Art V Politics

bonkey

I must say that I'm following the current reportings concerning the Israeli Embassador taking outrage at a piece of "art" in Sweden.

If you're not sure what I'm referring to, check google news or any other manistream news source - they should ahve stuff on it.

On one hand, I would tend to agree with the "tasteless" argument, and perhaps even with claims that it was deliberately provocative, were anyone to make them.

On the other hand, I think that the reaction of the Israeli embassador was fully out of order. He has offered an explanation saying that he recognises that such activity was not in keeping with that expected of an embassador, but that he was in this case acting as an outraged individual/Israeli/Jew.

I'm wondering if he'd be therefore willing to set aside his diplomatic immunity regarding these actions should the artist or museum in question, or indeed the Swedish nation, decide to take action as they see this as vandalism of art.

As an embassador, if he hides behind his diplomatic immunity, he should be expelled from the country, especially as he has already claimed he was not acting as an embassador carrying out these actions.

I'm interested to see the claims that this was the latest in a growing list of anti-semitic events in Sweden and that an objection had to be made, but I'm curious as to whether or not he ever acted within the remit of his job and lodged complaints through official channels rather than acting as a self-appointed censor and vandal.

Maybe he is right, but at the end of the day, this strikes me as just another example of someone using a valid complaint against one form of questionable/unacceptable behaviour to defend their own questioable/unacceptable behaviour...something I must say I have grown far too familiar with seeing from the Israeli state in the past decade or so.

jc

ykt0di9url7bc3

Called Snow White And The Madness Of Truth, the installation features a photo of Hanadi Jaradat, a 29-year-old trainee lawyer who blew up herself and 19 Israelis in a Haifa restaurant in October.

The work is accompanied by a piece of Bach music entitled My Heart Is Swimming In Blood.
.

Having seen the photos of the piece it seems a very interesting composition...in fact how anti-semitisim comes into the picture is not very clear to me...

The twat (my opin) who attacked the piece really wasnt thinking...there has been major controversy (sp?) in art but this composition I dont think is set to offend anybody..(maybe the victims family can find offense...)...

To me the piece brings feelings of sorrow and remorse yet doesnt glorify the violence of the situation....and I feel the attack is one of small minded, uncomprimising and violent thuggary (if there is such a word) agaisnt a persons artistic expression of issues of a close and personal nature

Sparks

It's rather immaterial what his personal feelings were - he's an ambassador and therefore his job description includes not loosing his rag like this. He ought to be recalled before he's declared PNG...

BuffyBot

You would expect more from someone who is supposed to be a "diplomat" :rolleyes:

flogen

just saw a pic of the art piece now.

my take on it is that this young and happy girl has been swept up in the tide of blood that the israeli/palestine conflict has become. It in no way applaudes her actions or idolises here....(but Im no art-buff...)

And even if it was a shrine for her he was way out line to react as he did. He made a show of his job and what it represents (the state of Israel), and if anything his actions would only be used as anti-semite groups as propaganda ('this foreign jew comes into our country and trys to destroy our art and culture, and silence our freedom of speech etc etc).

The fact that Sharon congratulated his actions just makes the Israeli Officials look like a bunch of amateur diplomats and insensitive morons.

If he had a problem he could have done many other things to deal with it

Flogen

<edit> this report says that Israel are threatening to pull out of a Preventing Genocide conference in Sweden if they dont get their wish... that would be convenient for them to aviod that and any dodgy questions they might be asked
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/66879/1/.html</edit>

rob1891

Having seen the photos of the piece it seems a very interesting composition...in fact how anti-semitisim comes into the picture is not very clear to me...

I don't see it either, especially given that one of the artists (Dror Feiler) is an Israeli-born Jew! However I would not be surprised if some Israelis weren't terribly impressed with this ex-pat. It seems he was a conscientious objector in the 70ies and heads(/ed) up a group called Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace.

I'm wondering how much of this Ambassadors protest was against the artist and how much against the art.

Rob

rob1891

<edit> this report says that Israel are threatening to pull out of a Preventing Genocide conference in Sweden if they dont get their wish... that would be convenient for them to aviod that and any dodgy questions they might be asked
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor...w/66879/1/.html</edit>

now that is awfully cunning diplomacy!!

dahamsta

Although the use of violence was typical of a representative of the Israeli administration and typically inexcusable, I found it difficult to make a judgement on the work itself when not one piece written on the subject had a comment by the artist. Obviously it's up to the artist to decide whether to interpret the work or not, but even that assertion would make it easier to decide whether they were genuine or, to be blunt, sh*tstirring.

adam

Victor

Maybe, it's me (me being contrary and all), but I see the piece as a condemnation of violence - the vast sea of "blood" (is the condemnation of violence what they are complaining about? :rolleyes:).

