Art, Top Stories

Portrait of the Artist as a False Accuser

In 1976 and 1977, New York City was terrorized by one of America’s most infamous serial killers. Before being captured in front of his Yonkers home, David Berkowitz killed six victims, and wounded seven others. Berkowitz claimed he was following the orders of his neighbour’s dog, whom he described as being connected to a demonic figure named Sam. “I am a monster,” Berkowitz wrote in one of the notes he left for police. “I am the ‘Son of Sam.’”

Berkowitz was sentenced to six life sentences, and remains in jail to this day. His legacy includes not only the horrific crimes he committed, but also a special kind of legislation inspired by fears that the killer would sell his lurid and sensational story to a publisher or studio. The “Son of Sam” law created by New York State in 1977, which exists in modified form to this day, required that revenues from a criminal’s descriptions of his crimes be deposited in escrow and disbursed to his victims. And while Berkowitz’s crimes were especially horrific, these laws can apply to all crimes—including the sexual abusers now being outed in the wake of #MeToo. As one of the original statute’s authors explained, “it is abhorrent to one’s sense of justice and decency that [such] individual[s] can expect to receive large sums of money for [their] story.”

Over the summer, an art show in New York City prompted us to ask whether this same moral logic applies when the facts are reversed. Specifically: How should we feel about a false accuser turning her story into a commercially successful art project—even as the target of her claims hovers on the brink of suicide and bankruptcy?

At the centre of the back story was a well-known academic accused of conducting a reign of sexual terror within one of Canada’s most famous universities—including drugging and raping a student on the floor of his office during business hours. As soon as the alleged victim came forward in 2015, the professor was exiled from campus, taken into custody, strip-searched, and cast into disgrace, his career in ruins. Once a best-selling author and department chair, he became a middle-aged husk whose only income derived from shovelling gravel at minimum wage. On social media, and even among former friends and peers, he was written off as a rapist. Only now is his reputation finally being rehabilitated.

The professor in question was, of course, former University of British Columbia creating writing chair Steven Galloway, author of The Cellist of Sarajevo. Three years ago, a woman identified in university documents as “MC” claimed that Galloway had raped her in his office on UBC’s Point Grey campus. It was also claimed that almost 20 other victims from the creative-writing community would be coming forward to offer their own tales of abusive conduct.

But then the case against Galloway fell apart. A former B.C. Supreme Court justice, Mary Ellen Boyd, found that MC’s story didn’t hold up under investigation. As noted by Brad Cran in his exhaustive Quillette report, a handful of much more minor accusations hurled at Galloway also dissolved as soon as Boyd started asking hard questions. Following protracted negotiations, UBC paid Galloway C$167,000 in damages for public statements that violated his privacy rights and harmed his reputation—followed by another C$60,000 several months later. (As for, MC, her real name—Caralea Cole—is now common currency in the media following a widely reported defamation suit launched against her, and several dozen others, by Galloway.)

Yet MC stood by her accusations. Indeed, she claims a second form of victimization—the loss of her voice as an artist during the years that have passed since her consensual affair with Galloway.

“You are no longer able to create anything new,” she wrote in the artist statement accompanying her exhibit, which ran at High Noon Gallery in Manhattan from July 6 to August 26. “When an idea finally comes to you, you wince and feel sick because you know it’s the only thing you can do, and you don’t want to do it. If you can’t create, then you have to subtract, take the already existing radioactive material in the Rape Narrative and transform it. Redaction is a violent act. It was wielded against you and others, against every woman who comes forward.”

When I asked High Noon owner Jared Linge whether the term Rape Narrative had been scrutinized by lawyers before the exhibition opened, he demurred, suggesting that I contact MC (which I attempted to do, without success). But according to the gallery’s carefully worded promotional materials, the term was “sanctioned by [UBC] after she disclosed being sexually harassed, assaulted, and abused by a professor. [The artist] brilliantly and daringly reclaims the process of redaction and transforms her Rape Narrative into an immersive sequence.”

