Art is War
I went to a Catholic high school. Our student body had approximately 1000 students from Grade 9 to 13, when I attended from 1990 to 1995.
My earliest recollection of art censorship came during the middle of my high school career. Around 1992 or 93 we had lunchtime assemblies where student musicians could get up on stage in our largest gym and perform. There were singers and grunge bands and jazz troupes. I don't' remember the midday concerts lasting very long and here's why.
A group of guys, who were fairly adept musicians from what I can remember, played Nirvana's "Rape Me". There were a lot of us in the gym at the time, eating our lunch on the bleachers, spread out over the floor in various cliques and a couple teachers were walking around chaperoning.
I don't remember how exactly the order of events went down, but as these boys covered this song bellowing "rape me, rape me my friend" over and over again, our vice principal somehow got word this was happening and felt that it was a highly inappropriate song.
Our VP started scrambling through the crowd, trying to make his way to the front of the stage all the while making "cut it" motions with his finger across his throat . The boys didn't stop and the VP had to physically disconnect the microphone cord. All of us in that gym as a unit, as adolescent angst-filled individuals, knew that the lyrics weren't literal, and if one individual did think so- cutting the performance wasn't going to alter that individuals' interpretation.
I remember being outraged. How dare he stop them from playing. Being a teenager I was overwrought with passionate beliefs like "free speech, power to the youth, you can tell us what to study and when to be in class but you can't control what we listen to." This I believe was my first introduction to the censorship of art.
The Interview being pulled by Sony because major theatre chains did not want to show it, due to the cyber-threats of proposed violent retaliation, was highly disturbing to me. Let's be clear, Sony had no theatre chain willing to show it initially, so they didn't have much of a choice. The tides turned though and it has since been available on YouTube, Xbox and as of last Saturday, Netflix has added it to their line up. I watched it. It wasn't my favourite Rogen flick; I had more belly laughs watching This Is The End.
When I first heard the picture wasn't going to be played nation wide due to an anonymous cyber threat I was terrified. My fear didn't stem from the threat (naivety?) but from the idea that "they" (executives, government) could be swayed so easily to censor our media. Goldberg and Rogen have written several goofball comedies, so it wasn't like the offenders were new. It had me wondering where would this censorship end? Is there an end? We've had controversial entertainment for centuries and as a blanket statement I believe in freedom of speech, I don't think art should be censored. Even if it offends someone to see a women knit from her vagina.....oh yes.
Casey Jenkins did an art installation a couple years ago of which I just recently found out about. Please watch the video and you will realize she is not as crazy as you may initially think based on the premise of the exhibit. So here's the deal, in response to her piece there were comments in the thousands expressing hate and loathing towards her; viewers spoke of feeling emotionally disturbed after witnessing her actions and even began accusing her of being psychologically troubled. All over an art installation. I think Casey eloquently makes her point for why she did it as a performance artist. Society's fear and revulsion toward the female anatomy definitely sums up the hateful reactions. So what? She took a ball of wool, shoved it up her vagina and knit from it. In this instance it is more reasonable to say don't watch, don't look if it so offends you (even though I asked you to watch it- did you?) Could the same be said for The Interview and the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo? Just don't look/watch.
The Charlie Hebdo incident provided much discussion between my boyfriend and I. I am not on Facebook. I have a Twitter account and an Instagram account. I use Twitter as a very fast way to stay up to date on breaking news ( global, national & cultural), and I like Instagram because it has pretty pictures. Yes I follow MarnietheDog; the delightful canine that makes me smile at least once a week. There is nothing wrong with funny pictures of cats and dogs, but I digress.
My boyfriend has a Facebook account and was expressing his outrage at all the Charlie Hebdo support posts and memes, and his disdain over the millions of Twitter posts with the Charlie Hebdo
hashtag. All of this outraged him as he wasn't seeing nearly the same social media coverage for the Baga, Nigeria massacre which had happened (and is still happening?) a few days prior to the magazine incident. Why is this? There are a lot of factors and associations that are propagating this overall societal reaction to the two events.
First off there are always massacres and wars (don't misunderstand me-I'm not being trite). The reality that satirical cartoonists could be issued a death sentence over their art is what grabbed hold of western society and prompted the astronomical social media response. The story itself was also easier to understand, trying to suss out Boko Haram, their actions, motivations, how they fit in with Islamic extremism is a much muddier dialogue which leaves our click happy apathetic Facebook users requiring more information and understanding. Ask your average small town coworker why/how there's an Islamist militant group in Nigeria and they may ask you back 'Where's Nigeria?' The Charlie Hebdo events are easier to comprehend. Cartoonists drew "offensive" images, they got shot.
