Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Blog #7: The Bill of Rights - In action or not?


Directions:


Actively read the following article posted below (also available for view at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E2D91438F933A15756C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)


1. Based in the following NY Times article, summarize Richard Minsky’s (the artists’) view on the Bill of Rights and it’s role in modern US society.


2. Analyze two of his criticisms based on your knowledge of US government and the Bill of Rights.


3. Finally, respond to the following question:Is the Bill of Rights reflected in or distorted in modern US society. Refer to anecdotal (personal stories) or academic evidence to support your answer.


Your blog must be a miniminum of 200 words and include a response to at least one other student's post.For your reference, a copy of the Bill of Rights is available on page and at: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------May 20, 2002 "Artist Depicts the Bill of Rights in a World Out of Joint"

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL


''I like art that gives you a reality fix,'' says Richard Minsky. A reality he treasures is the Bill of Rights, so Mr. Minsky, 55, a Greenwich Village artist and professional bookbinder, has found a way to exemplify the first 10 amendments to the Constitution as artworks.For the First Amendment protecting freedom of expression, for example, he burned a copy of Salman Rushdie's ''Satanic Verses'' and sealed up the charred volume in an arabesque windowed reliquary.For the Sixth Amendment guaranteeing a speedy and public trial, he glued a black-leather glove daubed with red onto a copy of Jeffrey Toobin's best seller ''The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson.'' (''I used paint, not real blood,'' Mr. Minsky said, ''not that I haven't, or wouldn't.'')And for the Eighth Amendment, barring cruel and unusual punishment, he took a book on penology, ''Forlorn Hope: The Prison Reform Movement'' by Larry E. Sullivan, a professor of criminal justice, rebound it in stripes and chained it to a little jail. ''You can take the book out for exercise,'' Mr. Minsky said, ''but then it must go back to its cell.''


The 10 works are on display at the Louis K. Meisel Gallery at 141 Prince Street in Soho through June 1. Twenty-five editions of the set are being offered at $18,000 each. (The works are viewable online at www.minsky.com.)Mr. Minsky, who has been exhibiting his art for 30 years and founded the nonprofit Center for Book Arts at 626 Broadway, said he thought long and hard about celebrating the amendments, whatever their consequences. ''While you got them, enjoy them,'' he said.For the Second Amendment on the right to bear arms he chose a book about violent hate groups, ''Gathering Storm: America's Militia Threat'' by Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Mr. Minsky depicts the author in the bull's-eye of a target.


The Third Amendment, barring the forced quartering of soldiers in private homes, was represented by a reimagined nuclear football -- an attaché case like the one bearing the codes for unleashing atomic war. It contains a copy of ''Seven Days in May'' by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey, a novel about the nation's top military commander seeking to commandeer the White House, and a DVD of the movie with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas.For the Fourth Amendment, against unreasonable search and seizure, Mr. Minsky chose a copy of ''Neuromancer,'' William Gibson's 1984 science-fantasy novel presenting cyberspace as a realm vulnerable to governmental intrusion. He built a slipcase with an imbedded network interface card and hot-stamped it with the text of the amendment in hologram foil.The Fifth Amendment, guaranteeing due process of law for criminal defendants, was exemplified by a novel in the form of an epic poem, ''Branches'' by Mitch Cullin, about a brutal Texas sheriff who takes the law into his own hands. Mr. Minsky bound the book in khaki, affixed a badge -- and peppered the cover with nine-millimeter slugs.For the Seventh Amendment, providing for jury trials in civil cases over $20, he selected ''The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit'' by Walter K. Olson, and rebound it in mock $20 bills that replaced the image of President Andrew Jackson with that of James Madison, father of the Bill of Rights.For the Ninth Amendment, reserving all unenumerated rights to the people, Mr. Minsky highlighted ''the right to privacy,'' using a book of that name by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy and re-illustrating it with photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, including endpapers depicting her fatal car crash.The 10th Amendment, protecting states' rights, stumped Mr. Minsky for some time. ''I was wracking my brain, and then, out of nowhere, I thought of November-December 2000.'' He downloaded the United States Supreme Court decision intervening in the Florida-vote controversy and handing the presidential election to George W. Bush. Mr. Minsky bound the docket in brown leather like a law book with the spine title off-center. ''It's a little crooked,'' he said.


The works are available only as a set, Mr. Minsky said. ''People ask me, 'Can I get one?''' he said. ''I say, 'The government is trying to take them away one by one; you have to have them all.'


