I saw someone in the movie industry wearing a t-shirt that I really like: Fear no art.. That sounds generally reasonable, certainly in these circumstances. I certainly see no glorification of suicide bombing nor do I see anything anti-Semetic or anti-Israeli. It sounds to me as if it were anti-suicide bombing, anti-violence and bloodshed.
But if there had been, even then an ambassador must remain diplomatic at all times or leave and file a protest.. Instead, he symbolically does what the suicide bomber does – he attempts to silence and to destroy. In this particular case, he apparently doesn’t even understand what he is silencing.
Dryga nailed it with one word: irony. Any woman who has been called “Snow White” to her face by another woman would have known that “purity” was not what was being implied. Winston Smith, your comments reminded me of this. A few months after the WTC disaster, an artist gave a sculpture to Rockefeller Center in NYC as a memorial. It was of a woman falling to her death. After a few days and many protests, the sculpture was removed. I thought that it was both horrible and beautiful. I can understand why people in NYC could not bear to see it.
You respond to: * “It’s creator is jewish and claims it isn’t anti-semitic.”*
With:
“The “artist” is admittedly pro-Palestinian. He has renounced his Israeli citizenship.”
So either you’re claiming he isn’t jewish (which seems unlikely) or your claiming he is/could be anti-semitic.
Yes, I do come to that conclusion. The fact that he is jewish (and says he is not an anti-semite) does convince me that he doesn’t hate jews. Of course he could be completely crazy, but since I have no reason to believe that, I will assume he and it is not anti-semitic.
The artwork you are talking about was removed not due to pressure from Syria but due to disagreement among the leadership of the Tensta arthall which caused the whole artshow to be cancelled.
if a guy had an “Art” show called “Rodrig’s Mum is a Fucking Bitch” and showed pictures of my mum (sure blurred enough to say they aren’t really my Mum) in obscene scenes, I’d vandalise the whole place and couldn’t care less how “artistic” the photos were supposed to be. I’m sure Martin Luther King would’ve vandalise an exhibition showing a mechanised “master” getting a blowjob from a mechanised black slave and he would’ve been praised.
Many “artists” hide their obvious inability with art by doing outrageous stuff just to be outrageous and then act like nothing happened. Art should have some freedom, definitely and may be allowed to cross some lines (a bit) but “artists” can’t hope to be above reporach just because they are doing “art”. If you offend on purpose be prepared to be offended.
Which has exactly what to do with the topic at hand?
The artist can easily be criticized for presenting an obscure piece that is subject to wild specualtion on many points. However, there is no evidence that the artist actually glorified the suicide bombing (given the multiple references by the artist to the horror of the murders committed by the woman portrayed). If you are simply saying that you feel the right to vandalize anything with which you disagree, then I am afraid that your point is silly. If you are claiming that the rather murky message presented by Feiler is the equivalent of “Rodrig’s Mum is a Fucking Bitch,” then you are clearly wrong.
The problem is that, like a previous poster, reading the description of the piece of art in the OP, it appeared to me as exactly the opposite : condemning the suicide bombings. Perhaps something escapes us, or perhaps we would need to see a picture of the piece of art, but the ambassador’s interpretation, let alone reaction, seems quite weird at first glance.
Oh, and please, could we get rid of these redundant “terrorist murderers” and “suicide bombers murderers”? I just can’t see the point of those. Like we aren’t aware of what we’re talking about…
I would also like to point out that the ambassador did know the exhibition would be there and it doesn’t glorify a “terrorist suicide murderer”. But yes, she is smiling in the photograph.
Because that was a pool of Jewish blood. Faceless, dehumanized dead Jews, with the only face, the only object of empathy the pristine, pure image of the murderess? In Europe? To any Israeli, this work of “art” was an enormous display of disrespect for the dead, which is something something Feiler, an Israeli, had to have known. Around here, victims have names and faces and their killers don’t. Around here, the fallen are human and terrorists aren’t.
