Monday, January 07, 2008

No Offence...

The New Culture Forum has a very worrying post about the censorship of a picture in a gallery in Holland. They explain...
The director of the Hague’s Gemeentemuseum, Wim van Krimpen, has put a crimp in the plans of Sooreh Hera to exhibit a photograph called “Adam & Ewald”, in which two gay male Iranian exiles – men who could be hanged for their sexual predilections in Iran – wear masks of Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali...

...The worst thing is the refusal of the art gallery’s director to admit the truth. If he had come out and said, “we will not do this because we think there will be a global riot and we’ll get our gallery burnt down,” people might not have respected him for moral courage, but they would have acknowledged it was a tough decision – and a real debate about how to deal with the atmosphere of intimidation might have begun. Instead he hid behind the language of avoiding offense. Ridiculous. The last person who can possibly attempt to justify his self-censorship on these grounds is a curator of modern art.

Obviously if an artist had depicted Jesus Christ in such a way there would be an outcry too. But I don't believe that radical Christians would react in the violent way people now appear to expect radical Muslims to almost as a matter of course. The trouble is that these episodes almost encourage people of other religions to be equally as voluble/radical in their defence of their own religions. This is a very slippery slope indeed.

44 comments:

Richard said...

I am by no means a member of the PC brigade - in fact I pride myself on the virtues of free speech - and nor am I a Muslim.

However, there is free speech and idiotic speech. From what I understand regarding this situation, the museum/piece of work has made the gigantic leap from depicting two gay Iranians (which, in itself, is totally harmless - contrary to what the Iranian "justice" system might suggest) to implying that Muhammad and 'Ali were themselves gay. Surely that is just unneeded and plain bizarre? Why did the artist feel the need to draw a parallel between these two exiles and the lives and customs of Muhammad and 'Ali? There is no evidence to suggest that Muhammad or 'Ali were gay, and in doing so the artist and museum have insulted the supreme figures of Islamic heritage.

This isn't a case of causing offence for breaking the comfort zone of a world religion. This is a case of causing unnecessary offence for propagating bizarre untruths that affect the very core of Islamic belief.

Anonymous said...

If radical Christians are prepared to threaten and murder abortion clinic workers and doctors, then what's to stop them burning down a gallery or two?
I feel that all radical/fundamentalist religious zealots can often be tarred with one extremely large brush.

Anonymous said...

I think in recent times the Islamists have gone too far, and everyone realises this. Why else did they keep silent over the teddy bear incident? Even the left won't be supporting them; P. Toynbee and J. Hari, among others, have been warning about this for years.

I almost hope they'll keep pushing and pushing, then we will be pushed to collectively tell them what to do with their 7th-century cult.

Anonymous said...

Didn't some poor film-maker in Holland (or was it Belgium?) get his throat slit in the street for doing something that upset muslims?

I guess the intimidation is working.

Newmania said...

...and in Holland as well thats a live issue to say the least. Holland is a great example of what happens to a country when the Liberal elite impose their values on a communitarian population without any outlet for their quite reasonable views.

Tut tut tut. Did you see his Grace had news of blogger being arrested for inciting racial hatred .He appears not to like Muslims but not as much as they dislike everyone else.
You had better be careful Iain you could be thrown into prison , left at the mercy of prison yard bullies and end up as someones litle bunny rabbit..( well ridiculously large bunny rabbit actually but still)


( No word about Nadine`s starring apearance in New Statesman and the mud wrestling match with Caroline Flint ...I would pay good money to see that)

Anonymous said...

I feel that this piece of photo art lacked sensitivity and accuracy. Many artists feel that their role is to shock - where it depicts stark reality that may be laudable. Where it is designed to provoke a section of society it is exactly as laudable as shouting "Fire" in a packed theatre.

Victor

dizzy said...

Richard, surely the question is not about whether the art is accurate historical depiction. The whole point of the aesthetic relates to the treatment of homosexuality within Islam. Stating that is about propogating "bizarre untruths" is a rather reductionist view of aesthetics if you ask me. Art is not historical inquiry.

Anonymous said...

