Artist Christopher Griffin resigned his position as artist-in-residence at the vet school this week because he was asked to remove a painting entitled The Crossing that commented on American politics.Christopher Griffin/Supplied
Do you have any of those friends who happily mock your foibles but get all huffy and hurt if you criticize them? Friends like Elon Musk, for example. With protestors attacking Tesla dealerships and the company’s stock nose-diving, the car-maker-turned-hatchet-man wondered what kind of person would take joy in his misfortune: He called Minnesota governor Tim Walz a jerk, a creep and evil for celebrating the fall in Tesla’s share price. This from a man who had just fired thousands from their government jobs.
Apparently the chainsaw-wielding bro is actually a snowflake. I was reminded of this familiar double standard by a smaller controversy at the Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown, PEI. Artist Christopher Griffin resigned his position as artist-in-residence at the vet school this week because he was asked to remove a painting entitled The Crossing that commented on American politics. (After it found itself accused of censorship, the school apologized Friday and said it would display The Crossing again and would welcome Griffin back to talk about his painting.)
The painting in question copies the composition of Washington Crossing the Delaware, that heroic scene created by German-American history painter Emanuel Leutze in 1851 that depicts a turning point in the America Revolutionary war of 1776. Griffin, who often paints animals and decorated the student lounge with a polar bear mural, depicted the figures in the boat as lemmings carrying a rumpled and discoloured American flag.
The painting, which reads as well-executed political satire, was meant to indicate American political leadership was suffering from self-inflicted wounds by referring to the lemming’s apocryphal capacity for self-destruction.
Previously, Griffin had hung a painting at the school showing a lumbering elephant with a tiny Canadian flag mounted on its back. That political metaphor went unchallenged, but the lemmings proved too much.
“The only thing I was told was that a couple of American faculty members had voiced complaints that the work might be political and might be referring to a famous American painting. They were right,” Griffin said in an interview, calling his work a homage to the original.
The school told Griffin to remove the painting. He offered to host a discussion of the work, stressing it was not xenophobic. But, according to Griffin, the school felt that might degenerate into a political debate. His offer was refused and he quit.
So, let’s get this straight. A couple of adult vets, people who castrate dogs and euthanize cats, can’t tolerate mild satire of their native country’s leaders? Their president is threatening to annex their host country, and they are offended by a political cartoon?
“It’s not a primary school, it’s a university,” Griffin also told the CBC. “If a painting of lemmings in a boat causes them to feel unsafe, they’re going to have a tough time.”
He felt he was being censored, saying in a statement on his website: “Our public universities have a civic duty to uphold respectful discourse over censorship. At this pivotal time in Canadian history, when our very existence as a country is being threatened, I must allow myself to stand and be counted.”
Griffin’s position, merely an agreement he would use the school’s foyer as a public studio and hang art on its walls, was unpaid, so the attention he is receiving for his principled stand is probably good compensation for the loss of the post.
Apparently, the school suffered from the common misapprehension that pretty pictures shouldn’t carry meaning. Vet school dean Dominique Griffon had told the CBC her institution wasn’t the best venue for a political debate. Not surprising that she was then forced to reverse her decision. It’s another example of nervous organizations responding to complaints with shutdowns rather than discussion, only to find themselves in bigger trouble, a pattern that has happened several times when arts shows have included references to the war in Gaza.
Many of us are hypocritical about free speech, only defending it when convenient, or when we agree strongly with a proposition. To rewrite that famous quote, often misattributed to Voltaire: “If I approve of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.” If I disapprove, it’ll turn out that I’m awfully busy and just don’t have time to write that email or join that protest. And I am certainly not going to resign a job or take an economic hit to defend you.
Obsessed with the way in which DEI initiatives and left-wing cancel culture assaulted their constitutional right to tell racist jokes or wish each other Merry Christmas, Republicans are now silent (or worse yet assenting) as their government launches a vicious political attack on the free speech of academics, researchers and museum professionals by cutting grants and jobs.
We should be thankful that, north of the border, only the lemmings were threatened.
