Ambassador attacks art: fighting anti-Semitism, or blocking free expression?

Great Debates
1

The Israeli ambassador to Sweden has attacked an artwork he found offensive at a gallery opening in Sweden.

-http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&u=/afp/20040117/wl_mideast_afp/sweden_israel_art_040117141807

Ariel Sharon has praised the ambassador’s actions:

-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3407517.stm
I find his behavior quite extraordinary. Putting a picture of a suicide bomber on a toy sailboat floating in a pool of ‘blood’ is not, IMO, “a call to genocide.” This seems like an egregarious example of the supposed “anti-Semitism” in Europe, which is little more than willingness to approach the Israeli-Palestinian question in a less than pathologically partisan manner.

So:

  1. Was Ambassador Mazel justified in his actions?

  2. Is it ever justifiable to physically attack artwork?

My answers are 1. No, and 2. Yes, but it must directly advocate crime, e.g., a painting which unambiguously encouraged suicide bombing or other violent crime. Where should we draw the line?

2

By Doke, let’s try the links again.

APF, via Yahoo News, “Israeli ambassador kicked out of Swedish museum after vandalizing art”

BBC, “Sharon praises ‘art vandal’ envoy”

3

He was totally inappropriate and should be ashamed of himself.

4

I agree with the OP in not being able to understand why somebody would immediately leap to the conclusion that this work suggested some kind of endorsement of terrorism. Seems to me that the connotations are just the opposite: this smiling suicide bomber is shown literally wading through an ocean of “blood”, right? Hardly an endorsement of her actions.

And to describe the work as “anti-Semitic”, especially when one of the artists is himself an Israeli-born Jew, seems really weird. (After all, even if it were explicitly critical of Israeli policies, that wouldn’t make it a criticism of Jews as a group.) “Anti-Semitism” for some people seems to have degenerated into a mere term of abuse for anything that could possibly be construed as any kind of criticism of Israel. I hope that some of our conservative posters who complain so loudly about the destructive and stifling “political correctness” of the political left will be along to comment on this outburst from the other side.

However, I disagree that it’s ever acceptable to physically vandalize a piece of artwork that isn’t your property (and to do so by throwing an electrical appliance into a pool of water (!) runs the risk of qualifying you for a Darwin Award). Civilized people respond to unacceptable art or other forms of public expression by complaining to those responsible for displaying it and/or by protesting publicly.

5

The ambassador lost it. No doubt. But this work was beyond bad taste and its inclusion in that particular venue was beyond mere bad judgement.

The exhibit is linked to a conference on genocide, a continuing series which began in response to polls that showed a surprisingly high percentage of Swedes didn’t know about The Holocaust. This year’s sessions are devoted to prevention of future holocausts. Given that Israel has been vilified by portions of Europe and, in bit of hyperbole so extreme and one-sided that many Jews feel it must be based on antisemitic inclinations, has been labelled as Nazis and accused of genocide against Palestinians, Israel was cautious about this conference. Would this be a Durbin where Israel is vilified above all nations? They were, apparently assured that Israel/Palestine would be kept out of the proceedings;

-http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QPUTR052EWUXKCRBAEOCFEY?type=industryNews&storyID=4152404&pageNumber=1

So imagine yourself the Israeli ambassador, under those circumstances, invited to this gala event, and without any forwarning an installation is in front of you that to shows a smiling terrorist suicide murderer apparently being glorified?

Yeah, he lost it. But not without cause. He should have just walked out and pulled Israel out of the conference. The museum diector who was idiotic enough to approve this work for this venue without so much as forewarning the Israeli ambassador (who was his invited guest, not a surprise visitor afterall) about it should have been canned.

No one looks good here now.

6

And as to the concern that

you are invited to a thread that has been discussing just that.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4474625#post4474625

One of my last posts in that thread summarized the positions so far:

Feel free to join in.

