Official Visionary Data Communique Regarding Events Surrounding Massachusetts
College of Art and Design’s Treatment of Professor Saul Levine
In an effort to speak the language of our current antagonists and be better
understood herein, we’ll utilize that so blandly Obamian turn of phrase, LET’S
BE CLEAR: Our publication, Boston Film Thing’s initial beef with the Harvard
Film Archive was with regards to the glaringly low percentage of female
filmmakers in its programmed schedule. We raised questions and provided
statistics to point out this lack in the best way we knew how. We didn’t
necessarily expect a response from such an illustrious institution to our small
publication. That said we do feel that some response or general dialogue with
or without our involvement would have been productive. We fully acknowledge
that there are things we may have missed or gotten wrong and welcome push back
and civil debate. Apparently, and despite the lack of response to that issue
the HFA has in fact been paying attention to us, perhaps more than seems
healthy or normal for an organization affiliated with the powerful hedge fund
known as Harvard University. Some of us have known all along what Harvard and
the new model of neo-liberal universities and adjacent institutions are all
about at their core. Some of us had to go within and walk such hallowed halls
to finally notice the stench. As a result, we fled the elitist incubators of
the literal destroyers of worlds long ago. That said, no organization is a
monolith and attending screenings at the otherwise lovely HFA has been a
highlight of our time in this at times culturally frustrating city. Boston Film
Things has from its inception enthusiastically promoted events at HFA to its
readership. We recognize that sometimes the prettiest flowers grow in
excrement.
LET’S BE CLEAR: What the fug happened between Boston Film Things and the
Harvard Film Archive? Perhaps we ‘fugged’ up? We said ‘fug’. HFA got mad. U
mad, bro? U seem mad. We have been told that the Harvard University Police
have opened an investigation into our activities for aiming the word ‘fug’ at
members of Mass Art’s film faculty and at a provost whose maneuverings against
our friend Professor Saul Levine - who has nothing to do with the creation of
this statement - have angered us greatly. Yes, ‘we mad’, but when we mad, we
admit it, bro. When we’re mad, like much of humanity, we cuss. As a result,
HFA has officially accused us of ‘hate speech’ and ‘incitement to violence’ for
our use of the word ‘fug’ and for clearly hyperbolic and humorous reference to
a Situationist motto: ‘Destroy all bourgeois institutions. Under the sidewalk
is the beach!!’ Firstly, let’s all try and be more aware of our counter
cultural history. Secondly, one can etymologize ‘fug’ with a quick online
search and yes the word has a sadly hateful, misogynistic history. However,
outside of the academy, that’s not how words work. Unlike the word’s literal
historical meaning, the agreed upon vernacular use of ‘fug’ is inarguably
neutered to the point of having lost almost all meaning except ‘I am mad or
otherwise emotional right now and wish to emphasize that feeling’ or, of
course, to signify sexual intercourse, and increasingly, any manner of
non-sexual engagement. To pretend otherwise and claim such great offense is so
disingenuous that it’s almost awe inspiring, even for the academy, even for
Harvard. As for questions about the latter meaning, please, rest assured none
of us have or have ever had the slightest desire to engage in sexual relations
of any kind with our newfound adversaries (we hold fast to the notion that sex
should be fun). HFA knows darned tootin’ well what we meant and perhaps if
given a chance, we’d have apologized for being momentarily impolite.
LET’S BE CLEAR: We see the recent actions of Mass Art and HFA as illustrative
of a tendency of what has been broadly termed the ‘professional managerial
class’. When a member of the professional managerial class gets mad it doesn’t
look like it does when the rest of us get mad. They don’t cuss like we do.
They don’t talk with their hands like we do. That would be too ‘ethnic’. They
certainly don’t seem to want dialogue like we do. That would require
self-examination, which is not a particularly useful habit for gaining and
maintaining power in this most narcissistic epoch. When the professional
managerial class gets ruffled, ties in a twist, they fall back on whatever ad
hoc, arbitrary jumble of ‘policies’ they can and then cower behind desks and
the physical threat of security guards (who they no doubt secretly disdain and
who no doubt privately snicker in turn at their white collared colleagues'
frail sensitivities) to avoid engaging with ideas. To do otherwise would be
far too educational and thus dangerous to them. And then, of course, when we
get justifiably mad, raise our voices or show a human emotional trait beyond
cool detachment, they’ve got us trapped and are eager to twist our words and
actions against us with the help of over zealous` speech and behavior codes
applied at will. They hide cynically behind false claims of linguistic and
expressive breeches of social justice decorum as a weapon to punish the
sometimes difficult, challenging eccentricity in their midst. That’s what they
did to Professor Saul Levine initially and that’s what they’re pulling on us
now. This disgusts us to no end. If our collective anonymity appears to be
more cowering, we implore you to reflect on the evident vindictiveness of the
powers we’re up against and empathize with our practical need to ‘work in this
town again’. That a mere enthusiastic disagreement here however profanely
expressed, should prompt that concern in us is testament to the proven
pettiness of our detractors thus far. Since the buzz phrases ‘cyber-bullying’
and ‘hate speech’ have already been (mis)taken here - appropriated really -
allow us to state that we will not be surprised or impressed if we are met with
a ‘gas-lighting’ at the very least for what we are saying herein. Surely we
must not be ‘well’ to see things this way.
LET’S BE CLEAR: We’re not here to make the society pages or engage in
bourgeoisie parlor games to smugly determine who is ‘in’ or ‘out’ for using the
‘wrong’ words. We’re here for art. We’re vigilant as ‘fug’ and have a lot of
time and patience. And, we’d like you to know this: if you keep pretending that
your monocle is popping out, someone is eventually going to shatter it. But,
please don’t be mad, that’s merely a clumsy metaphor, not a ‘threat’, bro.
LET’S BE CLEAR: We are not without empathy for those caught up in the harmful
systemic momentum of their institutions of employ and the myriad pressures they
must face as a result. Furthermore, pride and defense of one’s colleagues,
friends and loved ones at all costs is something we are ‘guilty’ of as well.
We certainly have no wholesale objection to Title IX and related equality and
diversity policies both governmental and internal with regards to their overall
intentions to protect the marginalized and oppressed. We do however object to
bureacratic overreach in executing such otherwise necessary statutes and
policies, as the results are so often completely antithetical to the intended
outcomes. Why play the stock role of ‘The Evil Dean’ in a collegiate comedy
when there are so many other options? That said we still welcome the
possibility of an open public dialogue about the issues at play here. Thank you.
With love,
Visionary Data
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