As for why Sharon backed the Ambassador’s actions - simple. First of all, Sharon stands by his people, especially professionals (rather than political appointies) like Mazel. Second, he’s just following the polls like a good politician. The Ambassador’s little display of righteous anger seems to have struck a chord with the Israeli public, and from what I’ve seen, the general mood has been pretty supportive. I guess the Israeli disposition towar
While I dont agree with the Israeli actions, I do understand them. I freaking hated Art in college! “Now class, as you can see the artist was trying to show the anger and feelings over losing his mother”. “Uh, excuse me professor, but its a FREAKIN squiggly line on a blue background!! Maybe it represents his hand slipping!” Bleh, damn artists.
Anyway, I wonder what the American response would have been if said exhibit had been the Twin Towers in a pool of blood with the smiling suicide bombers in little planes around them? To me, if the artist wanted to make a point maybe showing the dead Israeli and Palestine victims in the pool of blood would have made more sense, then showing the person who killed them…smiling no less.
Bad choice by the artist, bad choice by the diplomat, and even worse choice by Sharon to applaud the action.
Faceless dehumanized jews? They are refered to as “innocent civilians”. That’s hardly dehumanizing, quite the contrary.
Obviously it is not intended as a disrespect, and obviously not every Israeli interprets it as such.
Well around here, both victims and killers have faces. It makes it easier to achieve something we like to call “understanding”, which tends to be an important factor in “solving” conflicts, which is the objective.
It’s obvious to me that the question of the artwork is “How can this apparently innocent woman (Snow white), turn into a monster? (Murderer)”.
It is significant to the point that unlike the artist, You do dehumanize. The killers don’t have faces? Guess what, they do. And refusing to acknowledge that is just one more thing that drives us further away from a solution. Refusing to debate, refusing to the the other parts points, these things don’t bring us closer to peace, they are also not part of the jewish culture who (I was led to believe) was based on discussion and understanding. I’m sure that if you calm down and think about it, you will come to the same conclusion.
I wouldn’t consider this particular work antisemitic. Stupid, rude, insensitive, sure. Idiocy to have it in that particular venue unless your intent was to insult or to provoke the Israeli ambassador, yeah. Encouraging terrorist acts, yeah. But not antisemitic.
Do you really think this was a sensitive call to dialogue, to discussion and understanding? Calling those who this “Snow White” murdered “innocent civilians” is not giving them faces and names. They are the faceless. The nameless. Not her victims really but the victims of those who made her do it. At best the work is a plea to “understand” what drove a “Snow White” to succeed in an act of revenge. It gives her and her motivations a face with a plea for empathic understanding of her situation and motivations. Only she has the name, the face. If a terrorist hopes that murdering a bunch of Jews draws attention to their cause, then this work has made “Snow White’s” act a successful act of terror.
This rewards terror. This encourages terror. This is success for terrorist acts. The artist may be stupid enough to not understand how (at best) rude and insensitive his work was. He may have good intent. Or he may have been calculating provoking a response and planning to build his career around publicity from this shock art approach. It matters not. His work is just as offensive in either case. And the response by the Israeli ambassador was the exact wrong thing to do.
Well I see this as a good thing. I guess that is the fundamental difference?
I think that being featured in an obscure artists installation in Sweden ranks pretty low on the Terrorist Motivation Scale.
The fact that Sharon, the ambassador etc are so emphatically against having empathy for or understanding these tragic people only enforces my belief that the artwork and simmilar events are extremely needed and (hopefully) serve a good purpose. I don’t think this conflict will ever be solved unilaterally so understanding is paramount.
[quote] Stoneburg
Well around here, both victims and killers have faces. It makes it easier to achieve something we like to call “understanding”, which tends to be an important factor in “solving” conflicts, which is the objective.*
Is that so. Can you picture the face of the 2 month old baby that had no choice in this matter?
Just as I thought. You can’t. Neither can I. So don’t bullshit us that the victims have faces where you com from. If you don’t wan’t 2 month old babies to die on either side, you might consider that the quickest solution is to avoid any semblance of support for the weaker side. Palistinians seem to thrive on the idea that if they continue to sacrifice lives on both sides indiscriminantly that eventually sympathetic world opinion will force the Israeli government to collapse. Only hope that eventually Palistinians will return to their homes and take control of all Israel spurs this relentless folly.