Presented as a visual meditation on “the destructive cultural institutions of power and indulgence, like Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses,” the exhibit consisted of 48” x 37” panels that suggest a heavily redacted account of the creator being stalked and sexually assaulted by a professor. The underlying document, it turned out, was MC’s own written submission to the university back in 2015: She redacted her own statement.

In broad strokes, the enterprise was cast as an act of therapy. “It’s not just what he did, but that he was able to do it for so long,” said the artist. “The Rape Narrative spans six years, and the losses keep piling up. It makes you sick and sad and filled with rage that it went on for so long. But that’s not on you. That’s on him.” Through the wording that is presented to viewers, the panels effectively prosecute the accusations of rape that Justice Boyd rejected. One panel reads: “On my back, on the floor of his office. He straddled over me…pushing up my dress…’Please no, please no’…begging him…came to, naked…he had finally got what he wanted…I did not exist.”

Who’s the “him” and the “he”? While everyone with access to a web browser knew it to be Galloway, neither the artist nor the gallery spoke the man’s name. And the whole artistic conceit of the “Rape Narrative” seems to have been carefully worded to avoid a libel suit. Linge told me, in our phone interview, that the exhibit “is immersive, like a Rothko Chapel. The black redaction is very beautiful, very painterly.” Which may well be true. (I didn’t see the exhibit, except for the images on the gallery web site.) But there is still no getting around the fact that the substance of the exhibit consists of marked up documents alleging a criminal act that Boyd concluded, even on the loosest of evidentiary standards, simply never happened.

When I ask Linge about this unusual—some might say unsettling—aspect of the show, he tried to draw a line between the documents as evidence and the documents as art: “The documents are just the source material. The art is something different.” He also added that buyers seem enthused. “A number of collectors already have picked out certain pieces that have resonated with them,” he told me, though he won’t disclose the price they are paying.

I can’t imagine how all this must strike Galloway. Not only will wealthy New Yorkers have unsubstantiated accusations against him hanging on their living-room walls, they will be paying for the privilege, with the proceeds going to the woman who ruined his life. Certainly, the gallery’s description of the genteel opening reception for the show (“Refreshments will be served”) must have struck him as cruelly surreal.

* * *

New York State’s Son of Sam law has been challenged repeatedly since it was passed more than four decades ago, largely on First Amendment grounds. And rightly so. My own view is that anyone should be able to sell the rights to their own life’s story—even a criminal. And if MC can get people to buy oversize, digitally altered versions of rejected rape claims, that should be legal, too.

Of course, we can still abhor that which we permit. But MC’s artistic self-promotion may not be as cynical as some may suspect. “I have worked with [MC] for nine years, and this was the first time I have seen her unable to create,” Linge told me. That strikes me as credible, because I believe it is possible that MC truly does believe, on some level, that her “Rape Narrative” is real, no matter the truth of what actually happened. During my own investigations into the Galloway affair, as both author and editor, I have heard MC described by those who know her as volatile in mood and perspective. Putting issues of mental health to one side, an artist should be able to create whatever artifact she likes out of the tissue of her own reality—within such boundaries prescribed by libel law.

During our interview, Linge politely deflected questions about MC’s own experience, while also emphasizing that there are “universal” themes within the exhibit that go beyond the question of what did or did not happen to MC. He told me that 80% of the artists who show at his gallery are women, and he saw MC’s show—which was in the works even before the #MeToo movement began in 2017—as part of his larger mission to “promote voices that aren’t often heard.”

Linge added that one of his own close family members has experienced something similar when she came forward with a sexual-abuse allegation against a student athlete at her university: “The system often seems designed to present the victim as lying. [The woman] could not get her own report from the police station because the school was mostly concerned about the [accused’s] reputation.”