Graybo - Could you tell us how many "radical Christians" have murdered abortion clinic workers over the last 30 years in a country of over 300m, please?

Is the number over 30 years five or six? I believe it is. Not that they are justified, but the slavvering British hatred of the US Christian right - which is none of their business anyway - makes my skin crawl.

When I lived in the US, I encountered a grand total of ONE member of the Christian Right, and even she was a bit so-so. They're not exactly an infestation, so contain your seething jealousy of the US. They're freer than you are. Americans don't give up their freedoms and they don't give up their guns on orders from elected officials, as you do in Britain. So mind your own business, you nasty little piece of work.

Richard - I agree with you. There is absolutely nothing in the koran or the hadith to suggest that Mo and Ali were homosexual. I loathe islam, but don't countenance the intentional twisting of the truth of other people's religious icons.

Anonymous said...

Richard

You miss the issue. There is a lot of art that is pointless, and has nothing new, original, important or meanngful to say. A lot of that is prety poor art, I would argue much is not even art at all.

However that is not a reason to ban it. Had the curator used that reason for not displaying this "artwork" then I would support him. He didn't.

Anonymous said...

Er, how does one depict Muhammed [PBUH]? There are certainly conventions for depicting Jesus, the Buddha and the various Hindu deities, for example, but such images are not proscribed by their respective religions.

Since the depiction of the Prophet is forbidden under Islam, how has a universally recognised mental picture of him got into the collective unconscious? Or are these depictions of merely another crude Arab stereotype with his name on his turban, as the lazier of Western cartoonists produce if they are incapable of drawing anything identifiable?

Just the idle thought of an idle fellow.

Ralph Hancock said...

How did they know that the masks were of Muhammad and Ali? Islam forbids the depiction of people and animals, and doubly forbids the depiction of holy persons. So there is no such thing as an official likeness, as there is of, say, Jesus.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to go back in time and ask the European administrators who let in the millions of Muslims if they thought there would be any sort of a culture clash. Really, did they think that Muslim immigrants would adopt the behaviors and attitudes of post WWII Europe? It's crazy. It would be easier to relocate the Inuit to the Sinai peninsula than to integrate Muslims into Western Europe. Alas, there isn't any just course except to encourage everyone to get along. Best of Luck!

Yours truly,
Unthreatened by dhimmitude in the United States.

Anonymous said...

Actually this piece of work is dishonest from two points of view and intentionally insultingn to two religions, so clearly the work of a militant atheist.

There is absolutely no suggestion that Mohammad or Ali were homosexuals. Second, it insults the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden, because Adam and Eve are said to be the progenitors of all mankind. Obviously Adam and Bruce would not be procreating.

This tells us that the creator of this "work" intentionally set out to insult around 3.5 billion people - 2.5bn Christians and 1bn islamics. The only mark this cheap, plodding, trite little squirt will ever make in his bereft, silly little life.

I agree with Richard, above. There is free speech and stupid speech.

Certainly there is a point in drawing attention to Iran's repulsive treatment of homosexuals, but the photographer won't change any minds by insulting half of the world's population, thus obfuscating the point of his message.

Anonymous said...

"Modern Art" is so often vacuous and nasty rubbish. Its supporters should be pelted with rotten eggs. This will be harder to do if they are all hiding away from Islamic terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Sundance - this was a deliberate dilution of the ethnic identities of Northern Europeans as part of the One Worlder agenda.

As Adam and Eve are from the Old Testament, the photographer has insulted the Jews as well.

It is too bad that he has obscured his own message so, because Iran's treatment of homosexuals needs to be addressed. But thinking that he should shock the unshockable West isn't it.

Albert M Bankment says that depictions of mohammad are strictly forbidden in islam, but actually, ironically, in Iran, you can pick up pictures of mohammad in shops and market stalls. No problem.

I don't know how the treatment of homosexuals in Iran can be addressed. I don't think they'd give a rat's arse if we banned pistachios. And we can't ban oil.

What could we do, given that Iran is a sovereign country?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the artist could, for historical accuracy - and in order not to cause offence - have shown a 52 year old man having conjugal relations with a 9 year old girl? The artwork could then be called Muhammed and Aisha.

