This image was lost some time after publication.


In response to the kerfuffle over the New Yorker magazine's Censored Art Exhibition, Ted Riederer, one of the invited artists unceremoniously asked to remove his piece after setting it up, writes Gawker to tell his side of the story. I'm guessing he didn't receive a kill fee for lugging down his dirt and bones from Boston.

As one of the artists concerned in recent postings regarding the show "Censored" at the New Yorker Gallery, I felt compelled to offer my perspective. As I set up my sculptural installation in the New Yorker lobby the morning of the opening, I was pleased to hear a New Yorker employee bragging to a visitor that instead of displaying corporate art they were proud to exhibit original emerging artists. I was impressed by the New Yorker's committment to pursuing an open and active dialog of images and ideas in the pages of the magazine as well as in its offices. My admiration quickly turned to chagrin when, after a mere forty minutes, I was asked to remove my artwork. The explanation I was given for the last minute removal was that the management did not want to expose disturbing images and ideas to employees and visitors who thought they were coming to a "place of business", that, unlike visitors to an art gallery, their guard would be let down and they would be ambushed. I found this to be a hypocritical perspective coming from a magazine that sandwiched a photograph of a naked Iraqi prisoner being tortured between a cartoon and an article about knuckleballs. Does the New Yorker have a responsibility to promote an ongoing debate of controversal ideas and images internally? Or are they simply repulsed by having a little dirt on their floors?

Ted Riederer
Boston, MA

Previously: Censorship at the New Yorker
Censored Art Gets Censored at the New Yorker