Randy wrote on Feb 28, 2007 2:16 AM:Freedom of artistic expression is dead on arrival in the City of Encinitas!

Suzie wrote on Feb 28, 2007 9:01 AM:Agree.

Al wrote on Feb 28, 2007 11:36 AM:Doesn’t it really depend on who does the censoring as to “art freedom” being challenged? The self-censorship of the American media, over displaying the Danish Islamic cartoons to illustrate a story because it might offend an individual is acceptable, but the individual finding offense in a display is not? Quait.

Escondido Grannie wrote on Feb 28, 2007 3:13 PM:You admit you haven't seen the banners. You probably haven't investigated whether Encinitas had parameters to follow...perhaps there was a no political request, no ad hominems. I for one don't want to be walking down the street and have blatant political statements thrown in my face. Our society is far too edgy as it is. What happened to beauty and goodness?

artist participating wrote on Feb 28, 2007 6:42 PM:Censorship? Wrong, way wrong Van Doorn. All of the artist (me included) signed agreements that DEMA owned the banners and had the right to display them or not display them based in whatever way they choose. We were free to participate or not participate, nobody forced us. Once we sell a piece or agree to have a piece used in a program such as this, it is no longer censorship. We all knew the rules including Julie Ann. Furthermore according to you, she agreed to modify her banner. She agreed, so I supposse she censored herself? Mr Van Doorn, you are correct in the statement that art has rough time in the U.S and North County. It's because of artist like Julie Ann that ruin it for the rest of us. No city wants to touch real art with a ten foot pole because of issues like this, and liberals like you that seek to be “edgy” on our light standards. What do you want to see? Aborted fetuses from the religious right. Stem cell from the left? Political cartoons on every public figure? Smoking? Keep it on the editorial pages on off the streets. Encinitas deserves credit for championing the arts, Drive through and take a look you might be surprised to see art studios, art on the street and trashcans, poetry in the La Paloma (way uncensored if you cared to attend or listen) and your favorite topic, naked breast in storefront windows. You seem to share the slogan of an Aussi stakehouse. No rules, just right. Wrong!

Well John wrote on Mar 1, 2007 5:23 AM:Once again, you have seen fit to judge and event and blame when you haven't doen the research! What a shame that NCT condones your form of manipulation! As proven above, the City of Encinitas set the rules and everyone signed agreements on those rules. Now, that is not good enough for the likes of you! Not to mention, that you think it is appropriate for the City of Encinitas to allow the President of our country to be displayed in a bad light. Just like NCT's staff to condone and justify that behavior as well! What a shameful place this North County is moving to for the "sake of freedom of art"!

apologize wrote on Mar 1, 2007 11:07 AM:If you had an ounce of integrity or concern for journalistic temperment or standards, You would apologize to Peder Norby and Encinitas for geting it wrong.

Mooshoo wrote on Mar 1, 2007 11:45 AM:Julie Ann keeps insisting that the real purpose in creating her banner was to start a conversation. About what? Her depiction or censorship? Seems like the only thing being said about this banner is the possibility of that it might have been censored. So if she wanted a talk about the war, a foolish president, pork barrel spending, Katrina, she has failed. But if what she wanted was to get her 15 minutes of fame, well I guess she did the the job to the exclusion of the other 81 artists and a very fine art program.

Rodney wrote on Mar 2, 2007 2:16 PM:A thorough consideration of the current Encinitas Arts Alive banner controversy reveals deeper, more serious issues than those surrounding a single banner by an individual artist. It has become more than abundantly clear to me that virtually all of the banners are not only offensive, they are being presented as an intentional means of subverting the values of anyone who sees them. And see them, we will. Unlike the televisions and radios we can turn off, the banners will hang from their conspicuous and influential perches for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for several weeks. Like a horrible song that's impossible to expel from our thoughts, these banners will use their bright colors and playful images to burn thoughts into our minds like ghostly cowpokes wielding invisible branding irons. If you think I'm exaggerating, consider the following: More than one-third of the banners feature or are otherwise adorned with images of plants. Palm trees seem to be most popular. What messages are we sending to our children when we show them pictures of plants and trees instead of the real things? One message is this: by showing them pictures of plants, they grow up with the notion that trees and flowers and shrubs do not need to be watered or otherwise cared for. How will they ever succeed at farming if they grow up with this notion? Future generations will succumb to certain starvation. Then, there are the pictures of humans and human-like fantasy creatures--mermaids and the like. Many people are not aware that mermaids are merely underwater witches. While their terrestrial counterparts fly around on brooms, mermaids use their fishlike body parts to travel from place to place as they spread curses and cast spells upon the other creatures of the briney deep. The banners that depict animals, show these inferior creatures in an extremely hostile light. Look at the jaguar, the lion, the lamb, the dog, the pelican (and other birds), the fish, and the horse. We know we were placed here on earth to consume lesser creatures, but the Arts Alive banner artists have depicted them as strong and threatening or weak and threatening or just plain apathetic. Once again, we have to ask, "What message are we sending to our children?" The horrifying green eyes of the spotted wild cat and the overconfident gaze of the lion (along with the glazed, sedated eyes of the lamb) depict a world turned completely upside down. Even the horse, which seems to be running out of the banner and directly toward the observer, is depicted with a dangerous, hostile demeanor. To accentuate the point, notice how the jockey appears to be so paralyzed by fear that he is unable to employ the whip. Other notable, subtly subversive pieces of painted propaganda include the following: Boats depicted as houses. How ridiculous is that? A gnome holding a red watering can. Red? Communism? Coincidence? A woman in a bathrobe? Standing with no feet? Get real. Colorful circles, squares, and other geometric shapes that resemble nothing found in the real world. Who do these people think they're kidding. Pictures are supposed to look like something, aren't they? Some of these so-called artists need to take some lessons so their paintings more closely resemble some real thing or object in the real world. I want to know where some of these weird ideas come from. On second thought, maybe it's better to not know. Take another look at the banners for yourself. If there's only one "controversial" banner in the group, my shoes are made of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches spread all over some aluminum baseball bats.

Ironic wrote on Mar 3, 2007 11:50 AM:I wonder if the artist used the image of John F. Kennedy, or Bill Clinton, versus George Bush. I bet Van Doorn would of had a different take on the event. Nothing like an opiion piece from a hypocrite.

also observer wrote on Mar 3, 2007 5:06 PM:Too bad other banners aren't getting some attention. Like the one painted in Minsk Belarus and sent over here to help fund Children of Chernobyl coming to America to spend a healthy summer away from the radiation.

BOB wrote on Mar 4, 2007 5:58 AM:As a banner artist I can assure you there were no guidelines prohibiting political art. Peder Norby's rules are vague, at best. The banner with Dorth wearing ruby slippers, a combat helmet, and carrying an AK-47 with the words "There is no place like home." passed muster. But not the one of a court jester wearing a George Bush mask. Go figure. Sorry folks Mr. Van Dorn is right, this is a blatant case of censorship. Read the Constitution, our founding fathers where quite clear in preserving the right of freespeech and freedom of expression.

Think4yourself wrote on Mar 4, 2007 11:35 PM:Van Doorn should be given accolades. He can aggravate anyone who reads his blatherings - left or right wing leaning. I do agree with Ironic that had the depiction been of a media darling - i.e. - Democratic politician, then the response would have certainly been different. It's a sad day when it's considered hip to bag the President - whether you agree with him or not. I would presume that the columnists at the NCT are volunteers because if this hack Van Doorn is being paid a dollar a column he is being overpaid. Essays in my child's middle school are better written.