Art teacher fired for being... ...an artist

This is just silly:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16557455/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Va. school board fires ‘butt-printing’ art teacher

Paintings done during off-hours sell for as much as $900


Updated: 2:21 a.m. PT Jan 10, 2007
RICHMOND, Va. - An art teacher whose off-hours work as a so-called “butt-printing artist” became widely circulated among high school students has been fired.
The Chesterfield County School Board, in a unanimous voice vote, fired Stephen Murmer at a meeting Tuesday night, spokeswoman Debra Marlow said.
In its decision, the board reasoned that students have a right to receive their education in an environment free from distractions and disruptions, Marlow said. The decision also is in keeping with court rulings that hold that teachers are expected to lead by example and be role models, she said.
Jason Anthony, Murmer’s attorney, called the vote “a bad day for the First Amendment.”
“Chesterfield lost a tremendous asset today,” he said.
Murmer, a teacher at Monacan High School, was suspended in December after objections were raised about his private abstract artwork, much of which includes smearing his posterior and genitals with paint and pressing them against canvas.
His paintings sell for as much as $900 each on his Web site.
The unique approach to art became a topic when a clip showing Murmer, wearing a fake nose and glasses, a towel on his head and black thong, turned up on YouTube.com and became the talk of the high school.

This guy produces and sells his artwork on the Internet on his own time, and the school board fires him for it. Yes, his artwork is "adult" in nature, and his method of promoting it is slightly risqué, but it's basically harmless. I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the school board...

I'm more suprised by the fact that they still teach high school art classes in Chesterfield, than the fact that he got fired.

Murmer, a teacher at Monacan High School, was suspended in December after objections were raised about his private abstract artwork, much of which includes smearing his posterior and genitals with paint and pressing them against canvas.
His paintings sell for as much as $900 each on his Web site.

Picasso lives.

If he can get $900 selling copies of bollocks I am sure Bill Gates will give him a job.

Originally Posted by Goofball

This is just silly:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16557455/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Va. school board fires ‘butt-printing’ art teacher

Paintings done during off-hours sell for as much as $900


Updated: 2:21 a.m. PT Jan 10, 2007
RICHMOND, Va. - An art teacher whose off-hours work as a so-called “butt-printing artist” became widely circulated among high school students has been fired.
The Chesterfield County School Board, in a unanimous voice vote, fired Stephen Murmer at a meeting Tuesday night, spokeswoman Debra Marlow said.
In its decision, the board reasoned that students have a right to receive their education in an environment free from distractions and disruptions, Marlow said. The decision also is in keeping with court rulings that hold that teachers are expected to lead by example and be role models, she said.
Jason Anthony, Murmer’s attorney, called the vote “a bad day for the First Amendment.”
“Chesterfield lost a tremendous asset today,” he said.
Murmer, a teacher at Monacan High School, was suspended in December after objections were raised about his private abstract artwork, much of which includes smearing his posterior and genitals with paint and pressing them against canvas.
His paintings sell for as much as $900 each on his Web site.
The unique approach to art became a topic when a clip showing Murmer, wearing a fake nose and glasses, a towel on his head and black thong, turned up on YouTube.com and became the talk of the high school.

This guy produces and sells his artwork on the Internet on his own time, and the school board fires him for it. Yes, his artwork is "adult" in nature, and his method of promoting it is slightly risqué, but it's basically harmless. I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the school board...

Wow, an abstract modern artist who is flakey, silly and exhibitionistic in nature, who woulda thunk it?

I love this line in the article...

“Chesterfield lost a tremendous asset today,” he said.

Gosh, they even gave the line its own paragraph. Get it? A 'butt printing artist' who was a 'tremendous asset' got canned? See? Butt, asset. Get it? MSNBC loves an unintentional pun! Ha ha ha...

I disagree, private life or not his personal assets (ahem) have become public in nature and if such matters adversely affect the workplace (especially one filled with children) then anyone can be easily canned (err) on those same grounds. All the school board needs to prove is whether Murmer's 'l'art de la derrière extraordinaire' is disruptive to the academic environment should he attempt to file a lawsuit. The fool should have thought of this before he decided to capture his anal expressionist movement on video.

On the other hand... Murmer's lukky enuff to got hisself a gummint job so it won't be too long before he'll be singin' "Show me da money!"

Read about this a while ago. I think his art is kind of lame (mostly because I am not big on abstract or flowers) but is certainly acceptable as far as art goes. I do consider it adult and think it doesn’t match well with a teacher of minors, I would let him go. If he were a college teacher/instructor/professor it would be fine, many of my college instructors created art of an adult/mature nature that would not have been appropriate for a k-12 teacher to be creating. If he didn’t think it was bad or wrong he wouldn’t have tried so hard to keep his art separate from his teaching.

With all the notoriety he is gaining from the story he shouldn’t have a problem living off his butt-printing or even landing a college teaching gig.

