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

[jpaana]

Some interesting comments from Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074609072404):

The ambassador, previously known as a prudent career diplomat, has admitted his actions were premeditated, discussed beforehand with other Foreign Ministry officials.

and he doesn't seem to know when to stop (http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13366049):

"The Social Democracy in this country is pro-Arab," he [the ambassador] said in an interview with AFP. "There are many voices which are pro-Islamic and anti-Israeli. We've got a problem." Mazel said Persson, a Social Democrat, was an exception, "the good man", but "the party is big".

"Everything Israel does is bad. When you read the press in Sweden, Israel is always the bad guy. The press in Sweden is completely anti-Israeli," he said.

 

[Snyder]

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.

Because some work of art may be considered offensive it should be removed by the authorities? That sounds just like censorship to me.

 

[Sabastian]

Because some work of art may be considered offensive it should be removed by the authorities? That sounds just like censorship to me.

No, it is that the state subsidizes the museum that in turn displays the offending article. The artist themselves can create whatever art they like but there is no grounds for that to be subsidized over the sort of art mine or your child creates particularly if you insist that it is all a matter of perspective. It is ridiculous to subsidize art anyhow, an absolute waste of public funds. In this case not only is it a waste of public funds but also an aberration to an entire demographic of people who see it as a commendation of themselves being murdered. It should be removed because the display is state funded.

 

[Xmas]

It should be removed because the display is state funded.

You mean this one item or simply all state-funded displays across the country?

 

[notAFanB]

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

I am listening (well reading).

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.

1. it's existence glorifies the bomber?

2. I fail to see the problem with this.

3. fair, part and parcel of the exhibit.

4. then maybe an apology is in order.

5. I don't know what to say...

6. you already coverd this briefly in point (1) but Even if it does glorfy the suicide bomber, how in any way is that assummed to be a n front of isrlali critisism?

7. see (3)

8. is it a hate crime?

9. agreed. but then it's not there to avoid controversy is it?

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'm already assumming that that was an expected reaction, and?

I am really hoping that is enough reasons for you notAFanB.

no it really isn't, but I can clearly see it is quite enough for you to draw the conclusion you have.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Weather it glorifies murder, doesn't glorify murder or if it glorifies nude pictures of myself, it doesn't matter.

People will see things how they want to see them.

In the end, this world has far too much freedom. I would prefer censorship and the monitoring of every individual in the world. I don't care if it can/can't be done, this is just my preference.

Personally, I would take down every piece of art I come across because I simply don't like art. I believe people shouldn't be allowed to express themselves, no matter how innocent or vindictive their views are.

If I were a world leader, I guarantee you will all hate me.

 

[Ty]

Hey you know that is a good point. Let me know when there is art indirectly subsidized by the Israeli government that in some way glorifies murdering Swedish people on mass... It ought to be as morbid and bloody a piece so as to disgust as many Swedes as possible.

It's not as if you need a lesson in Freedom of Speech and how it entails the ugliness of having to deal with ideas you don't agree with.

One of the goals of art is to provoke thought and discussion. Looks like the artist achieved his or her goal.

I'll second that notion. Good art will sell itself.

I'm not sure if by, "sell" you mean the strictly commercial aspect or the broader connotation of societal acceptance.

I don't think criticism is a problem, in general. But, when the only thing that comes out of your mouth is criticism at the cost of logic, then it borders on 'ism'.

Personally I don't see how the ambassador's action was logical. Since action > words, I'd say the ambassador is even more guilty of landing on the 'ism' side.

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.

A legitimate form of protest? Since when is vandalism a legitimate form of protest? And who cares how many thousands of Israeli citizens would do the same thing? There are thousands of people "protesting" the RIAA by downloading music. Does that make it "legitimate"?

Does displaying this work qualify as some variety of hate crime? I think it might.

How so? What if the artist stood on the corner espousing anti-Israeli propaganda? Would that be a crime? It seems that we have a divergent opinion of what "art" is. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to draw a clear line between "free speech" and what "art" represents. Yes? No?

"The ambassador, previously known as a prudent career diplomat, has admitted his actions were premeditated, discussed beforehand with other Foreign Ministry officials."

