Israel’s ambassador to Sweden triggered a major diplomatic row between the two countries this weekend when he disrupted an installation piece depicting a Palestian suicide bomber at the opening of a Stockholm exhibit related to an international conference on preventing genocide. PM Sharon defended his ambassador’s behavior and demanded the work be removed, while the Swedish government quite simply said it does not (and cannot) censor art. Though the spat is far from over, both sides are trying to come to an understanding so that Israel’s participation in the conference is not jeopardized.
The facts: The piece is called “Snow White and The Madness of Truth”. The artists are a couple — she Swedish, he born an Israeli Jew, now also Swedish. On the blood-red water of a museum courtyard pool floats a small raft upon which is affixed the image of a female Palestinian suicide bomber responsible for the deaths of 19 21 Israeli civilians last October. A text accompanies the piece, as well as a Bach cantata called “My heart swims in blood““My heart swims in blood since in God’s holy eyes, the multitude of my sins makes me a monster.”. Standing spotlights around the pool throw light on the installation piece, as it still gets dark early in Stockholm. It is one of these the ambassador threw into the pool, short-circuiting the installation — or which accidentally fell in after the ambassador unplugged the lights, depending on the nationality of the paper you read.
Foto: Sven Nackstrand/AFP
The spin: Of course it is sometimes right to deface art… if the function of a piece is to incite violence in addition to being art. Propaganda art is the primary example that comes to mind. While I would not recommend that you try it, I would certainly applaud if you defaced Nazi propaganda posters during WWIII would not applaud if you defaced them in a museum today, however, because their power to incite violence has been superceded by their value as historical evidence.
But doesn’t defacing art also fall under the noble rubric of non-violent protest? If you find a piece supportive of a greatly offensive cause, should you not be able to justify damaging it as part of the greater political conversation the artwork is clearly part of, if you also are willing to face the legal consequences of your actions? Here I hesitate, already. Say yes, and you are on the verge of justifying the destruction of the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan that so terribly offended the Taliban. But there is a further reason to defend offensive art from defacement: You may be dead wrong about what it means.
Case in point is the furore caused by Chris Ofili’s Madonna adorned with dung, exhibited at the 1999 Sensation exhibit in NYC. A convent of Catholics took offense at the painting, and mayor Giuliani jumped on the bandwagon looking for votes. To westerners, items covered in shit are desecrated, but in the African tradition channeled by Ofili, dung consecrates.
This explanation did not mollify the outraged. Eventually, the fact that the art could be perceived as offensive by people unaware of its context was reason enough for some to justify its removal. Then there was the suspicion that Ofili was playing some kind of clever trick, using ambiguous symbolism to disguise an offensive aim with an innocuous cover story.
How analogous is the Snow White installation piece? Ofili did not aim to be ambiguous — his Madonna belonged to a long series of similarly themed pieces whose dung symbolism was well documented. Snow White seems more intentionally ambiguous, or else not successful in imparting a clear message, if that was the intent. Whose blood is in the pool? Israelis’? Palestinians’? Both? Does it matter when deciding whether the floating image of the suicide bomber is being consecrated, or desecrated, or both?
The name Snow White hints at innocence, but the lyrics of the cantata hint at guilt. The attached text intersperces similarly conflicting writing. The artists have told Ha’aretz the work condemns terrorism, but to whom do they ascribe the label terrorist? Is this artwork a case where we should suspect the ambiguous symbolism for the subversive message it might carry — specifically, suicide bombings are sometimes justifiable?
The other option is that the message is unintentially muddy because the art is bad. The offense, then, would come from the fact that the art could reasonably be interpreted as a justification for suicide bombings by those already leaning towards that conclusion. The intent may have been a plea for reconciliation, but the effect is one of justifying terrorism.
There is an additional consideration: As a mental exercise, try replacing the image of the suicide bomber with one of Mohammad AttaSwedes can replace her image with that of Mijailo Mijailovich, and then put themselves in the place of Anna Lindh’s husband for a similar effect.
Update 19.05 CET: Somebody beat me to the punch:
. Imagine him sailing smilingly atop a pool of the blood he’s shed. It offends, at a gut level, because we are not used to seeing his image (or that of Hitler, or a Swastika) depicted without a clear condemnatory context. If you are a family member of one of the victims, you may well feel outrage at having your pain be appropriated for the production of art that on a gut level appears to trivialize evil. In other words, it is in poor taste.
So: Does Snow White offend on account of its message? The Israeli Ambassador probably thought so. Is it in poor taste? I think so. Does this justify defacing it? Not by a long shot. But I do think the curator is a fool for letting such clumsy work through the door.
Stefan, the fact that you think that an artwork is “clumsy” just because you can’t work out what its Message is (in fact, that you assume there must be such a message, easily verbalised and probably placed on one side or the other of the Middle Eastern conflict) says everything we need to know, really, about your ability to appreciate contemporary art. In a sense, you’re like the Israeli ambassador: it’s much more important to know whether you’re offended or not than it is to actually experience and judge the work qua art.
But what I want to know is how Catherine Zeta Jones became a suicide bomber in the first place.
Wouldn’t the Iraeli ambassador be better off letting a lousy piece of art fade into obscurity, than make a big stink and have the world get a glimpse of the piece?
Now the creator can happily go round saying the Israeli ambassador tried to censor his work. He’s made.
I suppose he’d reply, “It’s the principal of the thing.” But it’s not clear that the artist or the museum is actually supporting the notion of suicide bombers against Israel.
