Puritanism is alive and well

http://www.sudouest.com/accueil/actuali ... 9/mil.html

Best regards,
Alex R.

Pardonnez-moi mais pouvez vous donner un résumé en anglais? Je regrette que je ne lise pas des Français.

Hi Matilda,

Sorry, I should have added IN FRENCH to the header...

What it amounts to is that a Bordeaux wine producer wanted to export wine to the US with verse - in French! - from Charles Baudelaire's famous Fleurs du Mal ("Flowers of Evil") on the label.

They American authorities refused saying that the words were "an incitement to debauchery".
This is hardly believable, and shows what tremendous abuse of power there is by bureaucrats, and the ridiculous reign of "political correctness" in the US.

Here is the translation of the "incriminated" 8 lines I pulled off the Intenet http://fleursdumal.org/poem/192 :

"One night, the soul of wine was singing in the flask:
"O man, dear disinherited! to you I sing
This song full of light and of brotherhood
From my prison of glass with its scarlet wax seals.

Vegetal ambrosia, precious grain scattered
By the eternal Sower, I shall descend in you
So that from our love there will be born poetry,
Which will spring up toward God like a rare flower!"

I ask you: what sane person would refuse those words on a wine label?

Best regards,
Alex R.

Hi Alex, thanks for the translation and summary.
I'm bemused: Baudelaire's words don't look to me likely to incite debauchery. Rather nice verses, actually. Pity there's not more poetry in the world.

Thanks for sharing, Alex. Astonishing how debauchery gets a bad rap.

[David M. Bueker]

Wasn't Baudelaire criticized in a similar way back when he wrote the verse?

Also, forget the "reason" the verse was rejected. Anything that paints alcohol in a positive light gets the boot. I'm surprised that bottles of wine are not required to carry a "Poison" symbol.

Reminds me of the incident when the US banned importation of the 1993 Mouton Rothschild because it carried Balthus' pencil drawing of a pubescent young girl. I rather liked the revenge of the chateau - sending the wine with a blank label to the United States.

Indeed wherewas patriotisim may be the last refuge of the scoundrel, the accusation of debauchery is the favored refuge of the fundamentalist.

Best
Rogov

Wasn't Baudelaire criticized in a similar way back when he wrote the verse?

Are you suggesting that contemporary American prurience is at the same stage of evolution as mid-19th Century French prurience?

Reminds me of the incident when the US banned importation of the 1993 Mouton Rothschild because it carried Balthus' pencil drawing of a pubescent young girl. I rather liked the revenge of the chateau - sending the wine with a blank label to the United States.

Indeed wherewas patriotisim may be the last refuge of the scoundrel, the accusation of debauchery is the favored refuge of the fundamentalist.

Best
Rogov

A part of this famous Balthus in the collection of MoMA had to be repainted in order to be displayed in New York.

CRI_150991.jpg

[David M. Bueker]

Wasn't Baudelaire criticized in a similar way back when he wrote the verse?

Are you suggesting that contemporary American prurience is at the same stage of evolution as mid-19th Century French prurience?

Prurience is prurience regardless of era or country of origin.

Reminds me of the incident when the US banned importation of the 1993 Mouton Rothschild because it carried Balthus' pencil drawing of a pubescent young girl. I rather liked the revenge of the chateau - sending the wine with a blank label to the United States.

Not actually true. The label was submitted, I believe one person made a complaint to the ATF. Before any decision was made, the baroness withdrew the submission and said she would send it to US as a blank. Less revenge than marketing, got lots of publicity. ATF made no decision. If it was rejected, grey marketers wouldn't be able to bring it in legally, and there's more 1993 Balthus than blank in US.

A part of this famous Balthus in the collection of MoMA had to be repainted in order to be displayed in New York.

Actually The Street was pretty controversial in France, too. The hand being moved has maybe less to do with fear of sex than distaste for force? Part of the controversy had to do with the Asian features of the man, also. Certainly there are hundreds of far more explicit paintings and photos that have been exhibited at MOMA.

The repainting of "The Street" is really a fascinating insight into Balthus and his development as an artist. Soby was a major contributor to MOMA, had purchased the original painting in part because he wanted to see if it would be banned by US Customs, displayed it in his home for years until neighbors complained that it was inappropriate for their kids, stored it away for several years and then decided it was an essential part of a major show at the MOMA. He was concerned that some of the other trustees would object.

The incident is beautifully described here:

http://www.randomhouse.com/boldtype/109 ... cerpt.html

Extract:

When Soby was in the process of organizing Balthus's show, he wrote to the artist and explained the problem. He dropped the hint that several restorers had offered to alter the troublesome passage, although of course he would not allow anyone but Balthus himself to touch the picture. In spite of this diplomatic approach, he feared that the mere suggestion of a change would end a friendship that had by that time acquired great meaning for him.