Anonymous said...

Ian Hislop, at least admitted why they didnt show the cartoons. They where afraid that some Islamic nut job might try and take them out.

Man in a Shed said...

The difference between radical Muslims and Christians is that Christian's believe in a God who can look after himself. We have faith.

Personally I would advise against art that denigrates Christ as the artist is going to have a hard job explaining themselves on Judgement day. Muslims seem to lack this faith.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Dehautenbas, but that doesn't address the issue, which is Iran's brutal, inhuman treatment of people born homosexual.

And listen, Mohammad was a real gent. He married Aisha when she was six, but held off assaulting her until she was nine.

Paedophiliacs are perverts and deserve punishment and opprobrium. Homosexuals are a narrow, but normal, strand of mankind throughout every race. It's terrible to think some people are being hanged from cranes to be punished for the way they were born.

Rush-is-Right said...

wear masks of Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali...

This rang a distant bell so I checked. It turns out that Mohammed had (estimates vary) at least 13 wives, perhaps double that. So to talk of "his son-in-law Ali" without any sort of context is a little disingenuous.

Moreover, although I have never visited the Gemeentemuseum, if it full of the sort of stuff that you describe, if this disgusting piece is typical of the kind of 'art' that hangs on its walls then perhaps it ought to burned down.

The Remittance Man said...

The curator is an idiot. He could have gotten out of this by using one of two simple devices.

Firstly he could have told the truth, as Iain suggests:

"I don't want to be shot and beheqaded by some religious loon. Until the authorities guarantee my safety and freedom of expression this tacit censorship, forced upon us by a mediaeval cult and which goes against our Dutch ethos and my own beliefs, will remain in place."

Alternatively he could have lied:

"I am the curator of this gallery and thus I decide what peices are worthy enough to hang here. Personally I think this work is crap and refuse to give it space."

The first would have stirred debate and gotten the usual suspects up in arms but would have had the benefit of truth and might even further the debate so ably joined by the Bishop of Rochester. The second would have been safer. And although it might piss off the arty types but might have gained him some credibility with the general public.

Instead he offers the mealie mouthed excuse he does which satisfies nobody, disguises no truth and does nobody any credit. As I say, the man's a cretin.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's about time the art world admits that shock art belongs to that performed by stupid Mid-western DJs. and isn't art at all.

The art world hasn't got over the fact that it ran out of novelty in the late 1970s.

Anonymous said...

Verity: "but that doesn't address the issue, which is Iran's brutal, inhuman treatment of people born homosexual."

I presume for Iran we really mean Islam? It's the brutal core teachings that are the problem - and not just on this issue. That's why there's the basic incompatibility of Islam with any other society (East or West).

Anonymous said...

Pity I wouldn't mind seeing it, I usually find works of art of the human body are very sensual, and it takes a sensitive person to really appreciate them. What's this with the gays....whats the problem? These are male human forms...

rather nice I'd say...tho the masks doesn't sound good. The human face can be very beautiful. Does anyone know what they are made of?

Anonymous said...

Verity

But to have free speech one has to accept stupid speech. We then can argue against the meaning (if there is one) of that speech, using our freedom of speech.

Pete said...

The facts are that Van Krimpen invited Sooreh Hera, who is, apparently, a prize-winning young photographer, and only changed his mind when she gave an interview mentioning this particular picture, which was originally planned to be on display, among others. Now he's talking about "not offending population groups", even though the man has been perfectly willing to offend Christians in the past. Bottom line is that the man's a knave and the Gemeentemuseum is not worth visiting anyway.

We should also mention that a museum in Gouda is perfectly willing to expose this picture, even though it's large Moroccan population has threatened both the museum's director and the artist herself, who has gone into hiding.

Yes, we're living in the free world.

Anonymous said...

De Haute En Bas - Yes, but there are islamic countries that turn a blind eye as long as gays don't frighten the horses. Malaysia, an islamic republic, is one such. They even have gay caberet (that the government, of course, knows about but turns a blind eye). Indonesia is not,contrary to belief, an officially islamic country, although it has the largest islamic population in the world. I don't remember reading of any official brutal treatment of homosexuals there.

