Creeps tear down hundreds of handsome posters for African gay/lesbian film fest
Organizers of the "Out In Africa" gay and lesbian film festival in South Africa are seriously pissed: some homophobic jerks tore down all the posters for the fest, some 700 of 'em attached to poles and lamp-posts about town. There are two reasons this is upsetting: one, it is a clear message of intimidation and intolerance. Two: nobody should desecrate good graphic design, and these posters are really nice.
An outraged Out in Africa South African Gay and Lesbian Film Festival director Nodi Murphy has lodged a complaint with police. "Some stupid twits with more time on their hands than brains trashed our gorgeous posters. And for what?"Our gorgeous posters have been trashed (Out In Africa, via Kalaya'an Mendoza)
the latest
latest episodes
Those are really nice posters! Why do people have to be so hateful? We still have so far to go with this fight.
Obviously they did it to prevent the festival from getting publicity. A plan which has just failed epically.
Man that is creepy - defacing a poster or two I could dismiss as the actions of a few sick individuals, but systematically removing all of the 700 posters from around the whole city?
I hope they're brought to justice. South African society can be remarkably intolerant, but our laws are predicated on equality, be it gender, sexual, ethnic or otherwise.
in light of the atrocities currently happening there, posters are trivial.
reminds me of how the nazi's got started. first they destroyed the books, then moved on to people.
Which ones in particular are you referring to?
Oh, and this is interesting:
http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=10535
About halfway through:
“U.S. religious right sponsored programs blossomed under the Bush administration,” explained Christina Engela of the GLBT group SAGLAAD in South Africa, noting the rise of such groups in her country. “Suddenly these people are using us as scapegoats to unite and build their power bases.”
posters are trivial
On my planet, the ability to disseminate information is critical to social change.
Everything is opinion, but those posters are not as good as the praise given would indicate. Regardless, if there was a right to hang the posters, they should not have been tampered with.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48279
Yes, South African society has a long way to go, but, well, what Antinous said.
It's not possible to protect every citizen, all the time. It is possible to effect social change to reduce hate crimes.
Takuan, you're being an asshole here. Get it together, or you'll be unwelcome.
Those are gorgeous posters. I'd pay for one on my wall. Where can we donate to pay for new ones?
excuse me? Have I somehow given the impression I approve of that?
Also: I think donating campaigns can be used for more than money. Especially in this case. As a big FARK YOU to the bigots that did this.
No Tak, it's just that you're giving the impression that this doesn't matter in the face of the greater evils in South Africa right now- something I know you don't feel because we've had many discussions in the past about shit being shitty whether it's one gram (as in posters here) or a whole keg (as in the link you posted.)
Also, long time, no see, how's kicks!
Outrage isn't a zero-sum game. Just because terrible things are happening elsewhere doesn't mean that we should ignore the 'merely' awful things happening in our back yards, does it?
On a related note, I tore down a poster myself the other day. It was one of those "Obama as the joker" photocopies, with the words "THE JOKE IS ON US!!!". Was this wrong of me to do? I don't feel bad about it, but does it make it OK just because I disagree with and am offended by the message? Now, I only tore down one, but if I had seen 5 of them, I would have removed them all. (it was on public property)
So? Should I have left it up? I didn't really think about it before I tore it off... now I'm not sure. I felt it was horribly racist, harkening back to the Time Magazine OJ cover.
@MKULTRA
I have a similar story.
I defaced a Yes On 8 plastic sign a few months back.
I did initially feel bad, because it was an expression of free speech, and I felt I was a hypocrite for preaching the wonders of free speech but tearing down another person's.
As a lesbian, however, I came to the conclusion that it was a weasely way of putting up hate-speech and that the issue was wrongly placed as something to be voted on.
I wouldn't feel too bad if the place you took it down from was a telephone pole.
Mkultra, advertisement is a low level form on mind control. People get heated when they feel someone is being inspired to do something that we feel is wrong. The actions of placing the posters, in both instances and tearing down the posters, in both instances, are the same. The difference is the intent behind the actions. Putting up posters for the sake of opening minds to same sex viewpoints and tearing down the posters you mentioned: noble. Tearing down those posters of tolerance and putting up rascist posters of Obama: lame and wrong.
But these are my opinions. Some people don't agree.
Have I somehow given the impression I approve of that?
By calling it "trivial", you are giving a glib response to something that is very important to a lot of people, and considering the subject matter, something that should be taken seriously. It's insensitive, and in this case indifference is not very different than tacit association.