Artists always have enjoyed leniency to bend history to their purposes. The Rape of The Sabine Women has inspired masterpieces by numerous masters (Nicolas Poussin alone produced two versions), despite the fact that what the early Romans actually perpetrated on the Capitoline Hill seems to have been something closer to mass abduction. And just as a lonely composer can create an emotionally resonant and authentic-seeming love song, a woman judged not to have not endured rape may create art that captures the experience of the millions of woman who have.

And let’s not forget that Galloway is an artist himself. For two and a half years, he obeyed his lawyers’ advice and said nothing in public. But now that the university has paid him for his suffering, and important details of Justice Boyd’s report have been reported, there is nothing that prevents him from channeling his own thoughts and feelings about both MC and UBC into his next novel.

At the very least, it could help Galloway pay off his debts while he finds his next job. I could never get through The Cellist of Sarejevo. But Ambush At Point Grey—that’s another story.


Jonathan Kay is Canadian editor of Quillette. Follow him at @jonkay 


  1. E. Olson says

    False accusers should receive the same criminal and civil penalties that the supposed perpetrator would have received if found guilty, with penalties doubled if the falsely accused (e.g. true victim) has already served time or been financial penalized for a crime they did not commit.

        • stevengregg says

          It is impossible to prove a negative and requiring the accused to do so is fallacious, an appeal to ignorance, the argumentum ad ignorantium. If Kavanaugh can not prove he did not rape Ford, does that prove he is guilty? If you can not prove that dinosaurs do not live on Jupiter, does that mean they do? If you can not prove that Madonna did not shoot JFK, does that mean she did? Get it?

          • Participants in Senate hearings are not required to prove anything, they are simply required to make decisions based on testimony and should any testimony be deemed false, testifiers can be fined or jailed. It’s that simple. And this is where appearance matters. In hearings, credibility comes primarily from appearance, written evidence, behavior and intuition. Unfortunately for Brett Kavanaugh, his appearance was severely degraded by his behavior, which included avoiding watching the testimony of Ford prior to his testimony, and accusing non-local adversaries he himself led a secret campaign to discredit twenty five years ago. This is what’s called “ye old misdirect.” My eight year old does it whenever he’s caught, and Brett and my eight year old probably share a lot more in common than the average voter knows.

            Using your class of logic, nothing would ever be defined on this here Earth.

        • Dennis says

          @Kal: Some legal traditions recognize two distinct kinds of libel, one major and one minor.

          The major libel is the equivalent of “a statement that is proven to be false”.

          Minor libel, in contrast, is “a statement that isn’t evidently (proven to be) true.”

          Naturally, both have the additional requirement that the statement in question can reasoably be assumed to harm a person’s good reputation and social standing.

          So, no, I don’t think “proving a negative”, as in America, is the only possibility a legal system can operate.

    • Donald Trump publicly accused the Central Park Five of rape, and even after they were shown to be innocent, refused to retract his accusation.

        • If you felt a tremor in the Force, it was millions of district attorneys shuddering at the prospect of being sentenced to life in prison for making false accusations.

          • A man says

            Michael Avenatti just doubles down again and again on his rapidly shrinking relevance.

        • Dave Bowman says

          Quite right. And if it was spoken, not written, his view could at best have been construed as slander, but not libel.

        • I’m not sure I understand. Do you think they participated in the rape or do you know? We cannot be sure of what crimes were committed by whom that night in Central Park, only five were caught out of an estimated thirty. The police decided to isolate crimes to the captured: this is the point where myth begins: conflation. Did the “Puerto Rican in a hoodie” label come from an eyewitness to the rape? A participant? Or did someone see the rape in-progress and tell others how he appeared? Not even Korey Wise’s ‘admission’ definitively proves he did just that. (the article neglects to share why the jury discounted her statement – read the Judge’s instructions to the jury for an answer). Yes they were almost certainly participants in a group that committed crimes, but were they the actual ones beating up the other jogger etc? Nothing in their forced confessions definitively links them to the other events that night because the police chose to make them the fall guys for the worst crime in the area. A teenager washing their clothes is not definitive proof. These kids did not commit rape that night (non of the forensic data places them near the victim). They may have been involved in other felonies, however the fact is we can never know thanks to police incompetence. The myth of the central park five is that they were the brutal bludgeoners and rapists of the jogger, and the confession of Reyes demythologized that. No one who watches the Burns doc or the recent book (not the 1992 account) believes those boys are innocent, they are simply innocent of the rape were coerced into admitting that. If a mythology grows from the vacating of all of their crimes (rioting, assault..), that’s the State’s fault. It created a beyond a reasonable doubt from faulty judgement. The new myth is the State’s responsibility.