I don't know, but I would be surprised if someone were punished just for being homosexual in Jordan, which is an advanced, forward-looking islamic country. Even crazy-boots Saudi Arabia seems to turn a blind eye, unless a couple is caught in flagrante.

The major problem seems to be Iran and they run on a different kind of islam. For example, as I mentioned, pictures of mohammad are on sale in stalls and shops and no one bats an eye. I am sure before the Revolution, when the Shah was ruling, he was a worldly type and wasn't bothered.

I've wittered on but don't have any practical ideas. But I don't think these repulsive Gay Pride parades with inyerface studs and bondage and being dressed as nuns all the rest of the Gay Pride paraphenalia help when islamic countries see it on TV.

Maybe they should tone themselves down for the sake of others. Even if these events are not on TV in islamic countries, their embassies will send back videos to their governments.

So, De Haute en Bas, despite that I agree with you that islam is incompatible with the advanced West, some islamic countries seem to just shrug and not bother. (After all, some of them will have a gay in their own family and be aware that he is a perfectly normal person except not attracted to the opposite sex.)

Anonymous said...

Actually, there is another aspect that is worth mentioning. The two Iranian man that were photographed have since claimed that they were duped by the photographer, who totally changed the meaning of the photograph.

This is one situation in which it is difficult to distinguish between the basic right of speech from an apparently successful marketing campaign. I can't entirely rid myself of the impression that this artist made good use of the (oh so predictable) reaction of the groups involved, both fundamentalist muslims and spineless museum directors

Anonymous said...

Anon, 9:36 - I don't think it's fair to say that "moderate" Muslim countries like Malaysia "shrug and don't bother" about homosexuality. Its taboo nature makes it an instrument of oppression even when Shariah style murder is not commonplace. Mahathir famously sacked Anwar as deputy Prime Minister for sodomy saying "But I cannot have a person who is like that in my cabinet who may succeed and become the prime minister. Imagine having a gay prime minister. Nobody would be safe".

Places like Indonesia are still conditioned by non-Islamic parts of the society (thank goodness) but for how long given the onward march of the hardliners in many countries? Fully Islamic states like Saudi Arabia routinely punish homosexuality with thousands of lashes and executions when it suits. That's without the lovely family honour disputes...

Helen said...

This story is a month old. Why write about it now.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-that-courageous-art-world.html

Anonymous said...

[9:36] is attributable to me, having clicked on the wrong box.

Apologies.

So, De Haute en Bas, you were responding to me. Mahathir sacked Anwar for reasons we don't know. Anwar actually was not that clever. He'd got himself into a position through patronage, but he wasn't that great.

I've always thought there was much, much more to this. It was on the edge of Mahathir's retirement. But Mahathir has a towering intelligence (whether or not you agree with his point of view). This is one brilliant human being. And the right man for the time. He set the course for Malaysia.

I think he knew instinctively that Anwar was not the right man for the following times. How he handled it makes grim reading, but that's politics.

Tony Blair could have learnt a lesson, eh? Except,on his retirement, Dr Mahathir was intent on strengthening Malaysia ... and Tone ...

Anonymous said...

Albert M Bankment, when you refer to 'the prophet', which one of all the list of Jewish/Christian heritage prophets is that?

Give that "prophet" a name otherwise we haven't got a clue who you're talking about or which century and can't respond to your posts.

Anonymous said...

Verity at 4.27am

Please tell me that you're not *really* so obtuse. I was, of course, referring to the very subject of the thread, Muhammed, who is otherwise known as 'The Prophet'. No Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Baha'i/Shinto/Jain/Jewish/etc. mystic or preacher is, to my uncertain knowledge, so named, but I'm happy to be corrected. Furthermore, and as a courtesy to any Muslim readers, I added the PBUH [Peace be upon him], which is a convention under Islam.

Anonymous said...

Albert M. Bankment said...

"Since the depiction of the Prophet is forbidden under Islam, how has a universally recognised mental picture of him got into the collective unconscious?"

It's because they're a bunch of hypocrites who apply whatever criteria they feel like as when they feel like it. Persian depictions, for example, of Big Mo have been commonplace for centuries.
All this was widely-covered on tv news at the time islamics were rioting about the cartoons made up by islamics.