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Read about this a while ago. I think his art is kind of lame (mostly because I am not big on abstract or flowers) but is certainly acceptable as far as art goes. I do consider it adult and think it doesn’t match well with a teacher of minors, I would let him go. If he were a college teacher/instructor/professor it would be fine, many of my college instructors created art of an adult/mature nature that would not have been appropriate for a k-12 teacher to be creating. If he didn’t think it was bad or wrong he wouldn’t have tried so hard to keep his art separate from his teaching.

With all the notoriety he is gaining from the story he shouldn’t have a problem living off his butt-printing or even landing a college teaching gig.

So if John Irving was a high-school English teacher, we would be justified in firing him for writing Cider House Rules, or Hotel New Hampshire? Both very "adult" in nature (sex, incest, rape, abortion, infidelity, homosexuality, violence, a little bit of everything, really), but considered great American novels.

Originally Posted by Goofball

So if John Irving was a high-school English teacher, we would be justified in firing him for writing Cider House Rules, or Hotel New Hampshire? Both very "adult" in nature (sex, incest, rape, abortion, infidelity, homosexuality, violence, a little bit of everything, really), but considered great American novels.

Great American novels are not necessarily for minors. I don’t think Irving would be an ideal kids teacher either, but I would have been happy to have had him as a professor in college. There are plenty of places for adults who enjoy creating and writing adult things in their off time to work with and teach other adults during their on time.

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Great American novels are not necessarily for minors. I don’t think Irving would be an ideal kids teacher either, but I would have been happy to have had him as a professor in college. There are plenty of places for adults who enjoy creating and writing adult things in their off time to work with and teach other adults during their on time.

Fair comment, but my question still stands: if a high-school English teacher wrote a novel that dealt with all of those subjects and it became a huge best-seller, would the school board be justified in firing him? (Let's ignore for the moment tha fact that as soon as his book sold a million or so copies, the teacher would more than likely go and tell the school board what they could do with their lousy $40 grand/year )

This guy wasn't showing his art to his students, or targeting them with his marketing. If parents are concerned with their kids viewing his material on the Internet, then maybe they should be policing their kids' Internet usage a bit more actively.

Here's your choice:

A. Fire the whacky art teacher.

+ Stops loads of complaints from parents, puts all of the issue off on the shoulders of the Board's attorney.

- Probably a law suit will be lodged (but the attorney says you have a fair case [private behavior impacting job clause in contract] so it will either be a court win -- or enough pressure to end the issue with a reasonable settlement 'out of court').


B. Let the whacky teacher teach.

+ Champions that teachers right to free expression.

- Possible law suits from parents, voluminous complaints from parents, probable loss of position at next election (and concommitant death of future political career if you have such aspirations).



....not hard to see what happened and why.

Originally Posted by Goofball

Fair comment, but my question still stands: if a high-school English teacher wrote a novel that dealt with all of those subjects and it became a huge best-seller, would the school board be justified in firing him? (Let's ignore for the moment tha fact that as soon as his book sold a million or so copies, the teacher would more than likely go and tell the school board what they could do with their lousy $40 grand/year )

I guess it would boil down to the individual school’s decision, It seems some tolerate more unusual behavior than others, personally I would excuse both and assuming there were no other issues with them I would go out of my way to help them find a teaching position in an adult atmosphere (although I don’t think it would be an issue for the million copies sold book writer )

I completely agree with this part.

If parents are concerned with their kids viewing his material on the Internet, then maybe they should be policing their kids' Internet usage a bit more actively.

Originally Posted by Goofball

So if John Irving was a high-school English teacher, we would be justified in firing him for writing Cider House Rules, or Hotel New Hampshire? Both very "adult" in nature (sex, incest, rape, abortion, infidelity, homosexuality, violence, a little bit of everything, really), but considered great American novels.

Uh, yes but Irving didn't slather up his assets and family jewels with paint and videotape himself in the process! I suppose if Irving decided to write exclusively about the sordid little details of his personal life that involve his nether regions and paint then his school would probably have had the same reaction and been equally justified in firing him as well. Cider House Rules was a fictional novel written with the intent of illiciting much more from its readers than an acknowledgment of the author's ability to shock.

Let's be clear on this, a government run institution fired Murmer because of unacceptable public behavior and its disruptive influence in the school. I'm fairly certain that video footage of him prancing about like a fool while engaging in his 'craft' is what sealed the deal for his employment. Strictly speaking this is not censorship of art or one's beliefs. Nothing is preventing Murmer from pursuing his dream of painting a rectal masterpiece but he stepped outside the boundaries of what society (or rather, his local society) deems to be acceptable behavior for a teacher and got called for it.

Furthermore society has an odd tendency to be quite tolerant when it comes to talented artists pushing or breaking the acceptable boundaries so long as they don't deal exclusively with such controversial material. Clearly Murmer shares a great deal with other modern artists in that he compensates for lack of talent and skill by indulging in shocking or controversial practices to gain the attention of the public.

You really can't make this stuff up

I'm not sure what I'd have done if I were in the school board. If his work remained largely unknown to the general public, there wouldn't have been a problem. I wonder if he considered the possibility that one of his students might recognize him (by name or otherwise)

I suspect the following two excerpts from the article might have more bearing on the decision than the quality of his art, per se.