          What’s very fascinating is the role of victimhood and punishment in this article and thread. Somebody here even punishes Galloway for his victimhood.

          Strange a site founded on a rejection of Foucault could actually prove his point both in article and commentary.

      • stevengregg says

        Non sequitur. What Trump did or did not do to the Central Park Five has no connection to Kavanaugh nor Ford.

        • You’re deceiving yourself in an attempt to deceive others: it’s Trump’s is a behavioral pattern to control public opinion. Trump inserted himself in the debate over the criminality of those charged (without proof), and later pursued an entire campaign over the criminality of his opponents including those opposing his nominee (without proof). Kavanaugh used Trump’s tactics explicitly, shifting the blame from himself to the Clinton family.

          It’s the same function and process replicated.

    • Larry Larkin says

      There used to be a crime called “bearing false witness”. The penalty for which was the maximum penalty the falsely accused could have received.

      It really does need to be put back on the books.

  2. Ray Andrews says

    It does seem rather strange that false accusers pay no legal penalty. I’m not a lawyer, but when a witness lies on the stand, it is perjury, but when an accuser lies on the stand it’s not a problem.

    • Greg Maxwell says

      There’s a class (or multiple classes) of people who get ‘free passes’ based largely on leftist ideology – skin color, religion, gender, ideology – and it’s very perniciously destroying the glue that holds things together. (Just to be fair, there’s a lot of free passes for the rich and powerful as well.)
      None of this is good for social cohesion and a healthy socio-economic future.

      • A ‘class’? If you’re claiming to generalize about people acting as a ‘class’ then you’re actually projecting a lack of cohesion. Calling the kettle black..

      • Michael Joseph says

        Just to be fair those perks for the rich and powerful get better as you go back in time. You don’t have to go very far back until the perks extend to the power of life and death over the weak and poor. I enjoy seeing the ex powerful squirm at the upsurge of women and minorities. It’s about time.

  3. The professor in question was, of course, former University of British Columbia creating writing chair Steven Galloway, author of The Cellist of Sarajevo.
    Please edit.

  4. I am really looking forward to this trial. The GoFundMe for the defendants has raised over $60,000. Should someone start a GoFundMe for Galloway? Seems like he has a pretty solid case.

  5. Stado Pędzących Imadeł says

    Go “full retard” Hammurabi in case of false accusations.

  6. Hannah Lee says

    The outrage olympics are getting a little over the top? isn’t Galloway in the end an artist, and yes he was deprived of his highly payed sinecure as an associate professor, teaching ‘creative writing’ to the rich children of middle class privilege, but does that prevent him from his creative outlet? I am so sorry, that Galloway has been reduced to ‘shoveling gravel to make ends meet’, but I would think that a smart, attractive, intelligent could at least find work as a gigolo, especially as Quillette is offering the pimping for free?

    • Hannah Lee says

      Edit: ‘Intelligent man’ could at least find work as a gigolo, especially as Quillette is offering the pimping for free’

      • A. R. says

        But you do find him attractive, eh? lol

        Oh, and tip- once you use ‘smart’ as a descriptor, there is no point in using ‘intelligent’ a word later. Unless you’re using it ironically, to show just how clumsily attracted to this man you are.

        • Peter from Oz says


          ”Smart” also means well-presented or turned out.