''Correction: May 23, 2002, Thursday An article in The Arts on Monday about Richard Minsky, an artist and bookbinder who has created artworks representing the Bill of Rights, gave an outdated address for the Center for Book Arts, a nonprofit group he founded in New York. It is at 28 West 27th Street, third floor


Extra Credit: create your own original work of art or propaganda reflecting the application or defiance of the Bill of Rights in modern US society. ( You may refer to one or more of the amendments)

15 comments:

cosentino23 said...

Jonathan Cosentino
In this article Richard Minsky described each of the amendments. He was a very brilliant man. He symbolizes the amendments through his work of art. One amendment that caught my eye me was the eighth. It explained what a bearing cruel and unusual punishment was. Richard Minsky used a burned book in a bag like container and stated that you could exercise it, but once it was done. It had to go back into its jail. He was a clever person who knew what each amendment was and what the message was. In my eyes the hardest one for him was the tenth amendment. That was the protecting the states laws. They were enforced highly however, controversy might come into affect. The amendments usually caused complaints of the strictness being too much. I would leave it as it is now and if measure need to be taken, then they could be enforced and something could happen to them that they don’t want to be done.

goon said...

Samantha Goon
Block A
Novemeber 1, 2007

Responding to John's comment, I would have to agree with him. Richard Minsky was an extremly smart man. He knew what he wanted to let others see the comparison between the Bill of Rights and it's role in modern US society. He used great examples through art to show how society today is NOT obeying the amendments. Some observations of todays society realating to the amendments are weird but cleaver and true. For instance, "For the Ninth Amendment, reserving all unenumerated rights to the people, Mr. Minsky highlighted ''the right to privacy,'' using a book of that name by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy and re-illustrating it with photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, including endpapers depicting." If the public respected Princess Diana's privacy, then why is she dead? Minsky visually showed the amendments in his artwork and is now selling his artwork, not by one but by all. He stated something very intelligent. "The government is trying to take them away one by one; you have to have them all." In my opinion, I believe that Minsky was trying to say that you can't split up the amendments or obey only one, you have to obey all and buy all. The Bill of Rights is distorted in modern US society in my opinion. The Bill of Rights was writen centuries ago and things have changed in modern society. If people have the freedom of speech, then why do people still get in trouble. If you are not threatening or personally pointing one person out, you can say whatever you want. In advisory, something occured in which a student wrote a racist comment about himself and he got in trouble. He didn't mind because he wasn't affended, but other people were. he got into a lot of trouble. The teacher said he's not allowed to say that. I beg to differ because he was not offending anything personally or threatening anybody. The government should change the amendments so that it fits the need of society becuase right now, they mean nothing and are not doing any good.

Michela said...

Michela Infantino

I agree with both John & Samantha. Richard Minsky's created creative, oringinal art pieces representing the artistic view on the Bill of Rights and it's role in modern US society. Richard Minsky not only highlights the US society in an artistic view but also has brought an artistic twist to 1984 and the crisis of democracy.
http://www.minsky.com/portfoli/crisis.jpg
The piece i enjoy most of Mr. Minsky is his second amendment piece. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights is, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Minsky was very clever in representing the Bill of Right amendments. As stated in the New York Times article, Artist Depicts the Bill of Rights in a World Out of Joint by Ralph Blumenthal on May 20th 2002, states "For the Second Amendment on the right to bear arms he chose a book about violent hate groups, ''Gathering Storm: America's Militia Threat'' by Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Mr. Minsky depicts the author in the bull's-eye of a target." Like said, I totally agree.
http://www.minsky.com/images/2nd-a125h.jpg
As well as the second amendment, I was very fond of was the sixth amendment, 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.' By using Jeffery Toobin's novel, "The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson," is a perfect example of the sixth amendment. The O.J. Simpson trial was one of the most public, prolonged trial in history and was greatly illustrated by Minsky.
http://www.minsky.com/images/6th-8c.JPG
I believe the Bill of Rights is distorted in modern US society.
Richard Minshy's creativity shows through his art work the crultiy and distorsion of the US government.

jANELL♥ said...

Janell McBean
A-Block

Richard Minsky's views on The Bill of Rights were quite fascinating. He had such a creative understanding of it. I totally agree with John, Sam and Michela. Creativity was established with him and the amendments because he expressed this in his works of art. That was not such an easy task, period. Although, the amendment that struck me the most was amendment 5 stating, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This amendment struck me since I believe that everyone should be able to speak their mind wisely. No one should be treated differently just because of what they think or believe in. Also, another situation I believe in is everyone being able to have a second chance. Second chances give people time to act once more upon their before determinded act. However, The Bill of Rights should have an equal change upon itself if everyone is going to equally decide on it. If not, then it should stay as it is now. As it is now is not an issue either. Whether we want to believe it or not, society will never agree on tha same exact things. In my opinion, The Bill of Rights should stay in action unless they can find a way to defeat the impossible.

