"It sounds as if Chelsea Market reserved the right to veto some works, and did so, before the show opened. Therefore it seems odd (or stupid) that they then decided to close the show after having had a veto over art works in the show."

You appear to have your story wrong. It seems that the Market's management asked the organizer not to hang that particular work, and he did anyway. As a result, they pulled the entire gallery - which wouldn't have happened had the organizer complied the first time.

"...which wouldn't have happened had the organizer complied the first time."

...or if the management allowed for freedom of expression.

There is no longer freedom of expression or censorship. People have hurt themselfs by bitching about every little thing that they do not agree with. Now someones freedom of expression has to come down if only one person finds it offensive. If you don't like something shut up and leave or turn the channel so you don't screw it up for the people that do like it. By the way I find the peice offensive but I will leave it at that and not go and see it. See how easy it is. 4 MORE YEARS...hope I diden't offend anyone

Freedom of speech/expression is guaranteed from the -government-, NOT by individuals. If that gallery owner doesn't want some kind of art in his gallery, why is not his right to have art he wants in his personally-owned-gallery?

If any artist can demand that such and such art be hung in someone else's gallery, *how is that freedom*? Now if the goverment got involved, and forced it taken down, THAT would be a violation of freedom of speech/expression (as I was taught).

But with individually (not government) owned businesses, if you don't like how they run their business, don't let them have your dollar. Anyway, I think it was all a publicity ploy, and it seems to have worked great. I'd go see the gallery LOL.

I think one of the big problems here is that our "ownership society" means that public space rarely exists in urban environments. So many spaces are privatized - malls (which is effectively what Chelsea Market is), building lobbies, etc. NYC has been designed not to have public squares in order to prevent public rallies and demonstrations. Witness what happened when people wanted to use Central Park for a rally.

Even the lobbies that are supposed to be for the public, such as that of the Sony building, have been taken over for commercial space by the owners.

There aren't very many non-commercial opportunities to display art in NYC, of all places!

"Even the lobbies that are supposed to be for the public, such as that of the Sony building, have been taken over for commercial space by the owners."

Let me see if I understand you. Your complaint is that the "owners" of property are taken over for commercial space THEIR OWN PROPERTY?

WOW! now that is what I call INJUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you should move to a Socialist Society where the State owns everything and the concept of private property does not exist. It would appear you would be more comfortable in that environment.

I just chanced on this blog while researching the events in Chelsea Market.

No wonder this country is in trouble no one understands what "Freedom of Expression" means, no one bothers to READ the Constitution to find out what is laid out there, they just assume they can walk onto the private property of another citizen and do pretty much what they please and if someone objects they squeel First Amendment.

NO ONE is keeping the artist from exhibiting his art in HSEven the lobbies that are supposed to be for the public, such as that of the Sony building, have been taken over for commercial space by the owners.HIS OWN forum or a forum which agrees with him. No State goons are busting down his door burning his portraits and then dragging him out in the street to be shot down like a dog.

That children is what oppression is really about not the pathetic whining WAH WAH WAH they took down my painting and made me leave.

Dan, you need to get your history straight. You just found a blog you wanted to attack via Google, and you are ignorant of the history of the Sony building.

City zoning laws require ground-level shops and a plaza for a building the size of the Sony Building, which was the AT&T building when it was built.

After Sony bought the building, the city allowed Sony to take over what were supposed to be public spaces and turn them into Sony retail shops. That is a definite theft of public space. That space was supposed to be for the public, not enclosed as retail shops, and the building was built based on that agreement.

http://www.thecityreview.com/sonyatt.html

This is why I turn off comments once in a while. Ignorant fucks from places like Kentucky have nothing better to do than Google a story they heard about in the news and post garbage -- from an IP at their defense contractor job I might add.