7

Regardless of how you read it, it sounds like bad art. My first guess would have been that it was attempting to point out the irony of Palestinians idealizing as pure someone with so much blood on their hands. I hope that is just a facile interpretation and that there is something more to it. In any case, a fricking ambassador, an allegedly trained diplomat, should have acted with more decorum.

8

My Reuters link got a smiling Orthodox Jew in it some how! :slight_smile:
Let’s try again:

On the second page of the link.

9

DS: *The exhibit is linked to a conference on genocide […] “the Israeli Foreign Ministry said the Swedish government had promised not to link the anti-genocide conference with the Middle East conflict.”

So imagine yourself the Israeli ambassador, under those circumstances, invited to this gala event, and without any forwarning an installation is in front of you that to shows a smiling terrorist suicide murderer apparently being glorified?*

:confused: “Apparently being glorified”? How you figure? As I said above, though the “message” of the work is pretty obscure to me, I can’t understand how anyone could automatically leap to the conclusion that this was any kind of “glorification” of suicide bombing. If that interpretation seems logical to you, could you kindly explain it to me?

10

Not a chance. He sounds like a complete ass. DSeid may or may not be right about a growing tide of anti-Semitism in Europe, but oversensitivity and stupidity are NOT appropriate responses. Anti-Semitism is a valid concern, but this is awful behavior in a diplomatic context, and I might also point out that some people throw the term “Anti-Semitic” around MUCH too liberally.

Absolutely not. It’s artwork, not a physical threat. Just because YOU interpret that it advocates violence doesn’t mean it actually does, which I would think this incident shows. Artwork does not endanger people physically, thus it’s not appropriate to attack it.

11

I feel rather ambivalent about this.

One one hand, there has been way too much Israel=1939 Germany and Sharon=Hitler stuff going on in Europe. The normal criticism of Israel has become a pathological fixation for many left-wing and Arab European groups, to the exclusion of many other good causes around the world. It steps above and beyond the normal legitimate criticism and one begins to wonder if there really is antisemitism behind it. Certainly, it is in part driven by antisemitic lies stemming from the Arab world. Whether holding Israel to a higher standard than the rest of the world is antisemitism is debatable – see the other thread for some good opinions on the matter. Making calls for the termination of the State of Israel, though, is nothing but a call to genocide in my book, yet this is exactly the sort of thing we see in many European left-wing media. Israel has been extremely sensitive to these sort of displays since the UN Durban Conference on Racism (in which Israel became the complete focus of the conference to the exclusion of all other causes), and was perhaps only participating because they were assured this Swedish conference wouldn’t be the same. The installation of this artwork with an ambiguous meaning can be quite infuriating and humiliating, and I think is within an expected spectrum of behavior to go nuts like this.

You may think the meaning is clear, but to me, it is far from it. First, the poetry accompanying it is less than clear:
http://www.makingdifferences.com/site/calendar.php?lang=en&id=20
Parts of it seem to be condemning the actions of the bomber, but it ends with the line “and the red looked beautiful upon the white.” You may see it as a thing of beauty being surrounded by a sea of blood, thus representing the carnage wrought by the suicide bomber. I could just as easily view it as representing a pure object (the suicide bomber) being buoyed over a sea of blood, rising up above the carnage, and eternally remaining pure and white. Thus glorifying the bombing.

The artwork is IMHO not very good, it is out of place. It has ambiguous meaning and brings attention to something that was explicitly off-limits for the conference. The best that can be said is that the artist was looking to provoke a reaction and is now bitchy now that he has succeeded in doing that. Pragmatically, this will be very good for him – his name and work is now being discussed around the world.

OTOH, it was a very bad PR move for Israel. The guy is a diplomat and this whole thing could have been handled more diplomatically. His “repression” of the artwork makes a cheap analogy for every op-ed columnist and political cartoonist towards the Israeli “repression” of the Palestinian cause. His destruction of the artwork becomes the equivalent of the bulldozing of a house. Expect to see it in every major European newspaper come Monday.