Anyway, we hashed out this dialogue for a couple of hours. and it had me strengthening my belief that art should not be censored. The argument though will always remain --what is art? who decides? The creator or the consumer? The issue with the cartoons was not a judgement on depiction it was a condemning of depiction. But does it warrant punishment? Why is art sometimes taken literally? Is it only taken literally when it's not understood? Why should someone die for drawing a picture?
This entry is so naive-but I'm having an extremely difficult time understanding the punishment from the "other". I am aware that my sociological, economical, gender and ethic status along with my upbringing are what makes it difficult (impossible?) for me to see those shootings as anything other than simply wrong. Others have beliefs as deeply rooted as my own that they were right. How do we label "offensive" art and who is the judge, the creator or the observer?
Have you ever chose not to view or watch something as it offended you? be it movie, book, or piece of art? Why and how did you actively not view it?
My earliest recollection of art censorship came during the middle of my high school career. Around 1992 or 93 we had lunchtime assemblies where student musicians could get up on stage in our largest gym and perform. There were singers and grunge bands and jazz troupes. I don't' remember the midday concerts lasting very long and here's why.
A group of guys, who were fairly adept musicians from what I can remember, played Nirvana's "Rape Me". There were a lot of us in the gym at the time, eating our lunch on the bleachers, spread out over the floor in various cliques and a couple teachers were walking around chaperoning.
I don't remember how exactly the order of events went down, but as these boys covered this song bellowing "rape me, rape me my friend" over and over again, our vice principal somehow got word this was happening and felt that it was a highly inappropriate song.
Our VP started scrambling through the crowd, trying to make his way to the front of the stage all the while making "cut it" motions with his finger across his throat . The boys didn't stop and the VP had to physically disconnect the microphone cord. All of us in that gym as a unit, as adolescent angst-filled individuals, knew that the lyrics weren't literal, and if one individual did think so- cutting the performance wasn't going to alter that individuals' interpretation.
I remember being outraged. How dare he stop them from playing. Being a teenager I was overwrought with passionate beliefs like "free speech, power to the youth, you can tell us what to study and when to be in class but you can't control what we listen to." This I believe was my first introduction to the censorship of art.
The Interview being pulled by Sony because major theatre chains did not want to show it, due to the cyber-threats of proposed violent retaliation, was highly disturbing to me. Let's be clear, Sony had no theatre chain willing to show it initially, so they didn't have much of a choice. The tides turned though and it has since been available on YouTube, Xbox and as of last Saturday, Netflix has added it to their line up. I watched it. It wasn't my favourite Rogen flick; I had more belly laughs watching This Is The End.
When I first heard the picture wasn't going to be played nation wide due to an anonymous cyber threat I was terrified. My fear didn't stem from the threat (naivety?) but from the idea that "they" (executives, government) could be swayed so easily to censor our media. Goldberg and Rogen have written several goofball comedies, so it wasn't like the offenders were new. It had me wondering where would this censorship end? Is there an end? We've had controversial entertainment for centuries and as a blanket statement I believe in freedom of speech, I don't think art should be censored. Even if it offends someone to see a women knit from her vagina.....oh yes.
Casey Jenkins did an art installation a couple years ago of which I just recently found out about. Please watch the video and you will realize she is not as crazy as you may initially think based on the premise of the exhibit. So here's the deal, in response to her piece there were comments in the thousands expressing hate and loathing towards her; viewers spoke of feeling emotionally disturbed after witnessing her actions and even began accusing her of being psychologically troubled. All over an art installation. I think Casey eloquently makes her point for why she did it as a performance artist. Society's fear and revulsion toward the female anatomy definitely sums up the hateful reactions. So what? She took a ball of wool, shoved it up her vagina and knit from it. In this instance it is more reasonable to say don't watch, don't look if it so offends you (even though I asked you to watch it- did you?) Could the same be said for The Interview and the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo? Just don't look/watch.
The Charlie Hebdo incident provided much discussion between my boyfriend and I. I am not on Facebook. I have a Twitter account and an Instagram account. I use Twitter as a very fast way to stay up to date on breaking news ( global, national & cultural), and I like Instagram because it has pretty pictures. Yes I follow MarnietheDog; the delightful canine that makes me smile at least once a week. There is nothing wrong with funny pictures of cats and dogs, but I digress.