K.ZONE* =) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
samanzie said...

Saman Mahmood
November 1, 2007
A Block



Richard Minsky�s is super cool! Lovelovelove!!! His percent view on the government is so true, and I could not agree more. I feel as if our government is taking more and more of out civil rights away from everybody. For �National Security�, then it goes back to should the government be able to do whatever they need to in order, to find out if you�re a terrorist or not. Richard Minshy shows these crazy symbols of the bill of rights. My favorite of them off had to be the 6th amendment.� For the Sixth Amendment guaranteeing a speedy and public trial, he glued a black-leather glove daubed with red onto a copy of Jeffrey Toobin's best seller ''The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson.''- Richard Minsky. If you can�t already tell, I agree with goon, and john! Richard Minsky has showed us a very different perspective. In my opinion the bill of rights is reflected in modern US society. The government is trying to distort it, and I don�t understand if we live in the land of the free, why is our government about people coming form Mexico, but people form Cuba are welcomed ? Do tell. :)

Peace.Love&Samanzie

K.ZONE* =) said...

Kristina Sanzone*
A Block
November 1, 2007

I sort of feel a little left out on this one since I have to say that I don’t exactly agree with you guys’ completely. Richard Minsky is the man responsible for taking Amendments from the Bill of Rights and creating a magnificent work of art. With each Amendment, he used brilliant symbolism to describe what he believes to be the true meaning of them by using objects that he felt best described it. While many people are very comfortable with the Amendments and feel protected by them, others may not feel the same way. For example, the sixth Amendment gives us the right to a speedy and public trial. To symbolize this he glued a black, leather glove daubed with red paint on a copy of “The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson” by Jeffery Toobin. It was his absolute best seller. Mr. Minsky himself said, ''I used paint, not real blood, not that I haven't, or wouldn't.'' This was not the only Amendment however. Number four was also a very clever one. Amendment number four states that we have the right to personal belongings that can’t be searched without a warrant. His point was proved here when he, this time, chose a copy of “Necromancer,” William Gibson's 1984 science-fantasy novel, which made cyberspace seem terribly vulnerable to government intrusion. Personally, I enjoy this Amendment because I feel that the government protects my belongings through this and I really think everyone should have the right to privacy! He built a slipcase with an imbedded network interface card and hot-stamped it with the text of the amendment in hologram foil. They obviously had meaning that took plenty of thought and aspiration to achieve what he did. While in a perfect world, everyone in the country would live by our laws and never break them for any reason whatsoever, but in our world that’s not how it works. Today, people live how they want to and not much gets in the way of that; not even laws and Amendments. They are only there to help us weather we think they are foolish or not. Unfortunately since people only care about themselves (usually) the Bill of Rights today is distorted. You know what they say, RULES WERE MEANT TO BE BROKEN. =)

ke ai said...

For this bog we were fortunate to read an article about Richard Minskies perspective of the amendments. Just like many other people he expressed his feelings for the amendments through drawing. I agree with Richard, our society isn’t obeying the amendments. Just like Samantha Goon I believe that Minsky was trying to say that you can't split up the amendments or obey only one, you have to obey all and buy all. I do think that some of the rules were written for fashion sake, DO you agree? One of the Amendments say that we have the freedom of speech as long as we aren’t hurting anyone or anything but now in out society but when we say a single word now a days people make everything think there should be a bill of Amendments if the laws aren’t just nor if people aren’t going to follow them. Our society would be a better place with just laws, but some people do feel that they are supereior and they dont need to follow any rules. I do agree some people dont like it when they are restricted to certain ideas or theories because then they wont be able to express themeselves. But the Major question is what will happen if the government had no rules. Big deals. I don’t.

ke ai said...

For this bog we were fortunate to read an article about Richard Minskies perspective of the amendments. Just like many other people he expressed his feelings for the amendments through drawing. I agree with Richard, our society isn’t obeying the amendments. Just like Samantha Goon I believe that Minsky was trying to say that you can't split up the amendments or obey only one, you have to obey all and buy all. I do think that some of the rules were written for fashion sake, DO you agree? One of the Amendments say that we have the freedom of speech as long as we aren’t hurting anyone or anything but now in out society but when we say a single word now a days people make everything think there should be a bill of Amendments if the laws aren’t just nor if people aren’t going to follow them. Our society would be a better place with just laws, but some people do feel that they are superior and they don’t need to follow any rules. I do agree some people don’t like it when they are restricted to certain ideas or theories because then they wont be able to express themselves. But the Major question is what will happen if the government had no rules. Our communities would be more corrupt and kiotic then it already is. So maybe we can have amendments but ones that suits everyone’s taste.

