General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it Art or is it Discrimination?
Is it Art or is it Discrimination?
NEW ORLEANS (CN) - An employee sued The Roosevelt Hotel, a Waldorf Astoria hotel and one of the most opulent in New Orleans, claiming its 73-year-old mural of slaves picking cotton and drinking booze holds her and other African-Americans "open to ridicule and shame."
Deandra Pittman claims the hotel blew off complaints that its mural, by nonparty Paul Ninas, "creates a hostile work environment and subjects her to feeling demeaned and looked down upon."
She sued First Class Hotels dba The Roosevelt New Orleans, and Waldorf Astoria Hotels, in Federal Court.
In her complaint, Pitman "contends that the Roosevelt Hotel has created a hostile work environment by allowing a mural to exist on the wall of the Sazerac Lounge which depicts African-American slaves picking cotton, consuming alcoholic beverages and acting in manners which hold African Americans open to ridicule and shame."
- See more at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/27/55231.htm#sthash.E11gOFyH.dpuf
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)destroy it or have it destroyed.
Bryant
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)And the original creator jailed.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)With pie fights and strawmen. Or pie flinging strawmen.
OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)People don't like a painting in a public place....so they should get to wreck it?
Christians don't like an atheist painting in a public place, so, bring the eggs and buckets of paint?
Atheists don't like a Muslim statue in public, so, bring out the hammers and chisels?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)replacing all those statues and paitings destroyed. This could lead to a new golden age of art.
Bryant
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Welcome to DU!!!
GodlessBiker
(6,314 posts)... drinking, might it be considered to be contributing to a hostile work environment for an African-American employee?
I think so.
What does it matter that the picture is 73 years old? Latches? Perhaps. Has Ms. Pittman been working there a long time and is only now bringing the issue up? But, has the hostility only recently increased, thus bringing about the law suit? Or has the case law recently changed, thus making this cause of action more likely to succeed?
Her case is not without merit.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)One justification for racism I have heard from bigots is "slavery was a terrible thing but it ended a long time ago those *** won't let us forget about it. I wonder why?
With that in mind, this is art that should be preserved in order to remember history. But, as you said the environment is key. This kind of art should be placed where it will be taken seriously. I think that whether or not that is the best place for that is questionable.
I am sure it would be a huge undertaking, but is it possible to move it?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)should move its art so it will be taken seriously?
I'm guessing you've never been?
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)what kind of undertaking it would be. I have seen murals by Thomas Hart Benton in our state Capitol.
There are other possibilities. Would it not be possible to cover them and display them at times when they can be discussed seriously? Wouldn't it be possible for them to displayed upon request?
I can see the plaintiffs point. I think it's likely that a lot of people see this mural as cartoonish and demeaning. Do you not realize that few people take visual arts seriously?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)silliness should not be coddled.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But, self entitlement of some artists should be?
cali
(114,904 posts)including Rubens, David and Picasso. They should all be removed from anyplace the public can view them. Christians are offended by "Piss Christ" and "Madonna".
Dangerous way of thinking.
GodlessBiker
(6,314 posts)must create a hostile work environment. That is a high bar to pass and there is no guarantee that plaintiff here will meet it.
Secondly, the person complaining is an employee of the business, not a member of the general public. Employees have certain rights to a work environment, one of which is that it is non-hostile based upon certain criteria, which do not attach to members of the general public who might see the "art."
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)she's not seeing this art.
It's a bullshit claim.
cali
(114,904 posts)to be in a hostile work environment. It's a shit suit by someone who's out for $$$. And I find it pathetic.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Sometimes it's just a reflection of the artist.
Hopefully a compromise will be reached and the art will be moved, not destroyed. Art is a great way to gauge history and society. This art would be a very good history lesson on racial history and attitudes.
Just like the movie Birth of A Nation is a great teaching movie on many levels.
I think future generations have a right to see the past, warts and all.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)at the oscars?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Absolutely. But, for it to have a desirable effect, context is important.
A piece that highlights the ugliness of our past should probably be placed somewhere where a serious discussion would naturally be ignited rather than a place where people give cursory attention to the content. If this were in a real museum it would be different.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)It has no place in a restaurant.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)somewhere else, like in a museum or a private collection. It looks to me like both art and a hostile work environment.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)In New Orleans. In the Roosevelt. Dear, Sweet Jeebus....I hesitate to tell you the goings-on that happen there....
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)It reminds me of the Bonfire of the Vanities, all those Botticellis in flames.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the murals during her regular work hours--unless she gives her massages in the bar--is beyond me.
