October 19, 2001
Artwork is likely to offend
Museum of Civilization exhibit raises issues of free expression.
PAT JOHNSON REPORTER
A much-discussed exhibit opens this week at the Canadian Museum
of Civilization and is certain to spur debate about the boundaries
of art and politics, as well as the suitability of public displays
that might be considered offensive to some.
The Lands Within Me: Expressions by Canadian Artists of Arab Origin
is slated to open Friday, Oct. 19, at the museum in Hull, Que. Little
is known about the contents of the exhibit, yet that has not precluded
a flurry of controversy around the opening. After the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks in the United States, which have been blamed on extremists
based in the Arab world, the museum "reviewed" its fall schedule
and indefinitely postponed the opening of The Lands Within Me exhibit,
intending to present the display later with greater context. That
decision prompted an outpouring of criticism, including accusations
of racism and a call by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to go ahead
with the show as planned.
On Sept. 28, the museum relented and issued a statement that the
exhibit would open as scheduled on Oct. 19. By that point, however,
the public had become aware of at least one segment of the exhibit
some deemed inflammatory.
A video installation is reported to include an interview with
a Palestinian woman who claims the Americans are supplying weapons
to Israel for the purpose of testing them on women and children.
A spokesperson for the museum would not provide specifics about
potentially controversial content in advance of the opening, but
acknowledged that it seems destined to provoke varying responses.
"Everybody obviously will have their own views on the content of
the exhibition and the artwork that we present," said Pierre Pontbriand,
vice-president of public affairs. "I'm sure there will be various
views expressed and it will give way to dialogue and discussions,
we hope."
The exhibit includes paintings, sculptures and installations by
26 Canadian artists. It is intended to show the cultural intermixing
that occurs in Canada and how that fact influences art, according
to Pontbriand.
"The artwork will talk by [itself] and we will leave it to the
reporters and the public and the visitors to the museum to judge
for themselves the quality of the work," he said. Meanwhile, regardless
of the content, any suggestions of censorship raise hackles in the
artistic community and in other segments of society. Several Jewish
artists in Vancouver have strong views on the censoring of art.
Aviel Barclay, an artist and scribe specializing in ketubot calligraphy,
among other media, said that to hide away unpleasant or disturbing
images may be a safety mechanism for some people, but that does
not detract from the gravity of an artist's heartfelt message.
"If it's someone's personal experience, I can't really protest
it," said Barclay. If, as some have suggested, the new exhibit contains
anti-Zionist references, Barclay said she falls, albeit uncomfortably,
on the side of free speech.
"I think it's important that people are allowed to use art as a
venue to express themselves and to communicate things," she said.
"Sometimes [there] might be things I don't want to see. I'd rather
it wasn't happening."
Jeannie Kamins, another Vancouver artist, has come face-to-face
with these sorts of disturbing issues before. When she was in art
school, another student in a joint exhibition attempted to "reclaim"
the ancient Indian symbol of the swastika.
"I was totally offended by it, period," said Kamins. "You can reclaim
it, you can put any other kind of description or excuse to it -
I don't want to look at it."
As strongly as she felt about that incident, she said that, without
the right of someone to express themselves in that fashion, we risk
a greater fate.
"How can you have a free and open society without the right to
exhibit?" she asked. "The process of censoring does more harm because
it stifles discussion on real issues."
Kamins described the original decision to postpone the Arab art
exhibit as "racist."
"I believe that visual art is another language and I believe that
it is to communicate ideas ... it is to provoke thought," she said.
"There is art that offends me and I wouldn't support it - I wouldn't
go to a show that had it - but I wouldn't take away the right to
show."
Another artist in the community, Linda Frimer, said she has seen
the effects of censorship and she has seen the effects of art that
offends. Neither is a pretty option.
"It's quite a complicated issue," she said. "I think we have a
moral responsibility to each other, and yet we have to understand
the basis or the foundation of where the work is coming from."
Frimer suggested that the responsibility lies with the artist
to create his or her work within a context that does not harm fellow
humans.
"I think there can be boundaries around the way it is presented,
in context and explanation," she said.
Although she said she has limits to what she wants to look at and
she would prefer that people do not use art to hurt each other,
she defends the role of free artistic expression.
"It is the artists' right," she said. "They need to express themselves
and they're often the seers of the generation - the forerunners
of what's coming ... so we have to hear from them. But I think we
have to make sure we're not putting up something that is going to
cause more harm than good."
As a compromise, Frimer said, art that is likely to offend portions
of the public could be exhibited in less public spaces.
^TOP
|