|
|
April 13, 2007
No controversy here
Photography exhibit featuring the city of Nablus fails to enrage
– or even engage.
CYNTHIA RAMSAY
Disappointment. I was expecting passionate protest, something that
would make me angry. Instead, the Walls of Nablus: From the Romans
to Hamas exhibit fell far short of its hype. It provoked not one
iota of ire or inspiration.
The Interurban Gallery's promotional material promised that the
exhibit, which runs until April 28, would reveal the "shocking
destruction of this ancient city in Palestine by the illegal Israeli
occupation, as well as the ongoing resistance to the occupation."
In describing the exhibit, the International Solidarity Movement's
(ISM's) event listings read, "people of Nablus have been under
brutal economic and military siege for six years. But, like the
walls of the city, the people's resistance and resilience remains
strong."
The show's description, which was posted at the gallery and was
written by the photographer, freexero.com – who, back in 2003,
caused a stir as just Xero, when she (Carel Moiseiwitsch) produced
a chapbook that vilified Israelis - was the most controversial thing
about Walls of Nablus. But even its hackneyed descriptions of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be tiresome to anyone but a neophyte
of the region's history.
According to freexero.com, the last six years are part of an "illegal
40-year occupation of Palestine by the Israeli government and armed
forces" and such groups as "Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades
and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) have
been declared terrorist organizations in Canada for exercising their
right to use armed struggle to resist foreign occupation (a right
guaranteed by the UN Charter)." She goes on to describe the
imbalance of power in the region, how so many more Palestinians
than Israelis have died in the fighting, the tens of thousands of
Palestinian refugees and how the photographs in the exhibit "document
the ongoing struggle against the occupation through peaceful and
armed means." If only.
In this instance, the Interurban Gallery, the ISM and freexero.com
seem to have gratuitously used the tragic situation in the Middle
East to encourage attendance at an exhibit of photographs that,
frankly, could have been taken almost anywhere and interpreted to
mean almost anything.
Many of the works are unlabelled. Some are only partially explained.
In one particular photo, there are numerous posters and more than
one piece of graffitti written in Arabic, yet there is a one-line,
incomplete translation. Another picture is of a wall with a number
of bullet holes – although one was large enough that it could
have once held a water pipe – that we are supposed to assume
were Israeli-made or intifada-caused, but that conclusion is not
clear from the image, only from the exhibit's stated intent. Similarly,
there is a photo of an upturned car, which bears no sign of an attack
– what is its relevance?
Such questions come up repeatedly: Why was that picture included?
What does that photo show exactly? What does that writing on the
wall mean? Is that human-wrought destruction or centuries of decay?
While art should always leave room for interpretation, something
that is trying to sell itself as a political statement should be
somewhat more clear in its message. Unfortunately, the vast majority
of photographs are not of a high enough quality – they lack
texture, color, depth, framing, etc. – and are not provocative
enough as individual photos to support the story that is supposedly
being told by the exhibit.
For instance, a picture of happy kids is placed in the middle of
a triptych, with an image of what looks like a friendly tour of
the security fence on top and of kids playing around the remnants
of a destroyed (bombed out?) car and house on the bottom. On its
own, the middle photo is akin to one that most travellers to a developing
country have in their photo albums. Only when juxtaposed with the
other two are viewers made to think that the happiness of these
children is perhaps fleeting – and that this ephemerality is
the fault of Israelis. It's too contrived.
I took a photo as I left the exhibit. It's of a wall of the building
across the street from the Interurban Gallery. At first blush, the
picture could have been part of freexero.com's exhibit. And herein
lies the main problem with Walls of Nablus: the answer to the question,
"Could that photo have been shot anywhere?" is most often
"yes." Without the benefit of the exhibit's description
and promotional material, there is little left – nothing that
a good power-washer couldn't get rid of.
^TOP
|
|