---

Meanwhile in London, this guy is getting a pasting from British Jews / Israelis.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-949878,00.html

Plum post turns sour for Israel’s diplomatic jobseekers
By Danielle Haas and Richard Beeston
Filling the role of London ambassador is proving harder than expected

LONDON is one of the most prestigious postings for an Israeli Ambassador. The job comes with a large residence in North London, a generous entertainment allowance and grand offices opposite Kensington Palace.

Yet for a year finding a London envoy has proved as elusive as the search for peace in the Middle East.

The latest candidate to have his bid thrown into doubt is Zvi Hefetz, a Russian-born tycoon who is accused of submitting a misleading CV about his diplomatic experience.

The Israeli Cabinet, which ordinarily endorses political nominations automatically, was due to vote on Mr Hefetz’s appointment tomorrow. But the Civil Service Commission, which had already endorsed him, said that the appointment was now frozen pending a joint investigation with the Justice Ministry into allegations that Mr Hefetz falsified details of diplomatic work in the former Soviet Union.

“We have to check the details about his activities in Russia. We don’t know yet how long that will take,” a spokesman for the commission said.

According to the Haaretz newspaper, Mr Hefetz told the commission he served as a diplomat in Moscow in 1989 as part the immigration liaison bureau affiliated with the Israeli Government. It also said that Mr Hefetz claimed in his resumé to have had “close relations” with the Moscow Government when he set up educational and cultural centres across the Soviet Union.

But Yaacov Kedmi, the former head of the liaison bureau, insisted that Mr Hefetz had served in the Soviet Union only as a temporary emissary for about a month when he processed visas for emigrants to Israel, and that the centres were established only after he left the region.

To add to Mr Hefetz’s woes, the Jewish Chronicle reported this week that his spoken English was “limited” and that he had volunteered to take a language course to bring it up to scratch.

Mr Hefetz, 48, was nominated by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which is able to make 11 political appointments abroad, usually to the top missions. He is a lawyer and represents Vladimir Gusinsky, the fugitive Russian media baron, in Israel. He is an owner of a Tel Aviv basketball club as well as deputy chairman of the board of Maariv newspaper. He is also a close friend of Omri Sharon, son of Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister.

More http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/761_why_zvi_.htm "THE NEW AMBASSADOR TO BRITAIN CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH !!!!"

Sand

He shouldnt have tampered with the art piece - it is an enroachment on others right to free exspression. Mind you, as much has been justified under civil disobedience and the need to silence unacceptable viewpoints so given his strong beliefs its exscusable under that logic - not that I agree with that logic myself. Hes said he removed the power cables as a sign of protest, and had planned to do so in advance.

As I understand it all 3 art pieces from Israel reflected on the conflict there from the palestinian point of view - why didnt he tackle those unless they were slightly lower key? Apparently a pro-Israel piece of art was banned from the museum after a protest from Syria so the museum getting upset about free exspression rings a little hollow to me. As does the shock and horror over a government or its representitives trying to sabatoge displays of art.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/102202_comment.php

dahamsta

Israel to boycott genocide meet unless Sweden disowns art work: FM (Channel News Asia)

Israel to boycott genocide meet unless Sweden disowns art work: FM

JERUSALEM : Israel will boycott next week's international genocide conference in Stockholm unless Sweden disowns an exhibit at a related art show that includes a photograph of a Palestinian suicide bomber, Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom said.

Israeli participation will depend on the Swedish government's willingness to "disassociate itself from the exhibit," Shalom told a Jerusalem news conference.

"Then and only then will I consider positively what needs to be done," he said.

"We are talking to the Swedish authorities in order to find a solution. And I would like to believe that we will find a solution in the near future in order to participate in this conference."

[...]

sceptre

I suppose Sharon hasn't done any of us the favour of explaining exactly why the piece is anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish state/anti-Israel/whichever?

flogen

un-believable aint it

if they took that conference anyway seriously they wouldnt do something as childish as that (and as i said, i dont even see any anti-sematism in the piece).

The Isreali gov. are adapt at passing the buck, for a start its not The Swedish Gov. decision what art is and isnt shown, nor is it their job to praise or condemn art. And they seem to be ignoring the fact that their Ambassador acted completely out of his job description and was no better than a pety and idiotic thug

Flogen

<edit> good point, sceptre, while the artist may not be saying much to defend it other than 'its not anti-semetic, Sharon and Co. are keeping shtum about why it offends them</edit>

sceptre

Originally posted by flogen
<edit> good point, sceptre, while the artist may not be saying much to defend it other than 'its not anti-semetic, Sharon and Co. are keeping shtum about why it offends them</edit>

I'm actually posing the question as is as well though. I can't see it. I can see a number of possibilities (keeping in mind that I've seen the same pictures as everyone else) of what the piece could represent: the blood spilt as a result of the suicide bomber's actions (including her own) and as a result of similar bombers, the idea that the violence is self-perpetuating as it carries more people along in its wake (perhaps hence the boat and picture), the possibility of lack of control where the boat is floating around without direction and I'd love to know if the artist intended the boat and picture to eventually sink into the red water (which would put yet another slant on it). Obviously there are other things the piece could represent but I can't see the implied anti-Semitism at all.

