"Fuck Bush" is not a good way to begin a conversation, especially one about U.S. politics. It's the kind of blunt political invective one might expect to see on bumper stickers, t-shirts, or hand-made protest signs in liberal parts of the country. But it is more emotional than some of the most direct anti-Bush slogans. During the Bush presidency it's been more common for me to encounter the phrase as an utterance. I have heard it spoken with a variety of emotional affects-with resignation, flippancy, indignation and outrage. Never has it been an invitation to discussion.

For me a "Fuck Bush" is always a conversation stopper. I mean where can you go with that? If I am of a similar heart and mind I might nod in agreement. Or if I feel differently I might say, "Fuck Bush? Fuck you!" Either way there's no discourse-no substantive exchange. In a particularly generous mood I might inquire, "Fuck Bush, Why do you say that?" to which I get either rolling eyeballs or a litany of accusations and offenses. Still, no discourse.

It's not to say that I think blunt political invectives don't have their place. Sometimes it's just how you feel, no ifs, ands, or buts. And casual conversation is probably the best place for it. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and protest signs all seem to me exceedingly self-righteous and dogmatic-too permanent for sentiment and too narrow-minded to reflect the complexities of a given situation. But Kevin Slagle, the director of Ego Park Gallery, used another, rather effective, context for this kind of political expression with his piece entitled First Amendment in 2000 Pt. Font.

On the walls of his gallery, facing the street through the storefront window, Slagle painted the words Fuck Bush. The letters were billboard-sized, black on white, and of a style consistent with newspaper headlines. The work was created in commemoration of the 2000th U.S. soldier to be killed in Iraq. Its somber, matter-of-fact presentation combined with the emotional content caused me to do a double take--in a slow, delayed reaction, sort of way.

I met the artist and saw this piece for the first time simultaneously and was stuck for words. (I asked him if the noxious fumes from the paint he used were an intentional part of the work. He said yes.) Again, what can one say to such non-discursive sentiment? So I was surprised to find myself thinking about the piece long after I left. Several days later it occurred to me that the non-discursive quality of the work was part of its power, this heightened by the fact that it was in an art gallery. The over-used, but emotionally charged phrase was being stated as fact--as coolly as the war casualties are being reported. But who in the hell has ever heard of an emotional fact?

Perhaps because First Amendment in 2000 Pt. Font was executed in earnest and lacked the trite symbolism I associate with political art the phrase "Fuck Bush" was transformed for me--from a worn form of provocation or like-minded commiseration into a moving memorial. Slagle's anger and frustration mixed with a sense of loss and mourning to create a space for contemplation. There is a latent critique of the lack of political art (especially in galleries) embedded in Slagle's political message too, and in the end an invitation to further discussion, at least on this point. I am a fan of the subtle, complex, nuanced and often vexing creative expression I've come to expect from contemporary art. However it's refreshing to find work that is so straightforward, timely, and unapologetically political in a gallery setting--something I would like to see more of.

First Amendment in 2000 Pt. Font was on view at Ego Park Gallery for two weeks (Nov. 4th-18th, 2005). For more information about upcoming events and exhibitions visit http://www.egopark.org/