I would have torn those Prop 8 posters down if I had seen them, too. Call it a mild form of civil disobedience.
They have a right to speak, but I have a right to marry who the hell I want. If one right tries to stamp out another, well, self-defense is fair game.
I dunno about the value of the posters qua art. The design and layout is fantastic, but the illustration is clip-art quality to my eye.
That said, tearing 'em down is no good. The way to fight free speech is with more free speech. Arguing by silencing your opponents is censorship. Bonegnawer and Mkultra, that goes for you, too: You guys are the equals of the folks who tore down these posters. You - and they - may stand proudly beside folks who've banned books, censored music, and prohibited plays with content they disagree with. If you don't like a poster, put up your own nearby. Anything less leads down a dark, dark path.
And I say all this as someone who doesn't support gay and lesbian theater. I don't care a whit about a person's sexuality, gender identity, or anything else that doesn't harm me, but I feel like these events are crutches. Good art will out, so to speak. If I support an artist, it's because of his or her work, not because he or she carries a particular set of genes. I would no sooner support a "Particularly Susceptible to Pulmonary Infarctions Film Festival".
@Bonegnawer: Interestingly, South African law is pretty clear on hate speech - it's not covered under freedom of speech, and in some cases is criminal. Then again, South African law is also clear on marriage not being gender-bound.
But taking a different angle, there's a difference in degree and intent between tearing down one poster and systematically tearing down every single one in a city.
Interestingly, the police (Saps[sic]=South African Police Service) have opened a case of malicious damage to property. (So freedom of speech / sexuality issues are not at play, although I have a feeling a magistrate might take them into account when making his judgement.)
Out In Africa, instead of Out Of Africa?
I see what you did there.
MKULTRA and Bonegnawer,
The correct response is to put up your own signs. Which doesn't have the immediate gratification of tearing down something you find offensive, but in the long run is much more satisfying.
I've hung anti-war banners over the freeway, and found the experience very liberating.
OK there's no accounting for taste but that is a crap critique of this poster.
The illustration fits so well it looks like it might have been drawn by the typographer.
It really is a sweet bit of graphic design.
Did they have the right to put up those posters?
If they did then tearing them down is vandalism.
If they didn't, then tearing them down is just as much public expression as putting them up is.
Croves, bullshit.
The intent in tearing them down had nothing to do with the legitimacy of putting them up.
1) Ripping posters down
2) ???
3) Everyone becomes hetero!
I really don't think these guys had a coherent reason for this.
On a design note: it's iconic South African imagery, referencing the hand-painted boards outside township hair salons featuring portraits of men (always in profile) sporting different kinds of cuts.
It's gorgeous and very South African.
Our gorgeous posters have been trashed
By Out In Africa • Sep 15th, 2009 • Category: Film Festival News •
Retrieved from IOL.co.za.
Article by Jason Warner
A gay and lesbian film festival has been “devastated” after more than 700 posters showing same-sex couples kissing were removed from lamp posts.
An outraged Out in Africa South African Gay and Lesbian Film Festival director Nodi Murphy has lodged a complaint with police.
“Some stupid twits with more time on their hands than brains trashed our gorgeous posters. And for what?”
Launched in 1994 to celebrate the constitution prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the festival is on at the Nu Metro V&A waterfront until Sunday.
Alerted by a Sea Point resident, Murphy had driven around the city and had “seen empty places where my posters have been”.
She said she suspects the “two-day systematic removal of the 700 posters” had been carried out by fundamentalist religious or right-wing groups.
Murphy said she hoped to see the vandals “in the court of law, with them doing community service at a gay and lesbian project”.
She said the organisers had been advised to lodge a complaint so that they could receive permission to view CCTV footage of where many of the posters had been.
The office of the executive mayor of Cape Town approved and paid R32 000 for the posters, Murphy said: “It’s their money that’s been wasted and I can’t imagine them being too happy. I’ll be in their office tomorrow discussing the matter.”
She believed the festival had helped to promote tolerance.
“I kept thinking that there was an end to my work and that people have come to tolerate gays and lesbians. I don’t know why there has been this upsurge (in homophobia) all of a sudden. I think it’s because we’re an easy target. When there’s fear in the world its easier to go after a minority group.”
Murphy said there had been many messages praising the poster design as well as queries as to where the posters had gone.
“I’m outraged. It’s my right to advertise, we have a constitution and our rights are protected.
This breaking news flash was supplied exclusively to iol.co.za by the news desk at our sister title, The Cape Times.
http://www.oia.co.za/film-festivals/our-gorgeous-posters-have-been-trashed/
I never really "got" why people disliked gays.