    • Morgan says

      @Hannah Lee

      The rabid malevolence of your proposition is pathological.

    • Declan says

      You’ve not only managed to convey both your class resentment and a lack of any empathy in a single gormless post, but you’ve somehow come up with the idea that Quilette, on writing on these matters, is ‘pimping’ Galloway?

      That’s quite a worldview.

    • Colin says

      I second all of the above replies to your disgusting, heartless, malicious and embarrassingly unintelligent comment. And therefore in addition I must add the question which most obviously and irresistibly suggests itself: “Are you a White-hating racist Jew, Hannah ?”

      • Michael Joseph says

        Wow. Hannah Lee brings up a pretty good point. Maybe the guy really was shoveling gravel cause he needed the money but that’s more a statement on his ability to handle money than his bad luck. After reading about the settlements, I felt less sympathy for his callused hands.

        As the art show was described it felt more like a statement on rape than a reflection of a particular incident. I could allow this kind of exploitation of a personal history.

        The author also says convicts should be able to profit from the stories of crimes. It’s a short trip from there to committing the crimes to write the story.

    • Professors having affairs with students are not playing with full decks.

      • His accuser was not a student. Perhaps you are not familiar with the case.

  7. Saw file says

    I have posed the Galloway debacle other times, with other articles, on this site.
    Again…the whole history of this, is extremely well explained by, Diana Davison (you tube).
    Front, ’till current.

    Thx , J. Kay, but D.D. could have more concisely explained this CDN tragedy.

  8. Lee Floyd says

    North Americans, of all persuasions, seem quite mad. And you are influencing our weak and cognitively absent youth to follow in your footsteps….shame on the grown ups. Get a grip.

  9. Charles White says

    I do not understand how UBC got away with paying Galloway only $167000; considering loss of wages for three years directly and loss of reputation affecting other means of income to which UBC actions directly contributed. It seems they should have been on the hook for at least twice as much if not three times.

    Unless Galloway is bringing multiple suits against UBC and this is just a settlement for one of them.

  10. AndrewB says

    The patriarchy is a myth, men took their rightful place at the top of the mountain. Women can only accuse their rulers of rape to attempt to bring them down. Speaking in generalities, they lack the comparative skill sets and hormones to compete on a day in day out basis in the most competitive work environments like investment banking. Galloway is a cuckold, 167,000.00 to settle, please, he allowed the pillaging of his reputation and career which is still irreparably harmed for less than a down payment on a million dollar house.

    More men are homeless, in prison, and fail to graduate compared with women. But in success, men flourish far more and are only susceptible to the grandiose social engineering of this brave new world.

    • Patriarchy a myth? My dear you have not examined the evidence: domestication, linguistics, burial/temple systems, the emergence of ritual, their shifting into regular ‘holidays’, societal fears of unmarried women (in the Bible they’re given some unusual labels). “Like investment banking” as if this a solid category to use after only 25 years of inclusion and only 10 years of proactive recruitment of females. Women have only been entitled to owning property outright for a few hundred years, and realistically (with the law beginning to uphold) the last hundred. You’re living within a revolution you’re rejecting. And btw, using an industry that descends from arbitrage, which is a patriarchal gaming of falsely open markets, suggests you already know the industries that will be severely be restricted when markets ascend to a truly open, allowing values to be fully visible from both sides of the bet.

      It was a good run, 10K years of male domination, but the cracks are very visible and the lack of planning and management have caught up to everyone.

      • Peter from Oz says

        Your response reminds me of Jim Hacker’s advice in ”Yes, Minister”” on how to deal with journalists: just srpout your own message whatever question the journalist asks you.
        The patriarchy is a myth. That is what AndrewB said. That is not to say that is was always a myth. As you yourself note, the patriarchy has long been dismantled. SO why are you taking the chance to revive old complaints?

        • Patriarchy dismantled? We’re BARELY into the 1%. A long, long way to go.

