West Side Rag
  • TOP NEWS
  • OPEN/CLOSED
  • FOOD
  • SCHOOLS
  • OUTDOORS
  • REAL ESTATE
  • ART & CULTURE
  • POLITICS
  • COLUMNS
  • CRIME
  • HISTORY
  • ABSURDITY
  • ABOUT US
    • OUR STORY
    • CONTRIBUTORS
    • CONTACT
West Side Rag
No Result
View All Result
SUPPORT THE RAG

Search the site

No Result
View All Result
Get WSR FREE in your inbox
SUPPORT THE RAG

AFTER CENSORSHIP CONTROVERSY, CITY WILL ALLOW NOOSE SCULPTURE IN RIVERSIDE PARK

June 17, 2016 | 10:55 AM - Updated on June 19, 2016 | 10:08 PM
in NEWS, OUTDOORS
12

bell sculpture4
Aaron Bell (at left) talks about his sculpture as another man holds up an image of what it will look like when it is restored to its original design. Photo by Carol Tannenhauser.

By Carol Tannenhauser

It took ten minutes for civil rights attorney Norman Siegel and Alessandro Olivieri, General Counsel at the NYC Parks Department, to reach an agreement about the now-famous “noose sculpture,” unveiled in Riverside Park South yesterday.

West Side Rag broke the story about the parks department’s rejection of Aaron Bell’s original design for the Model To Monuments public sculpture program, a joint effort by the city and Art Students League. Bell’s design included a figure with a noose in place of a head, with a slash (banned) sign in the middle of the noose. The city, Bell said, forced him to alter the design to eliminate the noose. The New York Times and Post followed up on our story, and the free speech group National Coalition Against Censorship wrote a letter saying it “raises serious first amendment issues.”

“Stand Tall, Stand Loud,” by Aaron Bell, currently appears in its altered form – with an open mouth instead of a noose – but will be restored to Bell’s original design, “probably in time for the Fourth of July,” Siegel said. “Alessandro was terrific. He understood the First Amendment implications of not allowing Aaron to have his original expression. Recognizing there was a problem, without placing blame, we corrected it. So, there is a happy and just result to this artistic-expression story and we’re very pleased.”

“They extended an apology for denying me the opportunity to speak for my art,” Bell reported. “Then, they asked, ‘How long will it take to get it the way you want it?’ I said, ‘Two weeks.’ The piece was designed so the top could be removed, because, in the back of my mind, I knew this was going to happen. I wasn’t going to quit until it did.

“I feel like Muhammad Ali,” he smiled. “They told him to go to war and he said, ‘I’m not going and I’m not changing my position. I’m holding my ground.’ This is a victory not just for me, but for every artist who has ever been subject to censorship.”

“We are happy that we were able to come to agreement with Mr. Bell, who shared with us a vision of his piece that suits the site and conveys its message clearly and powerfully,” wrote parks department spokesman Sam Biederman.

In a response last week to the free-speech concern raised by the National Coalition Against Censorship, Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver wrote that the parks department remains “committed to the free expression of ideas” and had “critiqued Mr. Bell’s original proposal for a lack of visual clarity.”

Siegel stressed the joint effort that brought about this result.

“Community Board 7 should be congratulated for passing a resolution calling for review,” he said. “And West Side Rag should be congratulated, along with the New York Post and The New York Times, because without all that community and journalistic expression, perhaps we couldn’t have turned it around.” Siegel also thanks NYC Park Advocates, run by Geoffrey Croft.

siegel bell
Norman Siegel stands with Aaron’s sister, Robin Bell.

You can see “Stand Tall, Stand Loud” at West 61st street and Riverside Drive.

Share this article:
SUPPORT THE RAG
guest

guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dannyboy
dannyboy
8 years ago

“And West Side Rag should be congratulated, along with the New York Post and The New York Times, because without all that community and journalistic expression, perhaps we couldn’t have turned it around.”

CONGRATULATIONS WSR!

0
Reply
Ken
Ken
8 years ago

This is terrific and another example of the importance of local journalism. The WSR’s coverage of CB7’s resolution led to the NYT’s coverage, which no doubt led to Mr. Siegel’s involvement, and to this happy outcome.

0
Reply
LEE APT
LEE APT
8 years ago
Reply to  Ken

I AM VERY EXCITED FOR AARON THAT THIS GOT TURNED AROUND BRAVO TO ALL THE JOURNALISTIC EFFORTS AND THOSE OF MR. SIEGEL.

0
Reply
WestSide_Mimi
WestSide_Mimi
8 years ago

Kudos to all who turned this around so Aaron Bell could express himself in his art. I was at the event yesterday when Mr. Bell spoke so movingly about honoring his mother. Bravo!

0
Reply
sg
sg
8 years ago

An example of what can be accomplished when someone speaks and they are heard. “Stand Tall, Stand Loud” can now rightfully be viewed as Aaron Bell envisioned.
Congrats WSR!

0
Reply
Sarah
Sarah
8 years ago

Good work, WSR!