This is a typical case of counterproductive protest. And if “principals” are at stake, that of freedom of expression surely trumps. People are allowed to be pretentious morons, and even become rich and famous that way…although this strategy hasn’t paid off for me yet.
The Israeli ambassador is obviously not the brightest guy around.
If he was so deeply offended by it, surely he wouldn’t want to maximize its impact by spreading it around the world. Yet through his actions, he has given international recognition to a work of art that would otherwise, at best, have been seen by a thousand or so people in its placement in the back yard of the Historical Museum.
He has also – in some eyes at least – demonstrated to the world, that Israelis, even if they are trained career diplomats who should be skilled in communication and, yes, diplomacy will react with violence when confronted with something they do not like.
Sharon’s endorsement of the action hasn’t helped that view either. If nothing else, that says something about what kind of people are running Israel today.
If one wants to argue that the artists were insensitive, fine. That the curator was naive, fine. But the worst sins are on Mazel here: defacing of art, intemperate behavior and worst of all: stupidity.
So Felix, so long it’s art, it can never be clumsy? It’s an adjective that does not apply to art? In this particular case, I suspect the artists are doing nothing as high-falutin’ as you give them credit for and the work deserves to be judged on the merits of the “message” it manages to send or not, because I’m pretty sure that is what these artists are about, if you check their other statements . That’s the difference between Ofili and this: Ofili’s artistic vocabulary was misunderstood by Catholics. Snow White really is about whether suicide bombings can be legitimate.
Of course art can be clumsy, Stefan. I just don’t think that Stefan’s inability to discern a clear message is sufficient evidence to deduce clumsiness. I think that your infantilising statement: “Snow White really is about whether suicide bombings can be legitimate” — is much clumsier than the artwork.
Unless it’s true.
The whole thing is obviously very good to boost the spreading of the idea that “europeans (specially swedes and french) hate Israel”.
Sorry Jame, but I think you meant “principle” not “principal”
Kartika,
so I did.
Saw a story in the SCMP today (sorry cannot link) saying Hamas is now allowing female suicide bombers only if they have “shamed the family”, i.e. committed adultery.
The sources were Israeli so this is not confirmed. But it’s pretty awful to contemplate. Unlike most so-called martyr operations, the family of the most recent bomber – a woman with an apparently sullied reputation – did not celebrate or acknowledge her deed. Rather it is suggested she was coerced into taking this action.
The article left the details of such coercion to the imagination, but it’s not hard to see a woman’s children being threatened with social stain if she didn’t restore her reputation by commiting a rather devastating form of sati.
I didn’t think suicide bombing could get more depraved, but leave it to some nasty fuckers to prove me wrong.
Felix, are you arguing that political art should be immune from political criticism – i.e., that someone who sees a Riefenstahl film should limit his criticism to its aesthetics? (And no, I’m not equating “Snow White and the Madness of Truth” to Nazi art.)
Full contact diplomacy
In case anybody’s wondering what I think of Ambassador Zvi Mazel’s unconventional art criticism, Shai’s take on the incident is largely the same as mine. Those interested in Swedish opinion can find some of it here (although there’s probably some…
Most artwork is mediocre (almost by definition), and Stefan is to art criticism what the searcher is to a needle in a haystack (always missing the point). Thus by far the most likely state of reality is that the artwork is mediocre *and* Stefan didn’t understand it.
Snow White and the Madness of Truth is about sincere and true grief being exploited for political purposes.
It is about whispering that maybe the bomber had a human motive that many could have understood, not as justification but as explanation.
This motive is washed away in the victims’ blood as the perpetrator is demonized and/or dehumanized.
The installation piece purports to bridge the gap between the grief and the immolation (“then let the whole world be erased”): how could a person capable of deep human emotions have decided to kill so many innocents ? The text only hints at the answer (“less suspicious of intentions”)as the artist tries to avoid an openly political discourse; however, the implication is clear.
As the bomber’s head rolled onto the floor, her face bore a peaceful expression because she knew, and had been told, she was doing the right thing; the smile is the one in her floating photo.
Was it the right thing ? NO ! the reference to the Bach Cantata affirms from Above – You did terribly wrong and made a ghastly mess, but obviously I know that and you don’t. Remember, humans have throughout their history been known to commit dreadful acts based on sincerely held beliefs.
Glorification of suicide attacks ? Quite to the contrary. The crime ? Ascribing human emotions such as love and grief and pride to a person who in the eyes of many, had become a non-person.
Afterthought
The script contains one factual but non-fatal error : the suicide bomber did not “charge into the restaurant” – she took the time to order lunch before erasing the whole world.
Stockholm exhibit, pt. 2
Much discussion in the blogosphere concerning the now-infamous art exhibit in Sweden. Bjørn Stærk has some interesting thoughts on the conflagration, specifically that it is not anti-Semitic, but maybe just poor art. I, now on second thoug…
Zvi Mazel Performs a Mitzvah: Part Two
by Jerome du Bois Welcome to Part Two, and thank you for your patience. As a reward, I have a surprise: this post will be a lot shorter than I implied. Everybody who has followed this story knows what happened…
Zvi Mazel Performs a Mitzvah: Part Two
by Jerome du Bois Welcome to Part Two, and thank you for your patience. As a reward, I have a surprise: this post will be a lot shorter than I implied. Everybody who has followed this story knows what happened…
Delar som inte sägs rent ut i konstbråket
Tidningen Ordfront kom för drygt en vecka sedan i min brevlåda, men först igår kväll hade jag tid att läsa den. Strax efter att ha sett på Agenda där skribenten Eli Göndör och konstnären Dror Feiler diskuterat konflikten kring konstverket…