          I can control the argument in any direction you like as long as I’m debating people that believe there is no such thing as a patriarchy. Let’s use GS Kirk’s definition of myth, then yes, the Patriarchy is a MYTH that we inhabit uncontrollably. We live inside its myth.

          Let’s add Donald. We are in the process of demythologizing the patriarchy, a process far from complete.

          In any case, the laymen’s/folk view ‘the Patriarchy is a myth’ is a false statement.

      • Andrewb says

        Good luck with that. The women’s suffrage movement initially was funded by rich white men, such as the Rothschilds, eager to be able to tax 50 percent of the population that didnt work. Once again, the #metoo movement and the new progressive feminist agenda is being funded by wealthy white men shortly after the 2016 election where black voter turnout was down. I suppose this is just a coincidence, correlation without causation.

        “Patriarchal gaming of falsely open markets’ ….You should tell that to Jane Austen one of the original proprietors of game theory in anthropological terms. John Von Neumann, the physicist, and one of the original auteurs of quantum mechanics commended her ingenious perspective in her character’s cunning to exploit vulnerabilities in others ie finding arbitrage opportunities in so called ‘efficient markets’.

        • Feel the heat. You’re searching for gaps in the webbing like all tired old men.

  11. I’m wondering if this can be viewed as an indictment of our education system. Any person capable of critical thought would, and should, wait for the evidence before judging.

  12. If someone was incapable of critical thought, would they admit it?

  13. The generic photo of ‘high art gallery’ kind of gives away the site, eh? Depth is illusory until we look at the detail; this whole place is the shallows.

  14. ps The adherence to Arendt.. It’s a rather bold move, embracing the gal fooled by Eichmann as poster-girl while rejecting Foucault. Right, Eichmann’s ‘banal’, ever heard of a performance mask? This is a guy who escaped occupied Germany, occupied Austria, and made his (and his family’s) way to Argentina by avoiding not only the Allies, but avoiding myriad possible informers, creating documents, identities, false accounts, sticking to them ruthlessly. He’s only banal because she bought his cover at trial – his last attempt after many avoiding the hangmen’s noose. Yet had we surveilled him pulling off all these incredibly difficult feats, I bet we wouldn’t be calling him banal. Try to imagine him at a Nazi gathering taking credit for his crimes. Would we call him banal, or would it be crafty, shrewd, deceptive, convincing others he’s the right man for the job exterminating millions. On trial, his only shot at existence was trying to convince others he WASN’T the man for the job. He was not a cog, he was an implementer. Arendt goes to trial and describes his appearance and decides ‘oh the banality of evil.’ And strangely this mythic catch-phrase sticks to Eichmann and in turn, breathes all life into post-modernism. Paradoxically this site’s founder rejects Foucault but buys this?

    Sorry folks, this site is just another weak tea in times that demand deep focus.

    • AndrewB says

      Ah, Foucault’s marxist anarchist utopia appeals to you? A wealthy man from a wealthy family with a vendetta against his father. Foucault was a homosexual sado-masochist who likely wished to kill his father so he could possesses his mother in some freudian perversion. He wrote of the evils of institutions, shortly after his father had him committed involuntarily, how amusing. Are you a fan of Derrida’s pseudo-intellectual logocentrism as well? No doubt his assault on language is partially responsible for the postmodern progressive violations against free speech laws in Canada and the crafting of alternative pronouns.

      • Deal with the research, the ability of Foucault to uncover structure and function is paramount. Who cares about his (and other’s) failed fantasies of Marx, Marxism has its blinders, but it was a stepping stone for anthropology. Marxism is dead but functionalism and the post-processual is not. The person and the results are always separable. But here, where character assassination is relevant, the man must fall with his research.

