Israel, Snow white and the role of art

[C Elegans]

The UN Genocide conference is currently held in Stockholm. Parallell to this, there is an art exhibition at a museum, called "Making differences". Exhibited at the museum is, among many other works connected to violence and death, photos of the most famous Swedish serial killler, arty photos of the body of a murdered woman, documentary photos from different wars and genocides around the world, an American talkshow from the 80's where murders and killing are presented as entertainment, a video installation depicting everyday life in Tel Aviv and people living in fear of attacks, heroic images from the 6 days war and - an installation called "Snow white and the madness of truth", where a photo of the suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat is floating in a pond of blood red water to the tones of Bach's funeral cantata. You can see the installation here:
http://www.dn.se/content/1/c6/22/40/53/snovit463.jpg
http://www.dn.se/content/1/c6/22/46/26/inst463.jpg

In the installation, there is also a poem, here translated to English (by me, since no official English translation is available):

Once upon a time in mid winter
For the sake of her brother's and cousins death the 12 of July
and three blood drops fell
She was also a woman
white as snow, red as blood, and her hair was black like ebenholtz
appearingly innocent, without suspicious aim, and universal non violent character
and the red was beautiful against the white
The murderer will pay for this and we will not be the only ones who are crying
like a bad seed in her heart until she had no peace,
nor day, nor night
Hanadi Jaradat was a 29 year old laywer
I will run far away in the wild forest and never come home again
Before the engagement took place, he was killed i a
clash with Israeli security forces
and she ran over sharp rocks and through thorns
She said: Your blood shall not have floated in vain
and was penetrating Snow whites innocent heart
She was taken into hospital, broken down by sorrow, after having witnessed the shooting
the wild beasts will soon have engulfed you
After his death she became the family supporter and she devouted herself fully to the task
"Yes", said Snow white, "with all my heart"
crying bitterly, she added: "If our people cannot realise their dreams and goals, then let the whole world be erased
so run, poor child, run
She secretly entered Israel, rushed into a restaurant in Haifa, shot down a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians
white as snow, red as blood, and her hair was black like ebenholtz
And surely many people cry now: Zer Aviv's family, Almogs family, and all the friends and relatives to the dead and injured
and the red was beautiful against the while

(Ok, I'm no poet but the Swedish original is really not better - it is a lousy poem, but that's not the point here)

So now, what's up with this piece of artwork?

[C Elegans]

Unlikely as it may seem and as I personally percieve the issue, this art installation has led to a diplomatic crisis between Sweden and Israel. At the opening night of the art exhibition, Israel's ambassador in Sweden, Zvi Mazel, destroyed the installation.

Mazel said in an interview that he had planned to destroy the installantion since he first read about it in the newspaper. Mazel said the installation was "monstrous", that is was "aimed towards the Jewish people" and that it "justifies the murders" and "encourage genocide". Mazel says his vandalisation of the installation was an attempt to draw public attention to this hideous work, which in his opinion is not art but a political provocation.

Israels prime minister Ariel Sharon and president Moshe Katsav has expressed their support for Mazels acting. Sharon says he personally called Mazel and thanked him for standing up against the growing antisemitism, and that the whole goverment support his destruction of an exhibition that glorifies a suicide bomber. Katsav demanded that the Swedish museum should remove the installation, and threatned to withdraw Israel's participation in the Genocide confrence.

The Swedish goverment however refused to remove the installation. "Like in all democracies, we have artistic freedom in Sweden", says the goverment spokesman who also says this should not be viewed as an issue on a political level, but as a single occation where an ambassador behaved unacceptable.
Swedish prime minister Göran Persson stated that Mazel's behaviour was unacceptable, and that a piece of art should not be destroyed because someone dislikes it.

So the installation was immediately restored.

[C Elegans]

Israeli-born musician Dror Feiler and his Swedish wife Gunilla Sköld Feiler, the artists who made "Snow White", are deeply upset about the Israeli goverment's accusations of antisemitism. They say they "condemn suicide bombings" and point out that the picture of Hanadi Jaradat is "not floating on a bed of flowers, but on blood, the blood of her victims".

Feiler left Israel 30 years ago, when he was a soldier and refused to serve in the occupied Gaza strip under commander Ariel Sharon. Ever since, Feiler has been active as a peace activist and proclamimed a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict. After the refugee camp massacres in Libanon in 1982 (led by guess who? Ariel Sharon), Feiler formed a group called "Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace", and this group has been publicly critical towards Sharon's hardline politics in media.

In the meanwhile, ambassodor Mazel has increased his critisism against the Swedish goverment. He claims there is an implicit tolerance towards critisism against Israel and Jews, but not against Arabs. "People are afraid of the Arabs, but against Jews anything goes", Mazel says to Sweden's largerst newspaper. "Jews are harassed by Muslims everywhere here, in the street, in school, in the underground" (ie metro, subway for you Americans I think?) He further accuses Swedish media and the goverment for being anti-Israel, and says the largest political party is pro-Arab.
"Everybody knows this is a monument of terror and not art", Mazel concludes, "and everybody knows there is a limit for the freedom of art. If we Jews say this hurts us, why cannot the goverment remove it? Nothing would happen."