Can someone please explain it to me? It's very confusing, even now that I'm in my mid twenties.
I remember all through my public schooling, students would say I was gay (as if there was something wrong with that) because I refused to play football with them and instead opted to read books and use the computer.
Many of the worst ones seemed pretty gay to me, they spent much of their time slapping each others asses in the locker room, and drawing pictures of penises in their notebooks.
Generally, I try not to tear down flyers, even if I strongly disagree with them, out of principle.
Sometimes I do though.
I saw some really stupid flyers that said something along the lines of "Swine flu vaccine is Zionist poison!" and it had a link to infowars.com
I was really offended by these truther's stupidity so I went ahead and tore down every flyer I saw.
#31) Generally boils down to three common "reasons" although I'm sure there's as many as there are homophobes.
A) An authority figure (such as their religion) tells them that gays are bad. The reasons their authority gives are sort of irrelevant because they don't believe it because it's rational, but because they've been told to.
B) They've had little (knowing) exposure to homosexuality, therefore they think it's "different" or "foreign" or "not like me", and different things are "scary and bad". Xenophobia, in other words.
C) They're secretly afraid they might be gay, so they dramatically express hate for it in order to affirm to themselves that they are NOT because being gay is HORRIBLE and they aren't horrible therefore they can't be gay.
The fear in option C is often fed by option A and/or option B (fear of being bad, as defined by A, or fear of being isolated by everyone else due to option B).
Another way to put it is 'Because people are irrational monkeys', which is the cause of many ills.
#4
agreed
but this post is worth notice in the wider scheme of things
any south africans looking at BB who can comment?
double points if you are... well, you know, that "way inclined"
Lovely composition and typography skills in the poster. I bet they look dynamite screenprinted. In regards to the systematic take down of posters (in general) I find it very offensive that a group would go out of there way to remove all 700 posters. Regardless of the message and if you agree with it or not. Good graphic design needs to be admired and celebrated. I hate to say it, but if I saw one of these on the street I would probably take it down to hang in my living room.....but not all 700. Thanks for sharing this Xeni.
@28 - Really? I think you could only come to that conclusion by assuming as XJ did that it was a bunch of "homophobic jerks". Crazy how fast that card gets played.
someone admit those posters are not "beautiful."
let start off by saying that the festival appears to be a worthwhile movement in an area that needs it soo desperately.
however, it's a cop out to draft posters of same sex couples making out, knowing full well that they're going to be posted in an intolerant environment where they won't last a day. i mean, it worked, because now it has more attention than it ever had, but it's still a cop out.
and while i wouldn't mind in the least having posters advertising this festival in front of my house or in the window, i find these posters pretty ugly, and no, that doesn't make me a homophone.
Really? I think you could only come to that conclusion by assuming as XJ did that it was a bunch of "homophobic jerks". Crazy how fast that card gets played.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it takes one to know one. 'Play that card' is the number one meme in the bigot's handbook. Are you suggesting that all the posters in town were torn down by art critics?
@ cognitive dissonance:
"i find these posters pretty ugly, and no, that doesn't make me a homophone."
Not necessarily, but you demonstrate a real lack of appreciation for good graphic design that could only be caused by blatant ignorance on the subject, bad taste, or both.
@ steve:
"assuming as XJ did that it was a bunch of "homophobic jerks". Crazy how fast that card gets played."
You really don't know what homophobic means do you?
@ANTINOUS
It's not completely far fetched. Paid advertisments of a "hetero couple" kissing have been pulled because it was considered lewd in a public place, so it's not completely out of consideration that these were torn down by people who just felt them too lewd for the public. There's no one to complain to if they're publicly posted, so someone probably took it upon themselves to censor it. That doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't make someone a "homophobic creep."
I personally don't find the posters "beautiful" or "artistic" but to each his own, because I wouldn't tear them down either. I think that sans the kissing, same sex couple or not, the posters would have faired better.
cognitive dissonance #40:
Paid advertisments of a "hetero couple" kissing have been pulled because it was considered lewd in a public place, so it's not completely out of consideration that these were torn down by people who just felt them too lewd for the public.
In some oppressive theocratic societies, maybe. But I challenge you to provide an example of similarly graphic heterosexual posters being treated this way in a secular setting like Cape Town.
cognitive dissonance,
You just cut yourself with Occam's razor.
"i find these posters pretty ugly, and no, that doesn't make me a homophone."
funny typo, since it's so apt.