GodlessBiker
(6,314 posts)whether or not other employees/management have used or referred to the picture in a way to create a hostile work environment for Ms. Pittman.
If a female cop learns that male cops/officers are creating art in the men's locker room which depict women in a negative light, AND these depictions bleed into the work environment to make it hostile to female employees, even though female employees are never in the male locker room, do the female employees have a cause of action based upon a hostile work environment?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)GodlessBiker
(6,314 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)environment based on race. I'm sure they've all read Walker v. Thompson 214 F.3d 615.
I suspect no judge will be swayed by the argument that a masseuse in the spa was subjected to pervasive pattern of harassment--a hostile work environment--by a mural in the bar.
And, yes, you have to actually be aware of harassment.
Let me give you a hypo. If my boss calls me "racist insult" to my face, that's harassment. If my boss tells this to my friend, but my friend says nothing to me? Not harassment. I have to be aware of it.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)but not both.
I smell someone looking for a few bucks.
sdfernando
(4,897 posts)Come on! I think it is a stupid lawsuit. Looking at the work I don't see anything that specifically says "slaves" to me. This could have been a somewhat typical contemporary scene in the 20s or 30s in the South.
This work was commissioned by the WPA and definitely needs to be preserved. This is where the artist envisioned the work to be and it has been there since it was painted 73 years ago.
Here is the work it its natural setting:
http://therooseveltneworleans.com/dining/the-sazerac-bar.html
Peter cotton
(380 posts)Good grief.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)history, art appreciation, and reasoning have been removed from the public school curriculum.
RC
(25,592 posts)Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...on a daily basis. Let us imagine if a hotel bar had photos from "Birth of a Nation" showing the brave KKK saving the white woman from the evil black man. And every black employee in the hotel had to see these photos on a daily basis as they went about their business. We'd probably agree that this was not a friendly environment for black workers. And we'd probably agree that though "Birth of a Nation" should not be destroyed, that the propaganda aspect of those images was making the hotel a hostile work environment for those workers.
Now I'm not saying that this mural is the same as that, but we have to keep a fair perspective on what's being argued here. This is a picture, not a book--it is being seen by workers continuously. And no one is arguing that it be destroyed, only removed because it's message is disturbing to the workers.
If we're going to argue against this point of view by way of comparisons, we need to make fair comparisons.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Bigger image here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourviewphotography/3818142097/in/photostream/
As compared to the others which seem to be picturing contemporary (1920's/30's) images of New Orleans.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Not sure it's worth a lawsuit over though. I do think it would be better for the mural to be in a regular museum though, perhaps the Smithsonian. It is a WPA project that in itself makes it a historical work of art. Some people might look at it and think about how things used to be. I doubt anyone looks at it and thinks see that is how black people are. But, who knows, there are a lot of squirrelly people out there with some strange ways of thinking and looking at things.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Just to illuminate her side of it:
These murals were painted on the walls in the 30's before blacks were allowed to patronize the hotel or restaurant. They were not painted there for a history lesson, they were painted there with ill intentions and nothing anyone says can change that.
The Sazerac Bar is intended for leisure and a luxury experience among other pleasures.
Imagine a black person on vacation, having a meal, relaxing, kicking back having a few drinks with friends. Then looks up and sees a wall tainted with a huge painting of slaves picking cotton in their beautiful destination. I've imagined it would be quite the shock. I'd imagined it's the same way Jews would feel if it were a mural of Jews in a concentration camp. Or any race who has had a history of genocide, or any person that has ever experienced ostracism of any kind. Having a painting of this sort inside of a hotel or bar/restaurant makes me question it's intent.
I understand Black history is Black history and it can not be erased or ignored, neither do I wish it to be. However, there is a certain level of tact to be demonstrated to insure respect and justice for all.
She continues by pointing out that she's not the only worker offended by the artwork:
I had learned about this mural on August 5th 2011 while having a discussion with a coworker. At that time Id learned that this mural has been the topic to many conversations whispered about among employees. My coworker then shared with me how it made them and other employees feel. This made me very emotional. I asked my coworker, "if this bothered you so, or any of the others, why then wouldnt anyone talk to someone in charge to tell them how this affects you?" their reply was, "Im just a little person." By the end of the work day Id had a chance to run it by other coworkers in my department. They all knew already, I was the only one in the dark. They brushed it off by saying, "oh, everybody knows about that, people have tried to have it removed before but its not going anywhere its worth to much money."
So that's her side of the argument--that it affects a lot of employees, not just her.