"Mazel acts on the behalf of an nationalistic extremist Israeli goverment", says some. A goverment that does not work for lasting and fair peace with the Palestines, but instead wants to dominate them politically and military.

"Maybe you don't need to behave in a decent way when presented with a peace of so-called art that is indecent", says others.

In Sweden it is illegal, even at an art exhibition, to distribute rasicst propaganda.

And now, finally my question to you all:

What do you think about this whole weird event? Where should the limits for artistic freedom be drawn? We have had the same debate here regarding artistic depictions of violence, naked children, dead stuffed animals, and what have you.

Does the freedom and integrity of the artist always override the reaction from the public? From the majority? For some people? What role does art play in society as a political comment? Should art and politics be mixed at all? And what happens if art loose its integrity?

[Scayde]

Quote:

"aimed towards the Jewish people" and that it "justifies the murders" and "encourage genocide".

That was my impression too

[Morlock]

I don't know how it really was intended, as I've heard Feiler's arguments that it was to condemn suicide bombings, but it seems to me, who knows nothing about art, that Feiler, who has been known to criticize Israel, probably meant it the other way around.
I think if it was meant as a glorification of Jaradat than Maza'el was right and totaly justified. I am not against the arts or against free speech, but any way you look at it- it is disgusting and wrong to glorify someone who killed 19 totaly innocent people, including 5 arabs. In August, while in Haifa I went to that resteraunt, just like I was in two cafes in Jerusalem within a week before they blew up, one of them killing my second cousin and her father. No artist has the right to glorify someone who does this.
And art should certainly be used as a political comment- but someone should realise that this has nothing to do with politics, but with 18 families who have to remember and watch as the person who killed their father/ mother/ husband/ wife/ child/ brother/ sister is getting a tribute. I say 18, because one family was totaly killed off in the bombing.

In Europe and America this may be politics, but here it's human lives, on both sides.

[Morlock]

And people say that art should be free, but I say that when racism becomes a condonable offence, I do think it becomes more important to try and maintain humanity over artistic freedom, which is often the final word in many art related arguments.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Scayde That was my impression too

That's interesting, it was not my impression and I don't understand what in the installation the Israeli ambassador interpreted in that manner. Art is of course open to several interpretations, officially there is no fix "program" that says how "Snow White" should be interpreted. The artistic leader of the exhibiton commented Mazel's interpretation as "one possible interpretation of many".

Personally, I would think that the line "blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians" definitely indicates this is not a glorification or justification of her act, but rather a (bad, but still)description of the events that led her to committ this act. I get the feeling that Mazel confuses explanation with justification, here.

However, interpretations may differ, but do you think the installation should have been removed under the Swedish "distribution of rasicsm propaganda" regulations or not?

[Xandax]

Been following this debate somewhat on the news, well as much as is possible in the danish news.

I must say that I can understand the reasons for the israelic diplomat, but that doens't mean I condone his actions.

He should have been more ... dimplomatic so to speak .

However - I do find the "art" (don't really want to call it art) rather unsympatectic, no matter who made it and why, and I find it bad taste to display it at such an event.
Would be like displaying dead cows or something at a vegitarian convent (and dead cows can be called art to )

A danish reporter posed an interesting dilemma, when this case was on its high point shortly after the incident.
How would the swedish goverment and public have reacted to this, if it had been a picture of Mijailo Mijailovic(the guy who killed Anna Lindh) Would it still have been called art and displayed in the same manner, if it has been his picuter floating on a sea of "blood". ?

As for the art debate, that is a difficult subject. I am a firm beliver in freedom of speech, but I also as a human being recognizes that there are times when one should be respectfull of what happens around him, and thus moderate ones speech.
One can still speak out (be it via "art", medias or speech) against what is happening that they don't agree with and what could/should change. But one can do it in a manner that is respectfull of others oppinions also.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Morlock I don't know how it really was intended, as I've heard Feiler's arguments that it was to condemn suicide bombings, but it seems to me, who knows nothing about art, that Feiler, who has been known to criticize Israel, probably meant it the other way around.

Ah, Morlock, I was hoping that you'd reply to this thread As I have said previously, I really appreciate your input and have the utmost respect for your ability to reason in a nuanced way although you live in the middle of this conflict, and is personally bereft by the violence it generates.

I don't know how "Snow white" was intended either, I know about Feiler of course since he's a fairly well known artist in Sweden and my general impression of his views (based on interviews and previous works) is that he is very critical towards the current regime in Israel but certainly does not support suicide bombings. However, nobody can be totally sure what he meant with this particular installation - he participated in a seminar yesterday and described the analogy to Snow White etc.