You may not be one, but you're sounding like one.
@ FALIX #39
false. the posters may exemplify everything that it means to be south african art, but that just makes them "accurate."
assuming i have no "taste" or posess "blatant ignorance" for not thinking highly of the posters is as asinine as it is to think that someone who does like them is somehow more "cultured" and "intellectual" because of it.
@ BRAINSPORE #41
in my experience, the paid ads i was referring to were pulled in boston, which is (obviously) far more progressive than south africa. with that frame of reference, it doesn't seem ludicrous to think that something more "controversial" (meaning same-sex couples making out) in a far less progressive area would be seen as even more vulgar and ripe for take down.
that being said, if that society deems the signs inappropriate, why cant it be just that, why does it have to be also homophobic? tearing down the signs is much different than protesting the actual film festival.
@ MDH #43
i have to admit i did laugh the second i saw that.
but it's as ridiculous to think that just because someone isn't fawning all over the posters that they're a homophobe as it is to say that people who disagree with Bush were terrorists/hippies, or who disagree with Obama are racists.
cognitive dissonance #44:
in my experience, the paid ads i was referring to were pulled in boston, which is (obviously) far more progressive than south africa.
Let's see those ads you're talking about- I'll bet you a buck they are far more lewd than the ones for this film festival. And what makes you say that Boston is "obviously far more progressive" than Cape Town, anyway?
...it doesn't seem ludicrous to think that something more "controversial" (meaning same-sex couples making out) in a far less progressive area would be seen as even more vulgar and ripe for take down... that being said, if that society deems the signs inappropriate, why cant it be just that, why does it have to be also homophobic?
How exactly is a same-sex kiss more "controversial" or "vulgar" than a heterosexual one in the absence of homophobia?
@cognitive dissonance - obviously the boston posters were taken down by heterophobic creeps.
@ cog dis - i hope you can see that the length you've gone to in defending these actions as potentially reasonable speaks louder than your words themselves.
Cognitive Dissonance said:
"it doesn't seem ludicrous to think that something more "controversial" (meaning same-sex couples making out) in a far less progressive area would be seen as even more vulgar and ripe for take down.
that being said, if that society deems the signs inappropriate, why cant it be just that, why does it have to be also homophobic?"
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're objecting to the term "homophobic" being used to describe those who find homosexuality more "vulgar" then heterosexuality?
Because that is one dumb point of view you got, right there. You should rethink it entirely.
@34 (and others)
Corrective rape is a huge problem in South Africa. Homophobia is a huge problem in South Africa. Visibility matters, even in the context of a film festival. Cape Town is gay friendly but that doesn't mean that homophobia doesn't exist in the city as well and that it doesn't affect people. But it's not known for being an intolerant city. Quite the opposite.
The festival has advertised for years (I think on poles as well previously, although I'm not sure). I don't ever recall this happening before. They're even used versions of this imagery before. It just runs peacefully every year, has increased in size every year, and no one is (openly) concerned or protests. As was mentioned in the quoted news report, the "upsurge" is a surprise, and upsetting.
Additionally, in Cape Town, as far as I'm aware, all official poster advertising has to be approved by the city before it can be displayed. Comparing Cape Town to Boston is ridiculous.
It would be great to believe that 700 people who like the poster all came out (not from a queer closet) in the same 24 hours, over a distance of some 75 kilometres... but that's a nice fantasy. They were torn down and discarded on the pavement.
The reality is that the rhema church and the roman catholic church (lower case intended) - both with a pathetic record in fighting the apartheid regime - are banding together to fight the Civil Union Act (same sex marriage), Abortion (compounding the lack of SA women's rights over their bodies), and finally they want to bring back the Death Penalty.... It seems that a focus on HIV, education, transport, employment, housing and health - all of which are in crisis in South Africa - would be a more fitting avenue for the energy, wealth and influence of these people (not His people)...
the only point that i was futilely trying to make, was that i hate the knee jerk reaction that assumes the most sinister explanation.
the festival was hopefully awesome, and if someone picketed or protested it and its content, that would be creepish and bigoted, not just because they tore down some posters. but that didnt happen, and if it did, THAT would be news. nobody knows who tore them down, or their motive, so while it's a reasonable assumption, it's still an assumption, so to take off with it like it's a crime against humanity seems aggravating.
maybe im to practical minded to think that, not tagging slurs or derogatory terms, but the simple act of taking down posters is akin to gross intimidation and intolerance.
cognitive dissonance,
"the posters may exemplify everything that it means to be south african art, but that just makes them "accurate.""
