Attack on piece of art at the Museum of History in Stockholm

[Snyder]

That Israel can end up at the top of a poll as being the greatest threat to world peace ahead of Al Qaeda is a strong indication that a great number of somebody's moral compasses are askew.

I agree with you on that. But then the ambassadors action doesn't exactly help to raise the opinion of Israel in the public.
Such an action is ridiculous for any high politician to do. I think not even a loony like e.g. our Jörg Haider would resort to such a plump maneuver.


To public funding of museums:
I find it good, because it is supposed to guarantee independence of private funding and of "the people with money defining what good art is" (sorry for my limited eloquence...)
It is important to understand (at least here in Austria) that the state only supplies money but doesn't have a say in what the Museums etc. choose to exhibit/show...
And it seems to work well - otherwise controversial artists like Schlingensief, Nitsch & Co. wouldn't have much chance here...

 

[Sabastian]

Good art will sell itself.

What on earth makes you believe that? Unless, of course, that is how you define good art.

There is much I could say about what has been written in this thread. For now I'll make do with:
I still completely fail to see how this art piece (is it called "installation" in English?) glorifies suicide bombers. I admit that if you choose to look at only parts of it it can be interpreted that way but that would be a case of, as it were, the devil reading the Bible.

Yes, there are indications that antisemitism is up in Europe. In Sweden that is noticed as an increase in antisemitic web pages (not anything else so far, thankfully). It is however extremely important to see the difference between criticism against Israel and antisemitism. (Note: I am no longer talking about this, er, installation.) Sharon and his government systematically call all critics antisemites, which is not only intellectually dishonest but also quite disgusting. The holocaust was one of the worst crimes ever and aimed directly against the Jews (and a few other groups). There is no denying that, but that does not lead to Israel having the right to do whatever it wishes - or even pretending to speak for all Jews. It must be allowed to criticise a state without being accused of antisemitism.

If you like it .... then you do. One has to ask though what sort of charactor would have bought and payed for the work in question as if it were good art. Even if you believe that all works of art are literal equivalents it still doesn't really give good grounds to use public funds to prop up a piece as if it is something extraordinary. If that be the case though I have a work here that my child created that I want subsidized. Or is it only what the art elite determine to be extraordinary works that get government funding? I would suggest to you that indeed if there was a similar work portraying the terrorists who high jacked the airplanes on 9/11 Americans would also feel as though the work is reminiscent of the idea that "they got what they deserve". If it is an artwork that is directed at the government of Israel then it is such a poorly constructed piece that it certainly does not convey the message very well.

I sympathize with you that a foreigner has come to you country and smashed something that .. someone liked. You might also consider his efforts though a legitimate form of protest to the piece. Surely there would be thousands of Israeli citizens whom would react in the same manner. Thus the man is expressing the sentiment of his people with regards to the piece in question. I know you take this very personal given your strong reaction to the ambassadors efforts but from a third party perspective (granted carrying my own bias.) I can sympathize not only with you but also the Jewish perspective.

Then there is also the matter you bring up where you separate critique of the current elected Israeli government from the victimization of Israeli people. I concur whole heartedly with you on that point. But there is a great deal of political criticism that is rooted in anti Semitic rhetoric like for example the Jewish conspiracy to control the world by remotely controlling the actions of the US government etc.. Even a leaders of countries suggesting that the conspiracy is real on and on... There is so much of that rhetoric flying around it isn't even funny at this point and what is more sad is that a great many believe that the accusations are actually true. The work is not a critique of the government of Israel though. In the middle of a pool of blood snow white sits (it isn't the victims but rather the perpetrator of the act of mass murder that is portrayed as innocent) and the blood looked beautiful on the white. Israeli blood looks pretty on the murderer... splat splat goes the artists brush/Jews blood. I don't see the connection to the government only the glorification and rationalization of the murdering of dozens of Jews. Surely Jews see the same.

 

[akira888]

I find it good, because it is supposed to guarantee independence of private funding and of "the people with money defining what good art is" (sorry for my limited eloquence...)

But is having government bureaucrats doing the work, or maybe museum bureaucrats who take money from the state apparatus (king's coin -> king's man) really much better than my scenario?

When the state is involved, nothing is ever truly independent.

 

[Sabastian]

I find it good, because it is supposed to guarantee independence of private funding and of "the people with money defining what good art is" (sorry for my limited eloquence...)

But is having government bureaucrats doing the work, or maybe museum bureaucrats who take money from the state apparatus (king's coin -> king's man) really much better than my scenario?