To Soby's astonishment, Balthus wrote back that if the collector would send him the canvas, he would gladly repaint the passage. "When I was young, I wanted to shock. Now it bores me," Balthus wrote. In my visits with him thirty-five years later, Balthus was still uttering precisely the same statement which he remembered practically verbatim: "I wrote one of my rare letters to James Thrall Soby to explain that when I painted this part of my work it was of course a sort of provocative intention. This was when I felt for the first time the need of attracting attention on me, which after that I tried to avoid." With these few words, uttered with a sage's smile, he seemed satisfied that he could sweep the brazen candor of his early work under the rug.

My impression is that Soby would have been delighted it Balthus had refused to repaint "The Street", and would have forced the painting on the other MOMA trustees. Given his wealth -- based in large part on the device that made change for pay telephones -- and importance at MOMA and other wonderful paintings, I'm pretty sure he would have prevailed.

It would have been great fun to see the public flap in 1956 if that had happened.

Thanks for reminding me of this great story. Regards, Bob

Another censored wine label:

http://www.terredevins.com/article-586- ... ette-.html

Alex R.

A similar incident happened about 10 years ago when importer Kermit Lynch tried to put a quote from Thomas Jefferson, "Good wine is a necessity of life for me", on his labels. Initially this was rejected on the grounds that "necessity of life" was a health claim. Lynch persisted and eventually the BATF relented and allowed use of the quote.

-Paul W.

Great image, Alex. Poetry in motion as it were.

She isn't wearing a helmet or reflectors at night! Folks in Alabama are serious about bicycling safety.

And, "Banned in Bama" has given the brand tremendous publicity and, I believe, improved bicycling safety throughout the US.

A similar incident happened about 10 years ago when importer Kermit Lynch tried to put a quote from Thomas Jefferson, "Good wine is a necessity of life for me", on his labels. Initially this was rejected on the grounds that "necessity of life" was a health claim. Lynch persisted and eventually the BATF relented and allowed use of the quote.

-Paul W.

Thanks, Paul -- Lynch's version of the story is worth telling;

Lynch first fastened on the quote as a response to the government health warning required on wines, but it took him years to get his label past the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the federal regulating agency. With the doggedness he uses to hound winemakers, Lynch pounded the BATF, demanding in letter after letter to know how they could censor an American president. When Bill Clinton was elected to office, he tried again, reminding them that the new president's middle name was Jefferson. The bureau still refused.

"They said 'necessity of life' is a health claim, and 'good wine' implies that Jefferson endorses this particular wine," Lynch recalls. "So I wrote back and said that 'necessity of life' has nothing to do with health, that Jefferson could have meant it was necessary for pleasure. And I said that most label readers will understand that since the wine was made in 1995, Jefferson -couldn't have tasted it. And damned if they -didn't approve it.

"I think the Willliam Jefferson Clinton is what got to them, but it never bothered them that they were censoring Thomas Jefferson. That never struck them as odd."

http://www.pcwinecellars.com/article2.html

The hand being moved has maybe less to do with fear of sex than distaste for force? Part of the controversy had to do with the Asian features of the man, also.

Could be, but we have to keep in mind that censors have never minded force, at least in the form of violence.

Certainly there are hundreds of far more explicit paintings and photos that have been exhibited at MOMA.

Since then, but not at the time.

What "bugs" me most is when censorship/puritanism takes on a supposedly sophisticated face. As an example, when Pablo Picasso's Nude with Joined Hands was first displayed New York's Museum of Modern Art, several board members objected because they thought it rather obvious that the woman was actually masturbating.

Lord love a duck with a dirty mind!

Best
Rogov

thanks Bob for the good reads!

You're most welcome. Regards, Bob

Just re-read the thread. I wonder if anyone will be after us for posting all of these "dirty pictures" here.

Best
Rogov

Just re-read the thread. I wonder if anyone will be after us for posting all of these "dirty pictures" here.

Best
Rogov

We really enjoyed a "dirty exhibit" at the Brooklyn a few years ago -- featured was this elephant dung picture of a Black Madonna:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ofili-No-Woman.jpg

I still have a yellow flier they handed out warning that the art "may cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria and anxiety."

Just re-read the thread. I wonder if anyone will be after us for posting all of these "dirty pictures" here.

Best
Rogov

We really enjoyed a "dirty exhibit" at the Brooklyn a few years ago -- featured was this elephant dung picture of a Black Madonna:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ofili-No-Woman.jpg

I still have a yellow flier they handed out warning that the art "may cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria and anxiety."

Simultaneously?