No, I said "graphic design", not "south african art". Though you're probably ignorant about both.
"assuming i have no "taste" or posess "blatant ignorance" for not thinking highly of the posters..."
No, just for thinking they are ugly, like you wrote.
"...is as asinine as it is to think that someone who does like them is somehow more "cultured" and "intellectual" because of it."
Logical fallacy.
But this isn't a discussion about art, and your "opinion" on the posters quality definitely isn't influenced by your non-existing knowledge of graphic design.
"that being said, if that society deems the signs inappropriate, why cant it be just that, why does it have to be also homophobic?"
Because we have a word for "just that". It's homophobia, stupid.
@ #50:
Either a "society" (or more likely a vocal minority of that society) deems homosexuality as inappropriate, in your hypothetical scenario, which is homophobia... or they deem a gentle, idealized kiss as inappropriate, which is altogether more repressed and stifling, and altogether unlikely to suggest.
Have you personally lived somewhere where that kind of kiss in an image is considered obscene regardless of context/gender, or have you just distantly heard about such a thing happening sometime, somewhere? Furthermore, if that was the case, does that make it okay?
I understand your argument centers around not jumping to conclusions, but unfortunately your support for it also does jump to some conclusions. If you want to argue against conjecture, then you shouldn't present specious conjecture as an alternative.
It's fair to say that if someone systematically tore down hundreds upon hundreds of posters in this context... and a rash of other types of posters being torn down hasn't also been reported, that these posters were targeted because of the homosexual context.
cognitive dissonance #51:
the only point that i was futilely trying to make, was that i hate the knee jerk reaction that assumes the most sinister explanation.
Maybe that's because thus far we haven't been presented with a plausible non-homophibic explanation for why these posters were targeted for takedown.
So far all of your theories (i.e. people found them "controversial" and "vulgar") only support the notion that someone didn't like these posters because they had gay people kissing on them. That's not "the most sinister explanation," it's the only logical explanation.
Takuan, there will always be things that "one up" other things - whether it be evil, good or ego.
Pointing out the existence of a "one up" sometimes leads one to the root of something, but at the same time can completely dilute a cause. Who's to say that the solution to the "bigger" problem isn't concentrating on the smaller ones?
Midwood Kemble
@44 Cognitive Dissonance:
in my experience, the paid ads i was referring to were pulled in boston, which is (obviously) far more progressive than south africa.
Huh? Speaking as a queer woman living in a country where my ability to marry is explicitly denied by the government of that country, and looking at the South African laws that let two consenting adults marry regardless of orientation, I don't think it's at all obvious that Boston in particular or the USA in general is going to be more progressive. Each country has a long history of various problems, many of which are quite serious, but to assume that it's 'obvious' that Boston is more progressive than South Africa is to negate the ways in which South Africa is progressive.
...if society
"Society" as a whole is not monolithic, in South Africa or anywhere else. Obviously the Mayor of Cape Town, who had the posters paid for and ostensibly represents the city and its society, didn't find them inappropriate!
deems the signs inappropriate, why cant it be just that, why does it have to be also homophobic?
If the same sign showed a straight couple kissing, it would likely not be deemed inappropriate. That's practically the definition of homophobia: when a straight couple can do action y and it's socially sanctioned, but queer comples doing the exact same action y is deemed lewd and inappropriate.
tearing down the signs is much different than protesting the actual film festival.
How is tearing down the signs not protesting the film festival?
@52 Falix: while knowing more about art and graphic design generally broadens one's understanding of artwork and that understanding often informs the scope of one's taste, people--ones with knowledge and ones without--are still entitied to have an opinion about an artwork and express it.
Though I find the poster both beautiful and interesting, Cognitive Dissonance shouldn't like it because everyone else likes it. Nor should he like it because we claim to know more about graphic design than him and that if he listens to the people with more education or better 'taste' that they'll tell him what he should and shouldn't like. He should like it because he likes it--and if he doesn't like it, you shouldn't assume that if he were only a little more conversant with graphic design that he too would like it. The Mona Lisa has an important place in art history. It's beautifully executed. People with more education than I have tell me it's one of the most beautiful paintings on the planet. People with less education than I have hang posters of it in their homes because they find it stunningly gorgeous. It leaves me cold. And while I sometimes wish I could unsderstand why so many people find her smile beautifully enigmatic, I look at the painting and just wonder if maybe she had a little gas.
Well Takuan, I noticed.