Again, sounds like a PR move to me.

 

[horvendile]

It is with some surprise I note the widespread support for something that whatever it may be called bears every resemblance to state censorship of art.

Anyway;
as a(-nother) sidenote it is possibly of some interest that the ambassador is on the record saying that all Arabs and Palestinians are terrorists. When pressed on "all", he confirmed that he meant "all". Given such a frame of reference it is perhaps not surprising that he did not take the time to see whether the art piece could be interpreted in any other way than his knee jerk.

What I really was going to say however is that I now give up on this thread.
When an astounding amount of people here insist that it glorifies suicide bombers in spite of the quite clear line "murdered 19 innocent civilians", I honestly don't know what to say to you.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

You people aren't helping. I thought my little piece up there would shut everyone up and kill the thread.

Looks like this is just another never ending Israel vs Pelestine thread. :?

 

[Sabastian]

It is with some surprise I note the widespread support for something that whatever it may be called bears every resemblance to state censorship of art.

Anyway;
as a(-nother) sidenote it is possibly of some interest that the ambassador is on the record saying that all Arabs and Palestinians are terrorists. When pressed on "all", he confirmed that he meant "all". Given such a frame of reference it is perhaps not surprising that he did not take the time to see whether the art piece could be interpreted in any other way than his knee jerk.

What I really was going to say however is that I now give up on this thread.
When an astounding amount of people here insist that it glorifies suicide bombers in spite of the quite clear line "murdered 19 innocent civilians", I honestly don't know what to say to you.

It is not state censorship of art that I am recommending rather that the state stop propping up particular art as if it is something extraordinary. In this case Jews find the work offending..... RE:

"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."

In short I think your government ought to disassociate itself with the work somehow. I would like to see the entire text of the display translated without any modifications to the message however. The ambassador is on record for making claims that the media in Sweden is extremely prejudiced against Israel's cause. The would correlate directly to why so many from the region also carry an overly negative impression of Israel in general fueling anti Semitic sentiment as well.

Ambassador Zvi Mazel said: This exhibit was the culmination of dozens of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish events in Sweden,

There is no way for me to make any claims for or against such accusations though. I don't know personally because there is so little in the way of news from Sweden that is actually published in English and I am not about to take on the challenge of learning Swedish anytime soon.

horvendile, I have said this before and I'll say it again. I really do think you are an intellectual and agreeable person. While you might not carry that same view of me because of my opinions on ... a wide variety of matters, heh. I like to think that people can disagree to an extent without it causing an emotional response even though I might myself become exasperated occasionally. You might disagree yet again but that is how I like to see things.

At any rate I would really like to see a translated unmodified transcript of the entire text of the display. None have actually quoted the entire text yet. It may be as you say that he never took the time to look at the work in question before his knee-jerk reaction but I think the sight of the display would have provoked the same sort of feelings in myself if I were in the same situation. It may be that the ambassador has an important message as well. On the same coin I can see that you also feel hard done by because some foreigner has come to your country and smashed something that seems dear to many in Sweden... To add insult to injury other foreigners, such as myself, sympathize with the perpetrator of the exploit. I don't see his actions nor the approval of them as an attack on free speech rather it may be that his actions were also an expression of free speech, just not a very palatable one.

Personally however I think the work is fairly morbid in its form but that is neither here nor there.

 

[pascal]

I see no good message from a premedited act of dangerous violence from an ambassador full of prejudices (see posts above).

He did it with full understanding of his action, he discussed it before with other foreign ministry officials. Probably (no info about that) he made no attempt to talk to the artist, museum or sweden government first.

Any action now will be censorship.

 

[Sabastian]

Hey you know that is a good point. Let me know when there is art indirectly subsidized by the Israeli government that in some way glorifies murdering Swedish people on mass... It ought to be as morbid and bloody a piece so as to disgust as many Swedes as possible.

It's not as if you need a lesson in Freedom of Speech and how it entails the ugliness of having to deal with ideas you don't agree with.

One of the goals of art is to provoke thought and discussion. Looks like the artist achieved his or her goal.