When the state is involved, nothing is ever truly independent.

Indeed. It may be that the "kings man" is culpable of some variety of hate crime by displaying the work in question. I don't agree with hate crime laws and the like but I do believe if the shoe fits.... Sweden's government ought to reconsider who their representative is at the museum or withdraw public funds until the work is removed.

Even if the real meaning of the work is not what it seems to express it should be removed. It seems obvious to me that Jews are directly offended by this "art" and whatever the true hidden meaning of the work it certainly does not effectively convey sympathy for the victims of the murderous bombing rather just the opposite. Does displaying this work qualify as some variety of hate crime? I think it might.

 

[Moffell]

The work is not a critique of the government of Israel though. In the middle of a pool of blood snow white sits (it isn't the victims but rather the perpetrator of the act of mass murder that is portrayed as innocent) and the blood looked beautiful on the white. Israeli blood looks pretty on the murderer... splat splat goes the artists brush/Jews blood. I don't see the connection to the government only the glorification and rationalization of the murdering of dozens of Jews. Surely Jews see the same.

If that's the picture you have got from the installation I can't blame you for seeing it like that. It does, however, not look like the way you think.
The piece is called Snowwhite and the madness of truth, right? But it isn't the girl that is Snowwhite contrary to what people seem to think, it's the Ship. The ship is also white which thanks to western (White man ) history is a pure colour, clean. Truth is also something that's considered pure and clean, ergo the SHIP = Truth.

Truth is however something that's not universal, each individual has his own truth about things. That[/] is what the piece is about, when people hang on to their own version of truth and not realizing that that truth may not be the only thruth. When different truths collide things can get volatile....
That is why the picture of the young girl is on the sail, she was guided by her truth (the ship) and murdered 21 people. This is something along the line what the artist explained anyway, feel free to ignore.

The ambassador ironically proved the artist right imo when he destroyed the installation, the truth of the installation didn't clash with his own truth. Boom! In that aspect the piece is brilliant.

 

[Sabastian]

The ambassador ironically proved the artist right imo when he destroyed the installation, the truth of the installation didn't clash with his own truth. Boom! In that aspect the piece is brilliant.

heh, that is a nice twist on it. But I don't think that the artist ever intended anyone to come along and try to destroy the work, so it really isn't as brilliant as you make it out to be. In retrospect it seems to work out that way but the real truth is that the bomber killed 21 people plain and simple, don't add perspective, that is the problem with objectivity. From an objective standpoint 21 people were murdered by one suicide bomber. No matter how you look at it that is the truth.

EDIT:

"As white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony. Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions and the red looked beautiful upon the white, the murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones crying."

Was it the ships hair that was black? Snow white has black hair and so does the murderer depicted in the display. It may be the picture but I can't see a boat that is white at all, particularly not one with black hair.

 

[Sxotty]

and in fact celebrate the complete annihilation of the indigenous people of their so-called "country" as if it's something to be god damn fucking proud of.

It's just a bitter, cruel shame that not everyone has the iron will to fight and die as the Palestinians have.

1st I was wondering what you were referring to, and in the second bit, what iron will are you talking about? I see little iron will involved to be honest, I see mostly people getting taken advantage of.

edit:

They must have some really crappy wiring if it was life threatening, b/c if the breaker blew when the wire hit the water it was not life threatening, the only way it could have been is if people were wading around in the pool having a water fight or taking a piss into it, which seems a little silly to me.

 

[Moffell]

The ambassador ironically proved the artist right imo when he destroyed the installation, the truth of the installation didn't clash with his own truth. Boom! In that aspect the piece is brilliant.

heh, that is a nice twist on it. But I don't think that the artist ever intended anyone to come along and try to destroy the work, so it really isn't as brilliant as you make it out to be. In retrospect it seems to work out that way but the real truth is that the bomber killed 21 people plain and simple, don't add perspective, that is the problem with objectivity. From an objective standpoint 21 people were murdered by one suicide bomber. No matter how you look at it that is the truth.

It doesn't really matter what the artist intended anyone to do though, the message frome the piece was that truths collide. One could consider it to be an explanation that the author came up with in retrospect or something wanted to convey all along. You have to decide what's true for you.
For me it basically boils down to two things:

1: The artist is an Arsehole
2: The artist is an arsehole with an important message

Either way the ambassador a complete arsehole who is a bad representative for his country. Until he has left the country he should be banned from all public libraries, god knows what would happen if he finds some books objectionable.