In the end, the Swedish government put an obviously controversial piece of art in a conference where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was explicitly not a focus. IMHO, as much criticism can be levelled against the Swedish government as can be directed against the Israeli ambassador. Ironically, the damage to the artwork was quite temporary (it has been repaired and put back on display) but the probable damage to the Israeli-Swedish relationship will take much longer to heal.

12

I can’t help but look at this as a law school hypothetical. Since “freedom of expression” has been impugned – allegedly – I think I have to.

First of all, let’s classify the physical acts of the Israeli: trespassing, conversion, vandalism, whatever. This type of action is clearly illegal in civil or criminal law. So, legally speaking, the action is not “justified”.

There is the issue of whether those who support suicide bombers that kill civilians can criticize petty vandalism with a straight face, or more importantly any legitimacy whatsoever.

I’ll ignore that.

Freedom of expression is pretty simple if you break it down. You have a right to be free from undue coercion for what you say, one. Second, the government should not punish you for what you say. Again, like “undue” in the first part, with a proviso: you can’t advocate or conspire to commit crimes under the guise of “speech.”

So, was there a denial of “freedom of speech”? No way. In fact, this controversy will provide much more notoriety. There were no jackbooted government thugs (really) preventing a point of view.

BUT, there was a clear act of vandalism. I hate to summarize this to a stupid expression at gift stores, but: “You break it, you bought it.”

13

imo:
She is a pure being(ie before suicide), floating in a sea of violience (represented by blood), but there is no land/islands(peace) in sight, so she can but succumb to the sea of blood(ie the violence). It is and was inevitable.
As for the Ambassador. He read about the piece of Art and decided to wreck it before he went to the exhibit( without taking into account the three parts, sea, music, text). This I heard from his own mouth. This made me decide he´s a wierd little fellow who should rethink his career choice.

14

Kimstu,

Smiling face above a pool of blood with a poem that to me reads like a glorification of revenge killing. Maybe I’ve seen too many movies that feature that theme. Maybe the artist didn’t intend a glorification of revenge killing, but to me it seems like bad communist art work praising the self sacrifice of the heros who give their lives for the cause. With a bit of pretension mixed in. Certainly that is what the ambassador seemed to think too. Artists often leave their work ambiguous and force the viewer to complete it with what they bring.* Maybe this time it was a bit too ambiguous. Doesn’t excuse the actions of the ambassador, especially if it was a premeditated rant and not just losing it as I had thought.

Stupidity all around. The Swedish government, the museum director who approved the work for this venue, the artist, the ambassador, Sharon for supporting his action. They should all be sent to their rooms until they can apologize for being such dipwads. Some diplomat is going have to find some face saving way out for everyone involved.

*My Mom and eldest son are both artists. My son loves it when viewers interpret his work. He never corrects them. “Who knows?” he tells me, “Maybe I did mean that and just didn’t realize it.”

15

I agree. On the other hand, the actions and posturing of Sharon and Mazel are, to me, reminiscent of the Hitler and Goebbels of 1936 or 1933. If Hälge’s observation is correct that the ambassador decided on a course of action before he actually saw the presentation and if Feiler’s claim that Mazel refused to even hear out an explanation, then Mazel has done nothing to “defend” Israel and has taken one more step to give the impression that Israel is simply a bully, while Sharon’s statements of support make it look as though Mazel has the official support of the Israeli nation.

Even the Durban conference (for which its participants should be ashamed) owes much of its disastrous conclusions to the actions of Israel and the U.S. When Israel discovered that the Palestinian situation was one topic on the agenda, they quit in a huff with a certain amount of bluster. The U.S. then supported them with more bluster and their own refusal to participate. At that point, the anti-Israeli forces were able to change the agenda to make Israel the focus of the whole meeting, and with neither the U.S. nor Israel there to oppose the new agenda or defend the actions of Israel, the conference spun out of control.

