What makes you conclude that the controversy wasn't figured into it?? Schedule an art show, complete with the piece that is sure to bring controversy. As a result of the problems caused by the perceived problems, cancel the whole show . Then, after the press, forums and bloggers have had their way with it, open the show again, spotlighting the controversial piece.

Since the show wouldn't have been known outside of local art circles, conjuring up controversy could only help. If the controversy was not planned, they would be crazy not to use it, now that it has happened.

Although one might disagree with the manager, it is a private gallery, and as such, he is not required to show anything he deems unfit for show. If people want to display such paintings, they could open their own art galleries. Savido has to understand that he can't force the owner of the property to display that painting against his will, but his response shows he doesn't understand that.

I had not considered that the controversy was staged. I suppose we will see if the gallery reopens the show.

No one has to show anything they don't want, but in this case I think there is a certain level of pettiness that overshadows the whole thing. Its not even like its an offensive picture. Its simply a mosaic created out of monkeys.

apparently that ol saying 'one monkey dont stop no show' is less than accurate

lookin at the pic on the page to which you linked, i think i see the problem.  the artist obviously has a chimp on his shoulder.

the artist obviously has a chimp on his shoulder.

Punny. Very punny indeed.

" "We had tons of people, like more than 2,000 people show up for the opening on Thursday night," said show organizer Bucky Turco. "Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild.""

Note there is no interview with the manager, or the owner, or anyone else not representing the artist and who can give the true reason for stopping the show. "arrest you"??!?! Does that line not strike anyone else as silly? Do art gallery managers, even in NY, have the power to arrest people?

I think you get more toward the truth in this section from another article, (emphasis mine)

" "When we hung the show on Wednesday, we were asked to take down the Bush piece," he said. "I agreed but said I thought it makes a strong addition and I would re-hang it for the opening." Mr. Turco did that, and last Thursday, the meandering hallway of the market on Manhattan's West Side filled with a gallery crowd of artists, models and rap singers. But the presence of a disc jockey and open bar created a nightclub milieu. That provoked another person who helps manage the market, Mr. Turco said. "The party's over right now," Mr. Turco said the market worker told him before calling security to clear the crowd."

So here we have two details. One, oddly, that the show's representative agreed not to show the painting, and then said they'd hang it at the opening...? Second, that the "presence of a disc jockey and open bar created a nightclub milieu" and provoked a response.

I'm dubious. To me this sounds like an artist with sour grapes trying to make something out of the Bush thing when there were more issues at hand...

"the artist obviously has a chimp on his shoulder." Good one kingbee!

i think it's accurate! i personally liked the one formed out of assholes.

"Calls to the management of Chelsea Market for comment were not returned."

There were no interviews with the owners, but not for lack of effort.

"arrest you"??!?! Does that line not strike anyone else as silly? Do art gallery managers, even in NY, have the power to arrest people?

I assumed he meant to call the police if the painting was not removed. It was his gallery, so that would have been fully within his rights.

One, oddly, that the show's representative agreed not to show the painting, and then said they'd hang it at the opening...? Second, that the "presence of a disc jockey and open bar created a nightclub milieu" and provoked a response.

He agreed not to show it, but then said he would at the opening. From your article, it sounds like he said this to the gallery owner, who agreed to it. There's nothing confusing about that. As for the open bar and dj, wouldn't the establishment's owner have had to agree to that too? It's not particularly intelligent to rent out a space without asking what exactly is going to go on there.

The article I read in the NYT said that the offices were closed over the weekend and the owners couldn't be reached.

Regardless, it is the artist's word only for why the show was closed. This was a for-sale opening, the price of the painting in question being $3500.

To me this is a good example of horrible journalism, and frankly the norm now. You have an accusation made by an artist in the business of selling paintings, who would no doubt profit by such controversy, and nothing else. The fact that wire services take rumor and bias run with it is kind of sad.

How easy would it be for me and an art gallery owner to get together and set something like this up just to get my name on the wire service? Poor journalism at best.

who would no doubt profit by such controversy, and nothing else

except that the artist has said that the proceeds from the painting will now go to a "freedom of expression" charity, so he's not making any profit.

The article I read in the NYT said that the offices were closed over the weekend and the owners couldn't be reached.

I don't know about you, but if someone accuses me of something in a national newspaper, I make it my business to be reached.

You have an accusation made by an artist in the business of selling paintings, who would no doubt profit by such controversy, and nothing else. The fact that wire services take rumor and bias run with it is kind of sad.

There would have been no controversy had the owner of the establishment not asked for the painting to be removed, a fact which no one disputes, and which is incredibly petty in and of itself.

say, said, would have, blah.

In the end it is one party's description of a situtation with nothing but their word to corroborate it, and yet people believe it without question. Because the news said so. Because maybe they desperately need to have something to be outraged about. I dunno. For all any of you know there was never a gallery or painting to begin with, and yet you KNOW why the gallery owner closed the show...

In the end, it is shoddy journalism, and unworthy of trust. Wire services have become tabloids, farting out any detail that crosses their desk without going to much trouble to balance or even verify it, evidently. This shouldn't have been run until the motive of the management could be verified, or at least until they got a "no comment" from someone with a name. As of now, "could not be reached" seems to be their great balance... lol..

At the very least they should have dealt with the artist's story an accusation, since that is all it is without proof.

For all any of you know there was never a gallery or painting to begin with, and yet you KNOW why the gallery owner closed the show...

My article has a picture of the artist standing next to the painting.

Wire services have become tabloids, farting out any detail that crosses their desk without going to much trouble to balance or even verify it, evidently. This shouldn't have been run until the motive of the management could be verified, or at least until they got a "no comment" from someone with a name. As of now, "could not be reached" seems to be their great balance... lol..

The trouble to verify it was taken, and the management of the establishment was unresponsive. I don't know what kind of place lets itself get taken to task in a newspaper without sending out a statement of its own. Perhaps one with no good rebuttal...

The news is run when the news happens, not when both sides agree on a neat and tidy way for it to be presented. If someone is murdered, the murder is reported in the news...we don't wait until the paper can get the point of view of the killer.