In any case, without knowing the intent of the artist, I personally think the work itself is far too ambigious to be removed or allowed to be destroyed. I do think it's a crappy piece of art, and that other works at he exhibitons deserve 1000 times more attention both for artistic merit and content, but no - I do not think it is racist. However, if I found the work racist (or homophobic, or child pornographic, or something else I find morally unacceptable) I would agree with Morlock that the material should not be allowed under the "freedom of art" parole. IMO, art has an important role in politics and soceity in general, it can and should sometimes be disturbing, even provocative - but not in a discriminating manner.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that my opinion of course includes other works of the same type as "Snow White" - at the same exhibition, there are portait photos of Thomas Quick, Sweden's most famous serial killer who serve sentence for several extremly brutal, torturous sexmurders of children and teenagers. One photo for instance, is of Quick in his cell, and you can see he has 3 pictures of dead bodies in the background. I don't think these should be removed either even if let's say the parents of the victims demanded so - since the photos are neither glorifying nor violate the integrity of any of his victims.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Xandax However - I do find the "art" (don't really want to call it art) rather unsympatectic, no matter who made it and why, and I find it bad taste to display it at such an event. Would be like displaying dead cows or something at a vegitarian convent (and dead cows can be called art to ) A danish reporter posed an interesting dilemma, when this case was on its high point shortly after the incident. How would the swedish goverment and public have reacted to this, if it had been a picture of Mijailo Mijailovic(the guy who killed Anna Lindh) Would it still have been called art and displayed in the same manner, if it has been his picuter floating on a sea of "blood". ?

I think it's art, just bad art, but that my PO of the quality of the work, not the content. Funny you should mention dead cows, since it was a similar event and following debate just about a week ago regarding an art exhibition with dead stuffed animals...it was not at the opening of a vegetarian convent, but the exhibitons was vandalised and a visitor attacked by masked animal rights activists.

Last summer, there was an international debate in Europe regarding the installations with dead human bodies...

Regarding the questions posed by the Danish journalist, to me it would be the same. Perhaps not to everybody, people tend to get more biased with close proximity or far distance, but our Foreign minister's killer, a suicide bomber, Ariel Sharon, Albert Einstein - wouldn't matter to me who was on the photo in the "blood" pond, I would view it as a work of art with no fix interpretation...art is for thinking and asking questions, not for providing answers...

[fable]

FWIW, I think the Swedish government is making two very bad mistakes. The first is treating this matter as a cultural/social one. It would be much easier to resolve if they would simply deal with it as a crime of vandalism. I don't know how vandalism is treated by the courts in Sweden, but I suspect it's a felony that involves arresting the presumed guilty party and setting and setting a date for a hearing before a magistrate. Instead of which, the government is allowing Malek to set the agenda and determine what he's done, with a court comprising international public opinion.

However they intend to treat Malek, IMO they should get it done with, and quickly: either exonerate his actions, or kick him out of the country. In diplomatic theory, an ambassador is considered a guest in one's international house. If the guest or any of his/her entourage act uncivilly, they are usually shown the door, and both rapidly and quietly, so as not to interfere with the other guests and the estate. The second mistake of the Swedish government is that they're letting this drag on. By doing so, they are permitting the issue to escalate.

[Xandax]

Well - I'd suspect that the ambasador has dimplomatic immunity. All sweden can do, without Israel revoking the immunity, is to expel the dimplomat.
So they can't charge and try him as a "common" criminal.

[fable]

Then the matter would seem to be clear: the Swedish government can demand the ambassador's withdrawal, and if the Israelis refuse this, expel him. Vandalism, destruction of private property, etc, furnish enough reason to permit such an action. Keeping the matter up in the air is the worst choice any government can make.

[smass]

And banishing him would make the problem go away....how?

I agree that it is the right thing to do - but I suspect the Swedish government has considered this option and the diplomatic ramifications.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by smass And banishing him would make the problem go away....how?

The usual procedure is for a letter to be sent by diplomatic courier to his government, requesting courteously that it accept his return for "reasons of activities that are not considered appropriate within the diplomatic sphere." If that doesn't work, an erring diplomat is ultimately expelled after his credentials are withdrawn. But the face-saving measure is always tried, first. Governments only make bellicose comments in public usually for consumption by the folks back home.

As to making "the problem" go away, first you have to define it. If the problem includes in part the presence of the ambassador loudly proclaiming that he and his government are the ones who have been insulted, then removing his presence will lessen the problem by lowering his visibility among those he's attacking. If it's also a matter of the Swedish government being perceived as doing nothing, then once again, removing the ambassador will at the very least show energy.

If on the other hand, you feel the problem is only Swedish insensitivity to Israel, then obviously, expelling the Israeli ambassador will do nothing to make it go away.

My own opinion is that Malek's responsible for obeying the laws of any nation he's in, and that includes Sweden's. He stepped outside those laws, and now he's repeatedly verbally attacking the host nation in which he is a guest. While the Israeli-Sweden diplomatic contretemps will take a long while to fix in back channels, expelling the ambassador will at least deal with the immediate uproar and take the issue out of public visibility.