Given the odd juxtaposition of images, (which leads to a whole separate wrangle in Cafe Society as to the worth of modern art), I cannot figure out whether the piece was supposed to be pro-Israel, anti-Israel, or convey some other message. Feiler claims that he opposes suicide bombers, so Mazel comes off looking like a petulant boor who is more interested in intimidating artists he does not understand than in discussing Israeli-Palestinian issues calmly with an eye toward a just resolution. Given the description provided, this piece was no Guernica. I find it difficult to fault the museum or the Swedish government for permitting the piece to be displayed and I find Sharon’s shrill cries of protest to be on a par with the Catholic League protesting secular art that they decide is anti-Catholic.

16

First off, there is a video of the incident on this Dutch news show. I don’t speak Dutch, but go about 11 minutes in and the segment comes on shortly after, with the actual dialogue in the video in English. I suggest posters to this thread watch the video so they get an idea what they are debating about.

Well, the hull of the boat says “Snovit” (“Snow White”) on it, ascribing a purity to her among the sea of blood. I think that’s as close to an endorsement as you can get.

No, the ambassador’s actions were a wrong act of petty vandalism, but I’d be pretty upset by that piece of “art” as well. In any case, if you watch the video, the vandalism really isn’t as reckless and angry as the news reports make it seem. He calmly unplugs a few lamps and throws one in the water (incidentally, all this huff about electrical devices in the water seems a bit for naught if the devices have no power). However, no matter how light or calm the damage, or how infuriating the work, may be, I don’t endorse the ambassador’s actions. They are perhaps one step above smelly punks in Seattle throwing bricks through Starbucks windows. It would have been more appropriate for the ambassador to complain to the curator, or walk out if the exhibit was not removed. I’m not shedding any tears though about light temporary damage this repulsive statement by this pathetic “artist”. It’s just unbecoming a diplomat, and wrong to damage the property of others.

17

I’m a little confused about why the enraged ambassador’s opinion seems to be given more creedence than the explanation of the artists themselves.

This is, it’s worth noting, not government censorship. It’s an act by a guy who happens to be a government official. The artwork is probably supposed to be that provocative, but you’d hope a man in Mr. Mazel’s position to at least attempt to be intelligent about the situation.

18

No one was hurt, the art quickly restored to its former splendor, no lasting damage done (quite the contrary, the artist has gotten an extraordinary amount of public attention – a thing he seems to crave above all else). The ambassador apparently was overcome with emotion. One should make allowances for human nature.

“and the red looked beautiful upon the white.”

This is a line from Snowwhite (points back to the title of the art work I guess). I think it’s an art piece of remarkable stupidity, and won’t try to interpret it. Just note that I think this detached beautification of violence started with the fascists. E.g. a son of Mussolini who remarked how the bombs he threw over Ethiopia looked very pretty as they exploded far below in the small villages. I also listened to a radio program wherein an artist remarked how the collapse of the twin towers were a thing of exquisite beauty. How would an artwork glorifying that have fared in New York the days after that attack?

Someone floated a ship on the art work with a picture of the Anna Linda murder suspect, it was quickly removed though. Apparently the Swedes like it better when they’re at the giving rather than the receiving end.

If the ambassador knew about the piece before hand (and thus was not spontaneously overcome with outrage), this of course changes things. But not the fact that it should never have been exhibited in the first place - in this museum at that time

  • Rune
19

I like Beagle’s assessment of the situation…

In case anyone’s interested, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz an interview with the ex-Israeli artist(Hebrew; free regitration) with a more complete interpretation of the work:

(translated)

20

Sorry to keep coming back, but here’s an unrelated thought regarding the thread title. Whatever this guy was doing, he was not fighting anti-Semitism. If anything, he was inadvertently contributing to stereotypes of Israel and rather exemplifying the PR problem the country has been having.