 

[pascal]

If that's the picture you have got from the installation I can't blame you for seeing it like that. It does, however, not look like the way you think.
The piece is called Snowwhite and the madness of truth, right? But it isn't the girl that is Snowwhite contrary to what people seem to think, it's the Ship. The ship is also white which thanks to western (White man ) history is a pure colour, clean. Truth is also something that's considered pure and clean, ergo the SHIP = Truth.

Truth is however something that's not universal, each individual has his own truth about things. That[/] is what the piece is about, when people hang on to their own version of truth and not realizing that that truth may not be the only thruth. When different truths collide things can get volatile....
That is why the picture of the young girl is on the sail, she was guided by her truth (the ship) and murdered 21 people. This is something along the line what the artist explained anyway, feel free to ignore.

The ambassador ironically proved the artist right imo when he destroyed the installation, the truth of the installation didn't clash with his own truth. Boom! In that aspect the piece is brilliant.

Interresting, this is in the same line an artist friend told me few minutes ago. He saw no glorification, but a portrayt with irony and human tragedy. How could her feel so purified with the blood wash? Because it was her truth. Then it force us to think about the distortions involved.

But Israellis are more involved then they do not intellectualize about it. This explain their reaction.

 

[Sabastian]

Either way the ambassador a complete arsehole who is a bad representative for his country. Until he has left the country he should be banned from all public libraries, god knows what would happen if he finds some books objectionable.

It might be that he is an asshole but I think he had an important message to convey as well. Since his actions fall in line with what the work was supposedly conveying then you might consider purely from the perspective you gave me that he was only contributing to the work.. But I don't agree that it should have been on display in the first place. Surely I would take offence personally to any work of art/book that portrayed a person who intends to murder me and or people like me as something innocent as snow white. The "art" should be removed particularly were it is funded by the Swedish taxpayer. Unless of course Swedes indorse the murdering of the 21 Jews by the murderer. Removal of the piece would be the appropriate action on behalf of the museum/state, in my opinion of course.

 

[notAFanB]

But I don't agree that it should have been on display in the first place.

why?

Surely I would take offence personally to any work of art/book that portrayed a person who intends to murder me and or people like me as something innocent as snow white.

sure, and what would you do?

The "art" should be removed particularly were it is funded by the Swedish taxpayer.

why?

Unless of course Swedes indorse the murdering of the 21 Jews by the murderer. Removal of the piece would be the appropriate action on behalf of the museum/state

and how does this piece imply that the Swedes endorse death?

 

[Sabastian]

notAFanB, I am hesitant to bother with your line of questioning but here goes.

But I don't agree that it should have been on display in the first place.

why?

(If you read my posts in the first place you would not have to ask me this.) Because it does (inadvertently or not) glorify the suicide bomber. Second, it is on display with the support of public funds. Third, I don't think it is a great work of art or anything. Forth, Jewish people take great offence to the work in general. Fifth, in light of the conference on genocide being held at the end of the month that was called for by the prime minister of Sweden the Israeli government is going to not attend the conference until the work is removed. Sixth, it does not convey the message that the Israeli government is under critique only that the murderer is justified even glorified in the act of murdering 21 Jews eating in a restaurant. Seventh, it simply is not that great a work of art, comes off as morbid, and most certainly is not worth justifying. Eight, the display of the work might be interpreted as a hate crime by Jewish people. (Not that I endorse the laws that encompass hate crimes.) and finally, the whole controversy could have been avoided simply by not displaying the offending work in the first place.. You don't have to be a Jew to realize that it would be an offensive display for a Jew to look at. So one might reason that whomever decided to put it on display was well aware that Jews would be offended or you could just pretend that it wouldn't. I am really hoping that is enough reasons for you notAFanB.

Surely I would take offence personally to any work of art/book that portrayed a person who intends to murder me and or people like me as something innocent as snow white.

sure, and what would you do?

Probably something along the same lines, if I had the guts to do it. Guess that makes me an asshole as well.

The "art" should be removed particularly were it is funded by the Swedish taxpayer.

why?

Because. The statement is quite nearly self explanatory..

Unless of course Swedes indorse the murdering of the 21 Jews by the murderer. Removal of the piece would be the appropriate action on behalf of the museum/state

and how does this piece imply that the Swedes endorse death?

Because they are paying for the display indirectly.

notAFanB, please if you would read the thread. Thanks in advance.

 

[RussSchultz]

But Israellis are more involved then they do not intellectualize about it. This explain their reaction.

What are you saying here?

 

[pascal]

But Israellis are more involved then they do not intellectualize about it. This explain their reaction.