But I'd love to hear why Sharon thinks it is. Short of the ambassador knowing shag all about art (not that I know anything - really, I'm not just being modest[1]) and assuming that any picture of a suicide bomber is an attempt to glorify their actions, I can't think of what the guy could have been thinking.

Can /anyone/ tell me why the piece could be anti-Semitic? I won't argue with anyone's views if they put one forward as to why this could be the case (short of a suggested "picture == glorification") - as long as it doesn't kill the thread, I'd love to hear from someone who thinks it is.

[1]I do have a brother who should know something about art, he being an art student. Might ask him next time I'm home. He'd probably say that the artists' objective has been achieved if anyone takes the time out to discuss what they were thinking at all though. Damn art students. Never give you a straight answer.

dahamsta

Well, I'm no expert either but I imagine Sharon and his cronies probably think that it represents, rather simplistically, a suicide bomber floating freely on the blood of Israelis, i.e. she's been accepted to heaven - or whatever the equivalent - for her deed.

In all honesty that's the first thing that popped into my head, but only because I was trying to see it from their perspective. I expect that it represents a hell of a lot more than that. Whether it does or not, the undiplomatic diplomat's behaviour is inexcusable.

adam

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=770

If Israel were to follow the European example, its ministers, senior officials and high court judges would tomorrow morning hand in the Swedish Volvo automobiles which are standard Israeli VIP issue and trade them for cars made in other countries. There is nothing, moreover, to stop the heads of the Jewish Agency advising Jews around the world to boycott Volvo, SKF and Ikea, in the same way that many American consumers spontaneously blacked French wines and cheese in response for French hostility to the Iraq War.

European democracies like Sweden might then have the necessary incentive to finally decide how far freedom of expression or art may be indulged when blood libels against Jewish citizens are published freely on European Web sites and exhibited publicly in their national museums. Who will draw the line on freedoms used to license incitement to mass murder?

IMHO way to much of an "eye-for-an-eye" mentality all round.

But the original law of an eye for an eye was not to instigate revenge . The law of equivalency was an attempt to limit the extent of a punishment and to discourage cruelty. The principle of this legislation is one of equivalency, the punishment should correspond to the crime and should be limited to the one involved in the injury (Deut. 19:18-21).
Escalation on both sides leads to situatitions where dialogue is very difficult especially when either site will take offense at the smallest imagined slight. With that mind set ....

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
Can /anyone/ tell me why the piece could be anti-Semitic?

I think perhaps because it mirrors this picture (from the indymedia link). However as a media savvy government, the Israelis are coming across as the oft thought bunch of nut jobs http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/xing_a_river_of_blood.jpg but without knowing about that banner, I would see the gallery piece as a condemnation of violence, not a glorification of it.

Here's a photo from a Hamas rally in Gaza...
by MyJoy18 - Here's a photo from a Hamas rally i • Sunday January 18, 2004 at 05:29 AM
myjoy36NO@SPAMyahoo.ca http://www.geocities.com/myjoy18/joe1.htm

xing_a_river_of_blood.jpg, JPG image, 272x400

...earlier this year. Look at the banner. It shows a line of white robed homicide bombers, their bomb belts clearly showing, crossing over a river of blood supported by the "hand of G!d"

groups.yahoo.com/group/inm12/

rob1891

I saw that photo on indymedia too, my thoughts after were that the the two pieces are completely oppose one another. This woman hadn't crossed into heaven, hadn't had the hand of god supporting her, the flock that followed have disappeared but had been abandoned to float in this river or sea of blood.

Everything is open to interpretation, unfortunately the two artists haven't made it so clear what they want you to conclude, and obviously some people have ended up seeing it as a glorification. I know that this modern art jazz isn't ment to be clear, but I'd imagine conclusions are not ment to end up such extreem opposites. From the short quotes on bbc and the guy's background, I imagine they had not intended that it would be considered a glorification. So that is a failing on their part, but if that was put to them, perhaps they would say they weren't aware that people so ignorant as this Ambassador existed and they weren't about to apologise for other peoples' failings!!!

Zappa

Thing is, this fenomenon appeared in greece some weeks ago.During Guy de Bernierre´s exhibition in Athens, a far right leader destroyed one of his works, that showed a penis ejaculating on the cross