Anonymous said...

Alber M Bankment, no, actually, I am not that obtuse, although I might level the same charge at you.

John the Baptist was a prophet. There is a long line of prophets in the Jewish tradition (carried over into the Christian tradition), and even the muslims regard Jesus as a prophet, so no, the default prophet is not mohammad, except to mohammadans.

There are around a billion mohammadans worldwide and 2.5bn Christians; and the Jewish tradition of prophets began a couple of thousand years ago, so I don't think mohammad exactly has seniority prophetwise. These are prophets with legs! Mohammad's only been around for about 800 years.

"As a courtesy to any muslim readers ..."? Peace be upon him is indeed a convention under islam, but we're not under islam. Do you refer to His Holiness The Pope, or just the Pope? Do you refer to Lord Jesus Christ? Do you refer to Rinpoché The Dalai Lama? I find your cultural cringe nauseating.

[10:16 a.m.] Quite.

Re this Sooreh Hera, the photographer, she seems to be incredibly ignorant of the story of Adam and Eve. According to legend, they were put on earth to begin the family of mankind. This story does not lend itself to a take-off with Kev and Bruce.

Anonymous said...

PS to Albert M Bankment, who wrote: " added the PBUH [Peace be upon him]".

Gosh, thanks for clearing up the shorthand for us and letting us in on your arcane knowledge, but I think what PBuH means has been known for a couple of decades at least. By the way, prepositions are not capitalised in our language, even if you are making the grammatical error out of respect for any muslims reading.

What does the M in Albert M Bankment stand for? Moonbat?

Craig Ranapia said...

However, there is free speech and idiotic speech.

Indeed there is, Richard. I don't think I'm misrepresenting Professor Richard Dawkins in saying he believes there's not speech more idiotic - hell, outright murderously psychotic - than religious speech.

I'd also point out that Dutch and Flemish art is rich in Christian iconography and representations that would be profoundly offensive to "the very core of Islamic belief" - which most certainly doesn't include the belief that Christ was the son of God. Begone Rembrandt, Vermeer and so on!

Craig Ranapia said...

Certainly there is a point in drawing attention to Iran's repulsive treatment of homosexuals, but the photographer won't change any minds by insulting half of the world's population, thus obfuscating the point of his message.

Verity:

Excuse me? I find it rather more insulting to hundreds of million of religious folks (including my Catholic self) by assuming we're paid any respect by kowtowing to murderous lunatics, just because they claim divine authority.

Please feel free to treat the Westboro Baptist Church, and their loathesome pastor Fred 'God Hates Fags' Phelps, with the unbridled contempt they so richly deserve. This Christian doesn't mind at all.

Anonymous said...

Craig Ranapia - Insulting half the world's population means, in this instance, insulting Christians. Or did you really believe that half the world's population are islamics?

It just feels that way.

Craig Ranapia said...

Verity:

I know there aren't more than three billion Muslims on the planet. There aren't more than three billion Christian either. Perhaps your math is as wonky as your prose?

Anonymous said...

Craig Ranapia - Clearly, English isn't your first language.

Craig Ranapia said...

Verity:

Yes, dear. And, clearly, someone is getting her witty one-liners from Gordon Brown's cast offs.

Anonymous said...

Craig Whatsit - Why do some men feel free to address women they don't know as "dear"? Listen, darling, it comes across as odd and aggressive.

Could you refer me to Gordon Brown's "one liners"? Has he ever delivered one? Has anyone ever been daft enough to have written one for him? Intiguing thought. Gordon Brown doing stand-up? How about a double act with Jo Brand. Why not? They look a lot alike, although Gordon's not as pretty.

Craig Ranapia said...

Verity:

And why do some women think reminding people of their gender ever other sentence is some kind of debating trump card?

And as I've said elsewhere, Verity, you might feel a little less 'patronised' if your every comment wasn't quite so self-important and condescending. I don't feel any hostility towards women, but love tweaking the noses of the terminally pompous of whatever gender who must have the last word on every subject, and can't hklzqstand being proved wrong.