  15. What’s so inane here is the lack of lineage in the understanding. If any of you (adherents to this site) really understood Foucault, you’d place him in the canon where he belongs. A stepping stone. Foucault is just a way of thinking about structure and process that was novel in his day. If you marry him to his political beliefs or sexual beliefs, then you’re damning all of his research and mythologizing him. He led students to other major discoveries that advanced far past his lens. It doesn’t survive alone today, it’s been replaced, and replaced well. You people behave as if those who read ideas from flawed teachers are too sheltered to comprehend how to take what they want from predecessors and advance the field. Is Yoffee or Scott impossible w/o Foucault? No, but it sure helped to debate the structures and look even deeper.

    This site is just weak tea. It’s not deep. People like AndreB using redirect and misdirect prove it. You want to debate the process? Do it. You want to debate the CHARACTER? Go back to Kindergarten.

  16. Alphonse Credenza says

    It’s not Art. Not even close. Modern “artists” do whatever they like and call it whatever they like, demanding the world accept their nonsense.

    Without understanding, without talent, without skills, without discrimination, without standards, without value. Worship me, I am the fount of GENIUS! What hogwash.

    • Art is art, dude. The great survives, the terrible fades. You can’t claim her work is not art. That’s how culture wars erupt. Claiming control over concepts and labels. Forget it, you can’t win.

      What’s REALLY funny is this piece bringing attention to bad art, and claiming it’s irrelevant because of the condition of her perception. That’s has zero to do with whether art is good or bad.

      • Alphonse Credenza says

        No, Art is not just “art.” Art with a capital “A” is a very small subset of all aesthetic works, from the poetic to the graphic to the musical. It is a demonstration of the discovery by the artist of Beauty which surpasses the material world and yet can be discovered among its relics, including humankind. This Ideal is what artists — real Artists, not hacks — have always searched for, been revered for and not the self-referential piffle of regurgitated ugliness peddled by the post-modernists as art. This is a something you plainly have no comprehension of, although I hope you find it some day. It takes a lot more in way of aesthetic revelation to know it.

        And don’t call me dude..

        • Post-modernism is a necessary portal to address and react to the nightmarish (also necessary) reductionism of modernism. You may not understand post-modernism, or post-structuralism, but there are overlaps to things as distant as brain science. And post-modernism, like any movement, has the pointless (which was once seen as valuable) and the unrecognized at the time.

          Further your simplified, fascist comprehension of Art (capital A gave that away) has no weight. It’s like a country clubber’s drunk speech over the next portrait of a member going up on a wall.

          • Alphonse Credenza says

            Me, simplified?

            You: Fascist? “Capital “A” gave that away? “Has no weight?” Reductionism? Post-structuralism? “Necessary portal?” “Country clubber?” “…portrait of a member going up on a wall?”

            Mr. Parrot, you haven’t an iota of comprehension of the nature of Beauty and its nourishment for the soul. A loss for you. (I don’t mean you lost to me, I mean you have lost something by not finding it.)

          • Alphonse Credenza says

            Further to my response to you, below, I want to add this:

            The right way — and I’ve gathered that you would deny any right way exists because you likely think there are no standards or ideals and surely you shall not be tamed — the right way to approach an aesthetic work on its own. It is a communication of what its creator has discovered, what he considers of sufficient worth to reveal to the viewer. That is basis on which to see it, not as a specimen in an academic’s pantheon of Jargon.

            If the work’s creator disavows the value and even the existence of standards of expression — by which the Ideal may be demonstrated — if he has discovered nothing of Beauty, nothing of lasting value, all he does is litter the world with the garbage in his consciousness and ask — or usually demand — the viewer to lap it up. You can suck that stuff up for your dinner if you want. I’ve got — every human being does, too! — far more nutritive things to sup on.

        • I’m not the one claiming to refute an entire field of post-modernists using characterizations like “ugliness”.

          Yes, you don’t understand art without a capital a. You have some romantic notion of art as if you walked out of a Stoppard play (and he’d be making fun of you quoting you verbatim).

          Your approach is so narrow that you remind me of the guy that helped Hitler put on the accepted art show of germanic ideals while Grosz and Dix got put into the degenerate pile.