What are you saying here?

Israellis, like the ambassador, probably will only see some sort of glorification. He is not interrested in any concept, abstraction, blablabla.
An emotional deny of any intellectual viewpoint.

Probably for the artist it is an intellectual portray of an aberration. But it is supposed to be art and comes without explanation. It is then subject of interpretation of the viewer.

Hope they will understand each other. edited: anyway it is not my taste.

 

[Humus]

But is having government bureaucrats doing the work, or maybe museum bureaucrats who take money from the state apparatus (king's coin -> king's man) really much better than my scenario?

When the state is involved, nothing is ever truly independent.

Is anything ever truely independent? If it's privately funded then it's the private funder's interests that is going to dictate directly or indirectly what will be shown. Not that I'm against private funded museums in any way, just saying.

 

[Humus]

You might also consider his efforts though a legitimate form of protest to the piece.

Attacking the piece is never a legitimate form of protest. A legitimate form of protest would be to write an editorial and send to the media. A guy of his rank should have no problem getting that published.

It doesn't matter how bad the art is. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It should be allowed for all opinions, regardless how uncomfortable your opinions are. The way to tackle problems with racism, anti-semitics, discrimination etc is to let the people speak up about it, not to silence it. The best way to defeat a Nazi is not to silence him, it's letting him speak for himself openly so everyone can see how stupid his line of thought is.

 

[Sabastian]

You might also consider his efforts though a legitimate form of protest to the piece.

Attacking the piece is never a legitimate form of protest. A legitimate form of protest would be to write an editorial and send to the media. A guy of his rank should have no problem getting that published.

It doesn't matter how bad the art is. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It should be allowed for all opinions, regardless how uncomfortable your opinions are. The way to tackle problems with racism, anti-semitics, discrimination etc is to let the people speak up about it, not to silence it. The best way to defeat a Nazi is not to silence him, it's letting him speak for himself openly so everyone can see how stupid his line of thought is.

Suppose he would be able to get Swedish public funds to advertise and publish his opposition in the same museum right next to the display supported by the art elite and publicized in one of Swedens Museums of antiquity? I still say the work is borderline hate crime material. I am a huge supporter of free speech though so I likely wouldn't stand up for hate crime punishment you have a hook in my mouth for that, hate crimes laws are an affront to freedom of speech. If the artist wants to display it then let them but with this it appears in a sense that the state condones the work despite its anti Semitic outer shell. It is only my opinion that I say it ought to be removed from the state subsidized museum, I think it is inappropriate and would oppose the idea just like I do in my own country. I would be very upset if my country were to throw money out the window on a display like that with public funds some of which would come directly out of Jewish peoples pockets. His attack clearly demonstrates that he was outraged by the display. While it may have been wrong to do in one sense I can't says that I blame the man for it.

 

[Legion]

kind of reminds me of the New York shock art of a few years back. Absolute trash it was.

 

[akira888]

Is anything ever truely independent? If it's privately funded then it's the private funder's interests that is going to dictate directly or indirectly what will be shown. Not that I'm against private funded museums in any way, just saying.

As a libertarian this concept of "state speech" (like the American NEA or Euro Culture Ministries) frightens me in a way that private speech doesn't frighten me in the least. Funding is an implicit endorsement by virtue of the fact that some artists are blessed by the hand of the state apparatus and most aren't. The state should stay as neutral as possible in matters of speech and expression, neither banning nor subsidizing.

 

[akira888]

and in fact celebrate the complete annihilation of the indigenous people of their so-called "country" as if it's something to be god damn fucking proud of.

It's just a bitter, cruel shame that not everyone has the iron will to fight and die as the Palestinians have.

1st I was wondering what you were referring to, and in the second bit, what iron will are you talking about? I see little iron will involved to be honest, I see mostly people getting taken advantage of.

Even many peoples who've been taking advantage of lack the intestinal fortitude to fight such a prolonged liberation struggle as the Palis have (which isn't to say I endorse the jihadis in the least; I hate them most of all). The Kurds in illegally Turkish occupied Northern Kurdistan fought bravely and in a very noble fashion for 15 years before their President Abdullah Ocalan was kidnapped by the Turkish para-state. After this the Turkish secret place "Milleytci Istabarat Teskilati" tortured him and "decapitated" (sometimes literally) the PKK liberation fighters. The saddest thing is that had they adopted PLO-style tactics they would have definetely won their homeland. Kindness does earn you nothing in this world.

As for my reference, check your PM; I really don't want to fight another webboard war at this time.