The decision also is in keeping with court rulings that hold that teachers are expected to lead by example and be role models, she said.

The unique approach to art became a topic when a clip showing Murmer, wearing a fake nose and glasses, a towel on his head and black thong, turned up on YouTube.com and became the talk of the high school.

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I suspect the following two excerpts from the article might have more bearing on the decision than the quality of his art, per se.

The decision also is in keeping with court rulings that hold that teachers are expected to lead by example and be role models, she said.

I would think that an art teacher who is a successful commercial artist exercising his right to freedom of expression is an excellent role model for art students.

The unique approach to art became a topic when a clip showing Murmer, wearing a fake nose and glasses, a towel on his head and black thong, turned up on YouTube.com and became the talk of the high school.

Since I've never been averse to the sound of my own voice , I'll quote myself:

Originally Posted by Goofball

This guy wasn't showing his art to his students, or targeting them with his marketing. If parents are concerned with their kids viewing his material on the Internet, then maybe they should be policing their kids' Internet usage a bit more actively.

Originally Posted by Goofball

I would think that an art teacher who is a successful commercial artist exercising his right to freedom of expression is an excellent role model for art students.

I don't disagree. However, it appears clear that previous cases have come down on the side of a more "conservative" role model. If this is the case, he should have known better than to push boundaries.

Originally Posted by Goofball

This guy wasn't showing his art to his students, or targeting them with his marketing. If parents are concerned with their kids viewing his material on the Internet, then maybe they should be policing their kids' Internet usage a bit more actively.

Again, I don't disagree with the sentiment. But once again, if the expectation is that teachers should present a certain level of "respectability" they should be cogniscent of activities that might get into the public domain and seen by their students. It is their responsibility to ensure this does not happen, not the students' or their parents' to avoid such an exposure.

When I had a business, it was a requirement for my teachers to wear suit and tie (private sector). This was tested in court by an employee who felt it should not apply to him. He lost, because he knew the requirements whn he applied and signed a contract of employment to that effect.

If a job requires a certain behaviour pattern and this has been upheld by case law, then one either toes the line or leaves.

Just because someone sits on a canvas and twirls doesnt mean he is an artist.

I dont understand why any bit of idiotic behavior can be justified as art.

I just blew my nose in a tissue. Would you like to hang it on your wall Goof?

I suspect the following two excerpts from the article might have more bearing on the decision than the quality of his art, per se.

The decision also is in keeping with court rulings that hold that teachers are expected to lead by example and be role models, she said.

The unique approach to art became a topic when a clip showing Murmer, wearing a fake nose and glasses, a towel on his head and black thong, turned up on YouTube.com and became the talk of the high school.

Goodball, teachers need a certain level of respectability - what high school kids are going to respect a teacher who makes a fool of himself and sells paintings of his butt?

If he really is a 'successful commercial artist' than he shouldn't have to worry about making a living. His attorney is an idiot, this doesn't have to do with the first amendment, which doesn't prevent other people from responding to your actions.

Strictly speaking this is not censorship of art or one's beliefs. Nothing is preventing Murmer from pursuing his dream of painting a rectal masterpiece but he stepped outside the boundaries of what society (or rather, his local society) deems to be acceptable behavior for a teacher and got called for it.

Furthermore society has an odd tendency to be quite tolerant when it comes to talented artists pushing or breaking the acceptable boundaries so long as they don't deal exclusively with such controversial material. Clearly Murmer shares a great deal with other modern artists in that he compensates for lack of talent and skill by indulging in shocking or controversial practises to gain the attention of the public.

Well said.

It can't really be said he was fired for being an artist, as what he was doing was not really art.

Crazed Rabbit

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Just because someone sits on a canvas and twirls doesnt mean he is an artist.

I dont understand why any bit of idiotic behavior can be justified as art.

I just blew my nose in a tissue. Would you like to hang it on your wall Goof?

No, that would be too small to be the kind of art you hang on your wall. But it would probably make a nice "get well" card...

Meh, I hope this teacher will sue off the ass of this school board.

Yes, like so many aspiring modern artists he tries to compensate his lack of talent with inane provocation and obscurantism. So what? The alternative to not having a guy like this teach art is to employ someone with absolutely no ties to modern art whatsoever. Which is far worse.

If you suck as an artist you become a critic, if you really suck you become a teacher. The same holds true for music teachers, or physical education teachers. They've all failed in pursuing their true passion profesionally, yet are passionate enough about it to not let it go, so make their living teaching it.

Gah, what silly panic about some dude smearing some paint on his behind in his spare time.

Also, I think he is precisely the kind of role-model these young impressionable kids need. That is, his example shows that: if you're not ubertalented, don't pursue a career in the arts. Learn a proper trade.


Here are some of his works:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Do not continue unless you're 18 years or over...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Warning! Gross indecency and obsceneties!!!!!1!!11!!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: