accountability, and there are far too many hurdles to bring legal actions against government officials who commit rights deprivations while acting under color of authority.

Dr. BLT: Most of us have heard myriad characterizations of your work, some extremely pejorative (even condemning) some complimentary, and some in between. I'm interested in knowing how you would describe your most recent work, the one on display at the department of Justice in Sacramento.

Pearcy: I would describe it as political yard art. I painted the piece for the sole purpose of conveying a political message from my front lawn. The message was not profound or deep: it was a simple image that conveyed the direct message that the country is going down the toilet and that the president is taking us there. I didn't paint the piece for an art exhibition. I spent about twenty minutes on it on the morning of the 4th of July, 2003. I painted it on a leftover piece of sheetrock. It's been rained on many times. Of all the pieces in the exhibit, mine is the only one that you could put in the front yard and not worry about damaging it. The people who criticize its artistic content are wasting their time. Any five year-old could have painted it. It was never about quality and skill. Nonetheless, it is a huge success; because my intent was to expend a minimal amount of effort to produce an image that would draw attention to both the image and the message. Again, it was originally intended to capture the attention of passersby in front of my home. Now it's gotten national attention, so it's succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.

Dr. BLT: Surely you knew you would offend people, (particularly those on the right) by such an expression. Was it your intention to alienate those of us on the right? What would make it worth it to you to offer this work, even with the knowledge that you would be offending so many people?

Pearcy: The main purpose of both displays was to convey a bold message to let others know how we feel about the state of affairs. We suspected that many others agreed with us, and we learned that we were correct. Many others thanked us for doing something that they acknowledged they didn't have the nerve to do. We knew some people would take offense to the content, but we thought that it was more important to show others that there are in fact educated, professional people who earn a decent living and live in a nice neighborhood who think the way we do. We think that's an important message to send, regardless of whether some people would be offended. You might call that our "greater-good" analysis.

In addition, for those people who get so wrapped up in their own mindset of American arrogance that they believe that we're all behind the war and the rally behind the flag, I think that it's good to remind them by example that we're not all on the same page. If the sight offends them too much, then it is good that they be desensitized and eventually come to realize that our Constitution protects the expression of our views as much as theirs. This is exactly what happened after we put out our soldier display: first there was a reactionary stage involving anger, but later, after some desensitizing, people began to realize that this was protected speech. It was a good learning experience for the more arrogant, over-reactive right-wingers.

Dr. BLT: Many feel you owe them, the country, and the president an apology for work they regard as an abomination. How would you feel about offering them an apology right here and now and offering to voluntarily remove your work from the department of Justice?

Pearcy: An apology is an expression of regret. I would be lying if I said I regretted creating my images. What I'm sorry about is that so many people don't realize that the president is misleading them about so many different things. I'm sorry to see people vote against their own interests — e.g., elderly people who spend thousands of dollars on prescription drugs and health care; young people who will need social security someday; poor people who think the tax breaks are for them; military people who enlist and are assured money for college; the many people who think that the war is about freedom at home and think that the world has become safer since we invaded Iraq, etc. I'm sorry to see so many people fooled, but I do my part to expose the truth.

Dr. BLT: As a Mennonite, I was raised to be a pacifist.  In fact, many of us "die-hard" pacifists had "turned the other cheek" so many times, our heads were spinning, and we could no longer tell our facial cheeks from our butt cheeks.  One day a simple reality set in: There is evil in the world, and evil does not respect pacifism. With the war in Iraq, we have indeed paid a high price, especially in terms of the unspeakable loss of lives. But isn't there a time when pacifism is interpreted as weakness?

Pearcy: No, we should have focused our efforts on improving our relations with the world's nations. This would not matter unless Saddam felt so emboldened that he actually launched an offensive against the US or an ally.

How we're perceived will always be a function of how we react to given circumstances. Right now, the majority of the world regards us as arrogant warmongers. They perceive us that way because of what we've done. It's egotistical if we're so concerned about being perceived as weak that we'll invade another country against the informed judgment of the majority of the world's nations.

Dr. BLT: Didn't Iraq's repeated, innumerable violations of signed agreements render the approach of the world community to his innumerable violations impotent and ineffective?

Pearcy: What about our innumerable human rights violations? Sanctioned torture, indiscriminate bombings in complete disregard of civilian losses of life, prison abuse abroad, prison abuse at home, detentions without charges, murders by military people and only minor sentences in response, arming of Israel to use against Palestinians, etc. Why is it war when we do it and terrorism if they do it back?

Dr. BLT: How do you feel the US should have responded to a nation, and to Saddam (a violent, ruthless dictator bent on consistently thumbing his nose at the UN) and the world community? So many UN resolutions were signed, and then immediately violated.

Pearcy: Yes, like the US agreement to act with NATO.

Dr. BLT: Just how effective do you believe yet another resolution would have been?

Pearcy: We can defend our nation without launching an offensive. Anyhow, what you're asking is really no different from someone in China or Iran asking whether they should pass a resolution condemning the US or instead simply invade the US (perhaps together?) in order to liberate its people from a president they believe is evil and a war criminal and who is using his military to conquer other weak nations for illegitimate ends.

Dr. BLT: How far is too far when it comes to expressing oneself creatively?

Pearcy: Generally, the biggest concern is whether something is criminal; the next concern is whether the speaker is willing to accept the fallout, if any, over his/her expression. A lot of people like to say, "There are consequences for speech." Yes, that's true, but the 1st Amendment is there to protect people from unlawful consequences.

Dr. BLT: Is there any point at which you would draw the line?

Pearcy: Personally, yes, I wouldn't display just anything. But what I would do has nothing to do with constitutional protections. That's really the distinction here.

Dr. BLT: How about the [expletive] Christ, Andres Serrano's depiction of a plastic crucifix submerged in his own urine?

Pearcy: I wouldn't display it, but, again, the 1st Amendment still protects anyone who does.

Dr. BLT: When Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of Pope Paul on the stage, did she go too far?

Pearcy: Not as far as I'm concerned. I don't idolize cloth or paper images or material goods. Tear up anything you want as far as I'm concerned. For that matter, I have no problem with burning a flag or a Bible or a pair of Levis jeans. If I start with a blank piece of paper and then write "God is great" on it, does it suddenly become a sacred document that can't be torn? Ridiculous! The picture of the Pope was no different. It was once a blank piece of paper. A flag was once a spool of thread and before that cotton, a seed, dirt, etc. People sure get crazy about symbols.

Dr. BLT: How  about those who commit lewd, immoral acts on the stage as a form of artistic expression?

Pearcy: I think it's ridiculous when people do that, but I also think it's good to have a constitution that protects that kind of speech. Popular speech doesn't really need 1st Amendment protection: it's protected by virtue of its popularity. The speech that the 1st Amendment really gets at is the unpopular speech.

Dr. BLT: Should there be boundaries in art, and, if so, who should decide where those boundaries should be erected?

Pearcy: Some legal boundaries already exist. The US Supreme Court has had a tough time articulating standards, such as obscenity, so I certainly don't have the answer. I generally favor protecting as much speech as possible, including speech with which I disagree or speech I find offensive and outrageous.

Dr. BLT: Is it possible that you could be underestimating some of your childhood and adolescent experience in shaping your present state of being and action? 

Pearcy: I responded to your question by referencing the aspects that first came to my mind when I considered what I thought were most significant factors influencing my political views and reasons for communicating the same.  College and law school educations seemed most important to my development of applying reason and analysis to a given sets of facts.  Certainly, the fact that I learned how to speak and read and write as a child is also significant, but if we were to examine every possible significant link in the causal chain, we'd never get a decent answer.  So, again, I just referenced what I thought was most important.