Alejandro Fernando said...

Mariel Elia :)))

Richard Minsky's insight on The Bill of Rights was very original and I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way. He had an insight the opposite towards mine and made me see the Bill of Rights more clearly. I agree with those who think the same way as I. He talks about so many things. I agree with Richard, our civilization isn’t obeying the amendments. People are not going to agree with things and try to bend the laws. Someone is always going to do something and its going to affect someone else in a negative way. Freedom of speech is one the law I don’t understand well. If you have the freedom to say what you want then why cant people say curses on the T.V ? I don’t think we should throw the amendments away but I do think that we should all come to a compromise. Although a society would be total chaos without laws, times have changes over the years and our surroundings affect how we are.

Mattrageous said...

The Bill of Rights is rights that helped build society today. Without these right being created America would be at war with themselves for many years. Minsky is one of the very few who doesn’t seem to care about these rights. His making 3-D political cartoons for each amendment show the more entertaining view of each amendment. If the government worked harder to enforce these rights maybe more people would acknowledge these rights were given to them when they came here. The bill of rights has been concealed to many viewers to provide a sort of stable community, yet this has just set an ironic setback. The bill of Rights should be enforced stricter fully, and maybe then they’ll be taken seriously.



matthew bowlin

emily said...

Richard Minsky's views on The Bill of Rights were pretty interesting. He had such a creative understanding of it. I totally agree Michela. Creativity was established with him and the amendments because he expressed this in his works of art. That was not such an easy task, period. Although, the amendment that struck me the most was amendment five stating, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This amendment affected me seeing as I support the thought that everyone should be able to speak their mind no matter what is on their mind. Not one person should ever be treated differently just because of what is on their minds, your thoughts are yours and yours alone. Also, another motto I agree whole heartedly with is that everyone should have a second chance or even a third. Second chances give people time to think about what they did and perhaps execute their goals differently. I completely agree with Janell in this fact. However, The Bill of Rights should have equal adjustments upon itself if everyone is going to equally decide what is best for the country. If not, then amendments should not have been added and the supreme court would have not place in the government.

Miss. Francis said...

John C - S+ - this summary is solid.

Goon- G+ - thoughtful and well supported.

Michela - E - thoughtful and creative

Janelle - S+ - you make an effort twoards highly sophisticated commentaries on the need to revise the Bill of Rights, but don't explain exactly why or how. Be sure to follow through on your main ideas and include a response to at least one other post.

Saman S+ - strong summary but remember to respond to at least one other post.

Miss. Francis said...

Kristina - E+ - Insightful and unique. I think it's interesting that you flipped the argum,ents of your classmated to show that the creation of resistance art is an example of the bill of rights in action. Well done!


Ama - G: You pose some compelling questions... keep in mind the Amendments aren't meant to state the laws, but instead to preserve the basic rights that no law can limit or deny a US citizen. If you post twice, please delete the post you don't want me to read. Thanks!

Mariel - S - strong analysis but you neglected to respond to another post.

Matt - N+- your summary does not meet the 200 word minimum and you neglected to respond to another post. Also, as I stated on many of the blogs the amendments are not laws themseleves, they are a statement of rights afforded to each citizen intended to preserve

Emily - S+ : strong analysis but you neglected to respond to another post.

klown27 said...

Richard Minsky's view of the Bill of rights was similar to mine. Yes the Bill Of Rights are Supposed to be followed but like always, things don't go as planned. Sanzones statement that rules are meant to be broken fits the Bill Of Rights Perfectly. If the Bill Of Rights were never disobeyed, there would be no point in having it. The Bill Of Rights is an Attempt at reducing unlawful actions. Although most Americans follow The Bill Of Rights are not enforced enough. Whether on accident or not, many people are bound to not follow the Bill Of Rights. Not saying that stricter rules should be made but the people that are supposed to be preventing these unlawful acts from happening aren’t doing a good job. The Amendment that appealed to me the most was the second Amendment which is the right to bear arms. If a person feels that they need that much protection then by all means, they should be allowed to. Yet when these weapons get into the wrong hands, society is to blame. What ever happened to the people that are supposed to be preventing this? Sometimes they actually become the ones that are aiding in these criminal actions. Recently, a policeman was charged with selling guns to minors. The Bill Of Rights should be followed, but the people who enforce it should be chosen wisely.