"Is Artistic Freedom At Risk In The Age of Trump?" Discussion @ The CCPA in Washington D.C

WASHINGTON - July 1, 2019 - PRLog -- Charles Krause, the founder and director of the Center for Contemporary Political Art in Washington D.C. has taken the necessary and courageous steps to host a contemporary political art show from both sides of the political spectrum relating to President Donald Trump.

"The Good, The Bad & The Ugly!" Art show, (May 8-July 28th, 2019) has shown political works of art by three artists.  Julian Raven, the painter of the prescient presidential Trump portrait 'Unafraid and Unashamed' from the 2015/16 election and the subject of the ongoing free speech lawsuit against the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery and Artists Tim Atseff and Jim Boden, both seasoned in the world of art history and political art as a former cartoonist and art professor.

'Why Donald Trump?' By Julian Raven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kGDaHFhxPU

The recent presentations at the gallery gave an opportunity to present strikingly opposing opinions regarding the controversial candidate and now U.S. President Donald Trump.  Each artist had an hour to present their background story and process in creating the works of art that hang in the gallery.

The evening session was a moderated discussion by Ashok Panikkar,          (https://www.meta-culture.in/about_the-team) expert facilitator of discussions between groups or individuals who are potentially so opposed in ideology that conversation cannot even happen.  This was not the case at the Center for Contemporary Political Art.

Discussion link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJxdeD9xWw



The effort of the three artists to hold the line of respect and civility was a tremendous outcome of the conversation.  The mere fact that opposing opinions and reasons for such were both graphically and verbally discussed, created an informed and educated environment that modeled civility and what can be, in the current political climate considered an American ideal.

Trump Portrait Smithsonian Free Speech Lawsuit

Artist Julian Raven's free speech lawsuit against the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery and its director Kim Sajet, continues its journey through the federal court system in Washington D.C.  On Monday the 24th of June, 2019, artist Julian Raven gave a presentation at the Center for Contemporary Art regarding the unprecedented elements of the Smithsonian federal lawsuit.

Smithsonian Lawsuit Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4tpKdrlmqs

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted the Smithsonian Institution, represented by the Department of Justice 'Summary Affirmance'.  Which means the DOJ has convinced the Court of Appeals to agree with the District Court dismissal and block(for now) the artist's ability to appeal the case fully. In response artist Julian Raven filed 2 petitions, which are the 'Petition for Rehearing' and the 'Petition for Rehearing En Banc.'

The latest Court Order seems to echo a systemic 'status quo bias' that seems to permeate the entire government system when it comes to defending the Smithsonian.  The blog, by Julian Raven about the 'religio-magical' power over the minds of men that the Smithsonian wields, is an attempt to explain this.

Smithsonian Blog: https://julianraven.wordpress.com/2019/03/16/the-mystical-power-of-the-smithsonian-institution-over-the-minds-of-men/

This latest filing of the Petitions for Rehearing, digs deeper into the 'status quo bias' and has had to lose some of the politeness or prior briefs since the artist is dealing with judicial schizophrenia!

The District Court called the Smithsonian 'Cerberus', the mythological three headed Greek monster hound of hell who guards the entrance to hades itself. The Smithsonian case is actually against all three branches of government simultaneously, including the judiciary...no wonder the Courts seem to be very protective of 'their' Smithsonian...

Below is an excerpt of the contradictory nature of this unprecedented legal case.

"...What nonsense! It is for a jury to decide how "odious" ibid., since the Court declares the actions were "odious" ibid.! Webster's even uses 'EVIL' as a synonym for Respondents' actions and so now 'evil' Respondents' actions as fiduciaries are now "tolerable in a civilized society?" This is insanity!"

Read more here:

https://issuu.com/wholvsu/docs/petition_for_rehearing_en_banc_for_

h (https://issuu.com/wholvsu/docs/petition_for_rehearing_en_banc_for_)ttp://www.thetrumppainting.com