Not again

[smokingboot]

Three posts in one day. I have been bored, tired and exasperated today...but now I am angry, really really angry. Maybe I'm angry because I'm tired. No. I am angry because of this:


"A museum on Monday defended its decision to remove a sculpture from an exhibition for fear of offending Muslims, citing the "sensitive climate" following suicide bombings in London in July. The Tate Britain decided not to include "God is Great" (1991), in a display of works by British-based John Latham, infuriating the artist and renewing debate over where to draw the line when censoring the arts. "God is Great" features copies of the Bible, Koran and Talmud -- sacred texts of Christians, Muslims, and Jews respectively -- embedded in thick glass." [Reuters - Tate Britain defends axing work that may offend Islam]

Thanks to keith_london for this info. Now, keith_london mentions the 'Talibanisation' of London. I don't agree with him, but by Christ, this is exactly the right way to go about creating the kind of resentment that leads to such perceptions.



It is the second time I have come across it; the first was Behzti, the play that got cancelled in Brum because it depicted a woman being raped in a Sikh temple. Now, an artist had better shut the fuck up because people may not like his work. Really? Fancy that then. Art offending people? Who'd have thought it? Art's not there to cause trouble, art's there to...to what? sit in a gallery roamed by bored philistines in search of coffee and a bun? Show us the golden age of pretty arses and perfect bosoms? Leave us pondering important questions like Where are the lavatories? In 18th/19th century Spain, a land shackled by inadequate rulers, corrupt administrators and of course, that luvverly inquisition, the artist Goya created terrifying pieces, protesting at the world around him, and it got him into trouble, but at least people saw and understood. Look here:



It's called Saturn. But the giant lunatic god eating his son is a far more familiar figure to any Christian. And yet, it was seen.

Look here:


These buffoons are the royal family of Charles IV, King of Spain, I could tell you now the story behind them all but it will take too long. Goya depicts them with honesty in all their ugliness. You know what? Vain and stupid though they were, they could take it. Spain's monarch at the time was an imbecile, but he knew art when he saw it.

Bloody artists, creating this insubordinate rubbish; why don't these people offer us some sweet spin, something nice about how we all get on? If only they would stop arsing around with truth and stuff that makes us feel uncomfortable. Because that's what art is for, right? To express prettiness and beauty, to elevate us and move us, provided it's in a socially acceptable way. Passion, but not real passion. A momentary blink of the eye, and onwards to cakes and tea in some kitsch cafeteria, where Gilbert and George loom brightly above us, make us laugh at modern art, make us wonder what it is about those creative sorts that makes them so damn funny

Once again, expression of the self, expression of the soul is muted, flattened for the community. And the community hasn't even complained yet! Shall we just assume that they are all cretins and they will complain? And everyone else is so scared we had better just give up any opinions they might not like? Thank God we're not losing the war on terror! Community! Oh that word, that awful excuse. Sod social cohesion, and fuck the community, if it's nothing more than a construct for the shackling of minds and bodies! How condescending is this to intelligent muslims, to intelligent anybody? You know what this is?

This is not art.

This is fear.



Ah Goya, Goya, tell it like it is:





El sueno de la razon produce monstruos

The sleep of reason produces monsters.

Comments

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

I suppose I ought to explain - the Taliban dictated what could or could not be seen or heard. The guy who said that this art amounted to desecration behaved rather just like that! He specified the circumstances whereby it would be art - e.g. if the koran hadn't been cut. And he implied that there could be trouble ahead for those who didn't comply with his perception of what desecration is.

[semyaza.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware of this exhibition, and after reading two articles in The Guardian about what looks like a one-sided controversy, I remain deeply puzzled as to why Latham's piece would ever be viewed as incendiary. How would it insult Muslims (assuming, as one of the Guardian articles said, that one can ever anticipate what's going to set off a suicide bomber)?

I've just been following a discussion on another friend's journal about 'Intelligent Design' and I have to agree with you about the sleep of reason.

[spiraltower.livejournal.com]

Hang on - in my vaguely pagan and not actually especially interested in organised religion kind of way, I was under the impression that the Christian, Islamic and Hebrew deity was actually the same figure and that most of the issues between the various faiths stemmed from who was to be considered a prophet/messiah/aspect-of-God and who wasn't?

Removing 'God is Great' from display isn't going to reduce the possible offence to Muslims so much as it is going to de-emphasising the common ground.

Twonks.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

And if you and I can see it in our vaguely paganish way, why is it beyond the grasp of whoever is making these decisions for Tate Britain?

Whatever their criteria, I suspect it has nothing to do with art.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Well, quite; strange isn't it? The assumption of Muslims being somehow fragile or inevitably irrational where religion is concerned, is not just patronising, it creates the climate for impending hostility. Sometimes pre-empting umbrage is tactful, other times I think it just creates a rawness where none need be.

Trolls in the morning, terrorists at night...hasn't it been a strange day?

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Thanks, added context is always helpful. And of course, thank you for the piece in the first place!

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

I wonder if they had the same problems at the Tate as they did at the Rep? The play got pulled because of repeated violence and death threats rather than an imagined fear that "oops we might offend someone". What happened was that the theatre director ignored it until he just couldn't take it anymore. I think the police might have also had a hand in telling him to stop, because the violence outside the theatre was eating their resources. Another theatre owner then said he'd put it on in protest because he didn't believe that art should be affected by protests in this manner. He was quite forthright about it. However, it never happened as he got the same treatment and gave in fearing for his life too. Not good at all.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Apparently, there have been no threats or violence; just this wretched timidity. The piece isn't even current, it was made 10 years ago.

The police involvement re Behzti seems a bit strange. If someone's life is being threatened, it's the job of the Police to stop the threatener, not the victim's to accept bullying as a part of life and adapt to it. That's what those resources are for.

Deeply depressing.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Agree with you entirely. I think the police were doing what they usually do and try to stop the problem by taking away the incentive for violence as opposed to addressing the bad behaviour. In this case they wanted the window smashing mob dispersed and the easiest way to achieve that was to get the play stopped. In other cases they pressure the harassed party to move despite their objections rather than tackle the source of the harassment. Path of least resistance labelled as crime prevention.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Lazy I call it.