Incidentally, I did take some art classes in junior high and high school, but so did a lot of other people who don't use imagery to convey political ideas.  Similarly, there are probably also people who do use art to make political statements but who didn't take art in high school.  Also, I've spoken to many people who have come up with great ideas about political imagery.  Maybe one big difference between me and them is that I actually carried out my idea a couple of times.

Dr. BLT: Your post 9/11 "observation" regarding "…Americans' tolerance with the Bush administration's increasing disregard for constitutional and human rights," sounds to me like a conclusion based on a highly subjective interpretation of events.  Couldn't one observe the very same phenomena, and interpret it as "…Americans' realization that the Bush administration must become increasingly protective of the physical safety and security of American citizens, and that, for the sake of safety and security, some degree of practical compromise must be introduced."?  After all, what good are "constitutional and human rights," if nobody is around to exercise such rights?  Granted, life may not be worth living in a country completely bereft of such rights, but shouldn't we all be prepared to make some degree of sacrifice in the interest of our own survival?  Why must the post 9/11 actions of the Bush administration automatically be interpreted in a cynical manner?  Did you ever entertain the possibility that the Bush administration, while admittedly making its share of mistakes, had, and has, the best interest of American citizens in mind?   Or does having that sort of faith in government render one a gullible, ignorant fool?  

Pearcy: Let me give you one example.  The 4th Amendment protects all of us from (unwarranted) searches of our homes.  That law means that cops cannot just arbitrarily enter our homes and start rummaging through our things.  The framers drafted that law knowing that some bad people who kept bad things in their homes would not be discovered, but the framers and the people thought that being free from such intrusions was more important than catching a few more bad guys. 

I believe that the Bush administration and many republicans would be quite happy if we all just agreed to let the cops come into our homes and look around anytime they said that they were suspicious about something.  Many republicans often say things like, "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care if you're searched?"  That kind of mindset is completely contrary to the principles upon which this country was founded.  Expressions such as that suggest that the speaker really does not like our constitution or, for that matter, this country! 

We've always had bad people, and we always will.  No matter how much freedom we give up, if someone wants to kill a whole bunch of us, they will be able to do so just as easily as if we maintain all of our freedoms.  Just because it's harder to blow up a plane doesn't mean someone can't kill just as many people somewhere else.  People are being misled if they think that by giving up some freedoms it will make it more difficult for terrorists. 

If you want, go ahead and describe any realistic scenario involving fewer freedoms in a USA that you wouldn't mind living in, and I'll still be able to give you an example of how easy it would be for someone to kill a bunch of innocent civilians.  Giving up freedom is not the answer; it will only lend itself to a more corrupt government and a more dangerous world.   

In the Final Analysis

Reader, what is your final analysis of Pearcy and his so-called "art?" I will leave that analysis up to you.  As for my "impressionistic interpretation," of Pearcy, and granted, it is a subjective one by nature: Pearcy appears to be a man on a mission, and his present day predilection is for extremist artistic expression.  Moreover, he appears to be a man of selective sympathies, ostensibly showing virtually no compassion for the real victims of 9/11, and virtually no disdain for the acts of terrorists.  His compassion is putatively directed towards victims of supposed American occupiers.  His disdain is apparently directed at democracy, the good old USA, and the president.  It is my impression that I did not have to throw him for a loop in this interview.  He seems to have grabbed on to that rope he used to hang an effigy of a soldier, and use it to engage in a deadly ideological act of self-strangulation.   

For free downloads of the Pearcy protest songs of Dr. BLT corresponding to this interview, please link directly to the songs:

If Art Could Kill:
http://www.drblt.com/music/IfArtCouldKill.mp3
Art Attack:
http://www.drblt.com/music/ARTAtack3.mp3
Free Speech Gone Wrong (The Pearcy Protest Song)
http://www.drblt.com/music/GoneWrong.mp3
Pearcy Protest Song (Free Speech Wrong)
http://www.drblt.com/FreeSpeech3.mp3

Book Reviews

Read more articles by Bruce L. Thiessen