I don't think you are qualified enough for that lecture. Free speech is about protection for the things you don't want to hear not for what you want to be subject too. In which case it seems it is the ambassadors message that needs protected or is it only free speech for the artists of the world? At any rate may be Sweden would favor subsidizing art that in some way glorifies the murdering of Palestinians?

I'll second that notion. Good art will sell itself.

I'm not sure if by, "sell" you mean the strictly commercial aspect or the broader connotation of societal acceptance.

Both…

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.

A legitimate form of protest? Since when is vandalism a legitimate form of protest? And who cares how many thousands of Israeli citizens would do the same thing?

Dear God man, I said you might consider it that way. Who cares if them Jews dislike the idea of being blown up by suicide bombers? Then have some asshole artist depict it as some great deed. May be you would like it if someone who makes designs to blow themselves up in your home was portrayed as something that would be beautiful with your blood all over them.

Does displaying this work qualify as some variety of hate crime? I think it might.

How so? What if the artist stood on the corner espousing anti-Israeli propaganda? Would that be a crime? It seems that we have a divergent opinion of what "art" is. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to draw a clear line between "free speech" and what "art" represents. Yes? No?

Does Sweden have hate crime laws? That's how. You seem to be disgruntled with the idea that someone has an extreme disapproval of the work in question. I can see how you would stifle the message they have with regards to the work in question. Free speech is not only for artists you know.

 

[Humus]

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.

This isn't the first case of using public funds for stuff that can be seen as offensive. A good example is when a local Nazi leader was invited for debate against a professor with foreign background in a Swedish (public funded) university. Of course, when thing like this is done you will see plenty of people protesting it, people who just want to silence these groups rather than bringing them into the light. The good thing of the story was that the Nazi (not surpricingly) was severaly pwned in the debate and came to his senses after the debate and have since been working together with the professor against nazism through information and education.
I would say that the art wasn't inappropriate simply because it was offensive. What disturbs me though is that they chose to put it up in connection to the genocide conference, which now seems to disturb the whole event.

 

[Humus]

In short I think your government ought to disassociate itself with the work somehow. I would like to see the entire text of the display translated without any modifications to the message however. The ambassador is on record for making claims that the media in Sweden is extremely prejudiced against Israel's cause. The would correlate directly to why so many from the region also carry an overly negative impression of Israel in general fueling anti Semitic sentiment as well.

http://www.makingdifferences.com/site/calendar.php?lang=en&id=20

I sure agree that now that there's a displomatic conflict the government should indeed disassociate itself from the work. It's important to get Israel onboard for the conference.
I don't think media is particularly prejudiced against Israel. Some left-wing media outlets sure are, but in general I think most media covers the conflict quite objectively. In fact, I think I've seen more articles condemning the piece of art than the ambassedor's behavior. To an Israeli ambassedor though I would imagine that it's hard to see the other side of the conflict than the official line of his government.

 

[Humus]

Does Sweden have hate crime laws?

Depends on what the definition of "hate crime" is, I'm a little fuzzy on that. There are laws against discrimination, and so on. Yyou can't be arrested for calling someone "nigger", but you can if you arrange organized attacks on minorities.

 

[London Geezer]

It also depends on the situation. On the work place, calling someone names in an offensive manner (i always call people names, but jokingly) can lead to dismissal. Discrimination at work is prosecutable. At least it is here.

 

[Sabastian]

Depends on what the definition of "hate crime" is, I'm a little fuzzy on that.

You and me both. Thanks for all the information Humus. Good to hear that there is allot of critique being directed towards the offensive display. I could not agree more that it is inappropriate on the diplomatic side of things. re: conference on genocide. It creates a negative environment to start off with and is not constructive at all. The display falls in line with outrageous accusations that Israel is a racist country with designs on genocide of the Palestinian people when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Xmas]

It is not state censorship of art that I am recommending rather that the state stop propping up particular art as if it is something extraordinary. In this case Jews find the work offending..... RE:

"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."

I don't know your interpretation of that sentence, but it must be fundamentally different from mine because you leave the part that I regard most important out of the bold.

To me this sentence is indeed a very strong argument against the glorification of her deed.

 

[Legion]

ahs there been an inteview with the artist?

 

[Humus]

Nothing lenghty that I have seen, just some short comments on TV.