  17. Wow. just wow. This article resonates…. I work at a university and everyone has been bullied by hyper liberalism- students recently forced a professor out of his celebrated career based on a more than decade old incident in another state posted on social media. The accuser didnt file cahrges back then, but 10 years later… the mans career and life were destroyed by a social media post on the metoo movement- with NO judge or jury. I do not know if he is guilty of her charges, but I know we were once a nation that attempted justice for all… destroying a mans life from a social media post for a potential crime that 10 years ago did not warrant charges… thsi is just sickening and yet here we are.

  18. Rock Johnson says

    You’re overthinking it. He isn’t saying that if the rape accusation doesn’t lead to a conviction then the accuser should be punished, he’s saying that if it can be proven that the accuser is lying, then there should be severe consequences.

  19. Bill P says

    I read the piece on Galloway in the Globe and Mail and I can’t say I’m too impressed with the guy. Four kids and a loyal wife and he’s screwing his students? Also, he’s a white guy working as a humanities prof in British Columbia of all places. It’s a sure bet that he was spouting SJW opinions on a daily basis, almost certainly including the feminist ones that proved to be his undoing. If you’re a white guy and you have one of those jobs, you are one of those guys. He probably thought he could get away with screwing his students because of his impeccable liberal credentials, which brings a bit of sardonic humor into an otherwise unfortunate situation.

    His travails, while difficult, are pretty run of the mill for millions of unsung men in North America. Lots of us have had it worse, yet you don’t find us all whining about offing ourselves while we still have kids to raise — that’s contemptible behavior and an insult to the fathers who slave away for kids they love dearly yet don’t even have the pleasure of seeing on a regular basis, if at all (now there’s a real crime against humanity if you care to write about it). As for shoveling gravel to earn a living, I’ve got a lot more respect for a man who does that than I do for your typical humanities professor. Maybe it’s done Galloway some good. Dostoevsky had to do hard labor for years and came out of the experience a better writer than before.

    Galloway is a victim, sure, but not much of a martyr.

    I hope he goes on to reform and bring true honor to himself, but I wouldn’t put great odds on that prospect as long as he continues to try to rehabilitate himself through the courts, which are not much better than the universities and not far behind them either.

    As far as Caralea Cole is concerned, her continued rewards for her calumny ensure that she won’t change, which means that in due course she’ll reap the usual reward that goes to vicious, lying women: a loveless, lonely old age.

    Whatever the case, here’s an excerpt from her written work:

    “Once I set my heart on a thing, I bite down, and the world narrows to that bright point. The dying animal pounds and thrashes and moans as life and death mingle in the body. This mingling is visible and insubstantial as a rainbow, as smoke. The animal collapses, shivers and stills. Live flesh, responsive, intelligent flesh has become dead meat. Inert matter. Watching this rips me apart and puts back together in a new shape. I wipe my face and look at my stained hands. He’s dressed me in blood.”

    Excerpt from Chapter 1, Kathmandu: Revelation and Disaster.

    Nice… Galloway actually had an affair with this woman. It looks like he’s lucky he’s still in one piece.

    • How do you know his wife is “loyal”? How can you infer he’s “spouting SJW opinions”? Is there some ample category as “those jobs” and “those guys”, or is that a private cultural code you’re using to create some inner conflict? How does having “impeccable liberal credentials” entitle one to screw his students? Does Dostoevski claim “hard labor” improved his writing, or is that your opinion. How would you define “true honor”?

      These are all patriarchal codes and they’re similar if not identical to codes used in other cultural wars that went south.

      These comments here are a bloodbath of inference. The Canadian/American white male elite must be quaking if males like this have the temerity to project their paranoid codes that with little basis in reality.

  20. Nikita says

    “Rape” in “The Rape of The Sabine Women” means the same as in “The Rape of The Lock”, i.e., roughly “robbery”.

  21. moosya says

    The work looks like it’s indebted to Tom Phillips’s A Humument (in progress since 1966).

Comments are closed.