0
Reply
Shelley
Shelley
8 years ago

Great reporting, as usual, by the WSR. The publicity generated by the article will have more people coming by to view the sculpture. A win-win situation all around.

0
Reply
ron shapley
ron shapley
8 years ago

All very nice but what does the sculpture convey ??? What’s the message ???

0
Reply
Independent
Independent
8 years ago

See the original story from May 18th for a number of comments that express a dissenting view.

A sampling:

“Jeremy” refuted the (melodramatic) charge of “censorship”:

There is a difference between curation and censorship. To the extent that the artist wants to be shown in this venue, the curators of the exhibition have every right to manage the pieces that are displayed. Nobody is keeping him from producing the art or displaying it in other venues.

I specifically pointed-out that,

There is no First Amendment right to display one’s art anywhere one wishes to.

“Reader” pointed-out that,

The place of exhibition matters. A museum or art gallery which people enter expecting to be challenged or disturbed is quite different from a public park.

and argued that,

A lot of people would not have seen the slash through the noose — I didn’t — nor would they have understood it.

“Ricky” recounted an experience from many years ago, when, while walking in a different part of Riverside Park, he was shocked and disturbed to come-upon what he described as a realistic-looking noose hanging from a tree:

it was a really creepy thing to run into in an environment intended to give urban dwellers a little taste of natural beauty.

“robert” first argued that if the sculpture would have been approved in its original form, it would have likely generated objections from people claiming that such exhibition of a noose was “racist”. Robert then went-on to ask “Why not just leave a park a park”?, arguing that,

Having this or any installation of this size spoils the relaxing view of nature. It becomes visual clutter, against a natural landscape.

I absolutely agree.

And, finally, “m.pipik” argued that many of the people who would see the sculpture would inevitably misunderstand it and take offense. He, concluded, therefore, that,

The park is just the wrong context for this work.

0
Reply
Leslie Rupert
Leslie Rupert
8 years ago

Hurrrah for Justice.
What the Parks Dept. did to Mr. Bell was no different then Rudi Guilliani trying to ban pieces of art in the Brooklyn Museum or banning books in the library because the contents offended someone.

0
Reply
Independent
Independent
8 years ago
Reply to  Leslie Rupert

Giuliani did the right thing in that case. The Brooklyn Museum is a public, taxpayer-funded institution. To force millions of New Yorkers to fund or in any way promote a lurid, obscene desecration of their deepest beliefs and sensibilities was unacceptable. The object-in-question consisted of a painting of the Virgin Mary that was surrounded by pornographic cut-outs of female genitalia and covered in dung. That, for Christians, as radio commentator Jay Diamond pointed-out at the time, is no less offensive than if the same had been done to an image of their own mother.

0
Reply
Mark
Mark
8 years ago
Reply to  Leslie Rupert

Giuliani was a horrible person who had no business running a city as liberal as New York.

0
Reply

YOU MIGHT LIKE...

Warrant Issued for the Arrest of UWS Pit Bulls Owner; Dogs Still Not Turned In
NEWS

Warrant Issued for the Arrest of UWS Pit Bulls Owner; Dogs Still Not Turned In

June 13, 2025 | 5:09 PM
The Race to Represent UWS and Morningside Heights District 7: Abreu Announces Endorsements, Okporo Prepares Challenge
NEWS

Upper West Side Election Guide 2025: Early Voting, Polling Sites, Local Races, Candidates

June 13, 2025 | 10:41 AM
Previous Post

INTERNAL AFFAIRS LOOKING INTO WILD RIVERSIDE PARK CAR CRASH, AS DRIVER REMAINS FREE

Next Post

21-YEAR-OLD FORDHAM GRAD KILLED IN HIT-AND-RUN ON BROADWAY

this week's events image
Next Post
21-YEAR-OLD FORDHAM GRAD KILLED IN HIT-AND-RUN ON BROADWAY

21-YEAR-OLD FORDHAM GRAD KILLED IN HIT-AND-RUN ON BROADWAY

MOVIE BRINGS THE 1970’S BACK TO THE WEST 70’S

MOVIE BRINGS THE 1970'S BACK TO THE WEST 70'S

WORKER FALLS FROM LADDER AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

WORKER FALLS FROM LADDER AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

  • ABOUT US
  • CONTACT US
  • NEWSLETTER
  • WSR MERCH!
  • ADVERTISE
  • EVENTS
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • TERMS OF USE
  • SITE MAP
Site design by RLDGROUP

© 2025 West Side Rag | All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • TOP NEWS
  • THIS WEEK’S EVENTS
  • OPEN/CLOSED
  • FOOD
  • SCHOOLS
  • OUTDOORS
  • REAL ESTATE
  • ART & CULTURE
  • POLITICS
  • COLUMNS
  • CRIME
  • HISTORY
  • ABSURDITY
  • ABOUT
    • OUR STORY
    • CONTRIBUTORS
    • CONTACT US
  • WSR SHOP

© 2025 West Side Rag | All rights reserved.