My boyfriend has a Facebook account and was expressing his outrage at all the Charlie Hebdo support posts and memes, and his disdain over the millions of Twitter posts with the Charlie Hebdo
hashtag. All of this outraged him as he wasn't seeing nearly the same social media coverage for the Baga, Nigeria massacre which had happened (and is still happening?) a few days prior to the magazine incident. Why is this? There are a lot of factors and associations that are propagating this overall societal reaction to the two events.
First off there are always massacres and wars (don't misunderstand me-I'm not being trite). The reality that satirical cartoonists could be issued a death sentence over their art is what grabbed hold of western society and prompted the astronomical social media response. The story itself was also easier to understand, trying to suss out Boko Haram, their actions, motivations, how they fit in with Islamic extremism is a much muddier dialogue which leaves our click happy apathetic Facebook users requiring more information and understanding. Ask your average small town coworker why/how there's an Islamist militant group in Nigeria and they may ask you back 'Where's Nigeria?' The Charlie Hebdo events are easier to comprehend. Cartoonists drew "offensive" images, they got shot.
Anyway, we hashed out this dialogue for a couple of hours. and it had me strengthening my belief that art should not be censored. The argument though will always remain --what is art? who decides? The creator or the consumer? The issue with the cartoons was not a judgement on depiction it was a condemning of depiction. But does it warrant punishment? Why is art sometimes taken literally? Is it only taken literally when it's not understood? Why should someone die for drawing a picture?
This entry is so naive-but I'm having an extremely difficult time understanding the punishment from the "other". I am aware that my sociological, economical, gender and ethic status along with my upbringing are what makes it difficult (impossible?) for me to see those shootings as anything other than simply wrong. Others have beliefs as deeply rooted as my own that they were right. How do we label "offensive" art and who is the judge, the creator or the observer?
Have you ever chose not to view or watch something as it offended you? be it movie, book, or piece of art? Why and how did you actively not view it?
ugh just did a post and I messed it up again as it did not post! First off I do not even remember that incident in high school but again I have a terrible memory. Goings on in Africa have always been highly under reported which is very disappointing and the Charlie Hebdo events were not as "foreign" I feel and "hit closer to home" and received more coverage and ofcourse were also terrible events. The world is a very scary and sensitive place and yes we are supposed to have freedom of speech an expression but it can now come at a price and this is a very scary reality. I will also check out the Casey Jenkins art installation.
ReplyDeleteJust click on Casey Jenkins in the post and it will take you right to the art installation video its only about 2 minutes long. And yea freedom of speech seems to be coming at a higher price these days....and how do we combat that? Thanks for your musings Meg.
DeleteNigeria is just another form of censorship, one that comes from simply not talking about it. They don't talk about it because, like something "they" actively try to suppress, it doesn't fit their narrative. Same goes for the Navy Yard shootings a year of so ago - the weapon used wasn't an assault rifle but a common Remington 870 pump action shot gun - didn't make for a good story. Paris - good story, Interview - good story, Boston Marathon - good story.
ReplyDeleteCensorship always comes from ignorance and ironically, lack of faith. Money for Nothing was censored because of the ignorance of context; India recently forced Penguin Books to pulp tonnes of a book that insulted Hinduism; Charlie Hebdo (and the Danish paper, and...and..) were attacked from ignorance and lack of faith - imams are afraid that their religion can be logically picked apart, and therefor destroyed, and ignorance because the Sunni injunction (Shia has different rules) is originally about graven images and "creating" because only God can and should created (think the Buddhas the Taliban destroyed in Afghanistan when they first got power, and all the architecture and art in India destroyed by the Moguls). I once volunteered with a UN org and we had to figure out how to draw diagrams for hand washing without using humans. And there you have it - censorship is about power, who should have the power and who wants to maintain the power.
Apparently the Victoria and Albert Museum has taken removed from their website a painting of Mahomet (by a Persian artist).
How do we combat it? We've had this chat before. We stop being the nice, polite progressives constantly worried about the sensitivities of the perpetrator and challenge them, we stop the "well everyone is entitled to their opinion" and letting them off. We challenge - we stop the "Paris needs to grieve too" and call people on their useless hashtags (ie bringbackourgirls) and throw in their face Boko Haram's atrocities; we remind people that 3 dead (Boston) is a good day in many places in the world; we challenge the "well yes BUT not everyone..." sentiment and lose the fear of criticizing the basis of the violence (re their culture and religion); if it's wrong we say so; we call an ignorant fuck an ignorant fuck.
We act. Nobody gives a fuck about a picture with a rainbow and nice words or a hashtag.