Pool of Blood in Sweden
Mike Thompson
Mike
http://www.mikethompsonpaintings.com
Jerusalem Post Jan. 22, 2004
When life imitates art
By TALYA HALKIN
A week after Zvi Mazel, Israel's ambassador to Sweden, damaged Dror
Feiler and Gunilla Skold Feiler's installation at the Museum of
National Antiquities in Stockholm, both the artwork and the
ambassador's reaction to it stand at the center of an international
debate.
The installation, "Snow White and the Madness of Truth," features a
small ship carrying a picture of suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat sailing
in a pool of blood-colored water. When asked to respond to the
installation and to the diplomatic incident it sparked, a wide range
of Israeli artists expressed almost unanimous distaste for the artwork
itself, but remained sharply divided regarding the ambassador's
action, and the support it received from the Israeli government.
"I think there is something obscenely sensationalist about Feiler's
work," said artist Gal Weinstein. "I think it's a bad art work which
idealizes killing and estheticizes death and politics on the lowest
possible level, while ignoring the complexity of the conflict it
addresses.
"Nevertheless," Weinstein added, "I am also astonished by the way the
government has supported the ambassador's uncalculated, impulsive
act."
"The issue is not whether this is or isn't a good artwork," said
curator Tami Katz-Freiman. "The issue is that there are legitimate
ways to express opposition to a work of art, and vandalism is not one
of them. If this is what an Israeli ambassador does abroad, who is to
prevent people from coming to the Tel Aviv Museum and vandalizing
works they find politically disturbing?"
"I think the Feiler installation is a mediocre work that is getting
more attention than it deserves," concurred artist David Wakstein.
Wakstein's own recent retrospective at the Tel Aviv Museum came under
fire because of his provocative use of anti-Semitic imagery. Following
public pressure, the museum removed nine of the works.
"Still," Wakstein continued, "I don't see how an ambassador can decide
what is right or wrong for the public to view. One can argue about how
an artwork manipulates different symbols, but attacking it physically
is a sign of great distress - as if the world would come to an end if
it weren't dismantled. Taking legal action against the installation
would have been one thing, but the ambassador's course of action can
only lead to further accusations of Israeli aggression. At the same
time, I think the whole incident points to Feiler's failure. He should
go home and think about how he could do a better job as an artist, so
that people could have a dialogue with his work rather than feel
compelled to destroy it.
"I think the whole thing is ridiculous," Wakstein concluded. "We
should be worried about the blood flowing in our streets, rather than
ignoring it and worrying instead about its representation in art."
"Feiler's work is provocative in a primitive, unchallenging way," said
Merav Sudaey, who herself dealt with imagery of suicide bombings and
suicide bombers in her work. In her next-to-last exhibition, Sudaey
embroidered the image of a suicide bomber taken from a Palestinian
poster.
"I wanted to comment on how this kind of Palestinian imagery
legitimizes and normalizes the bomber's actions," she explained. "My
understanding is that Feiler did not take the position the ambassador
read into his work. Artists are much more used to these kinds of
pseudo-political provocations, and don't take them so seriously."
OTHER ARTISTS felt differently about the ambassador's actions.
"I think everyone needs to support the ambassador," said art critic
Tzipora Luria. "Would the Israeli and international art world
similarly devote itself to defending artistic freedom if the message
of the artwork in question was at the other political extreme? Would
the Israeli art world react the same way if the artwork in question
transformed Yigal Amir into a cultural hero? I think not.
"The art community in Israel needs to ask itself whether it is
intellectually and morally honest. If its reactions are
one-dimensional, and only apply to one end of the political map, we
have a serious problem."
Curator Gideon Ofrat argued that "an artwork is open to
interpretation," and Feiler's work "could be interpreted as a protest
against bloodshed."
Asked whether he would react similarly if the artwork in question
could be interpreted to empathize with Yigal Amir's assassination of
Yitzhak Rabin, Ofrat responded that "I would obviously not dedicate an
exhibition to the art of the extreme Right because that is not my
political position, but I would feel it was my duty to go and see it."
Yigal Tzalmona, a senior curator at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem,
declined to comment. Ellen Ginton, curator of Israeli art at the Tel
Aviv museum, responded to the question of how she would react to a
work that could be read as supporting Yigal Amir by stating that
"historically, artists are critical of the government and of the
political Right.
"I don't like your question," Ginton added. "It's difficult to me to
answer - you are talking about a fictional scenario which I can't
relate to."
"I think Feiler's artwork was simplistic and one-dimensional," said
artist Nehama Golan. "The idea that an art work is sacred doesn't
apply across the board. I see no reason to elevate art to a high
theoretical ground that the 'ignorant masses' cannot understand."
Avner Bar-Hama, an artist who directs the art program and the art
gallery at Talpiot College in Tel Aviv, agreed with Golan.
"I don't think art exists in a world with its own laws," he said. "Yet
it's difficult for me to draw the red line."
Artist Binyamin Reich similarly argued that "art is not protected by a
sacred taboo. Of course you can create an artwork about a suicide
bomber, but Feiler's work was washed with hypocrisy and did a
disservice to art. I think the ambassador's action, which was very
human, redeemed art from this disservice."
Paul Mesken
>here are sme views on the matter from Israeli artists
>Mike
>http://www.mikethompsonpaintings.com
Interesting, the installation seems to provoke a lot of discussion
and, although it might not be the type of discussion the artist
wanted, I believe it can be called a success because of that.
However, it's now a bit of hybrid art, the installation itself
combined with the "performance art" of the Israeli ambassador :-)
Flobby Bischer
destroying this work of art.
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:2p48109gul9i12f25...@4ax.com...
Chris
Sweden is not the garden of international brotherhood it often pretends to
be, I for one am happy there are political people, like the Israeli
ambassador, who have the political courage to point this out to them.
Chris
Dilettante
from the pictures on CNN, the installation was powerful and beautiful
thus very good regardless regardless of whatever side the artist was
on. I choose not to take sides.
D.
Dilettante
Considering your interest in pedophilia, this is an odd statement. But
in fact Sweden does not make the pretension you ascribed to it; that
is an impression people in other parts of the world formulate from far
off.
D.
Kheepur Panzon
says...
>I choose not to take sides.
>
>D.
ROFLMAO...that's another 'keeper' from you!
Flobby Bischer
is exactly what dictatorships have historically done to erase alternative
opinions.
Take a side or not, but recognize the danger inherent in this approach.
Ya might note too that the tower of Babel had archelogocial ruins located
outside of Baghdad. I wonder if that even exists now.
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.04012...@posting.google.com...
Paul Mesken
<blube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Destroying art or history or culture because you disagree with it's message
>is exactly what dictatorships have historically done to erase alternative
>opinions.
>Take a side or not, but recognize the danger inherent in this approach.
Yes, the freedom of expression is under fire here. I could understand
that some random Israeli citizen does this but a democratic government
should be wiser than that and not give the impression they support
this kind of censorship.
arachedeux
Well it's not like they sent the army in. I don't think art exists in a
vacuum, a controversial piece is seeking a controversial reaction and this
one certainly managed that. For me the most interesting point is how this
piece got a reaction that mirrors Israel's reaction to a suicide bomber. I
don't think that makes it great art though, that would have to be able to
portray something about the situation that might touch the hearts of any who
saw it, rather than just offending a target group or two.
cheers,
Paul Mesken
<arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:9bha10ttg7f6q34l8...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:22:21 -0500, "Flobby Bischer"
>> <blube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Destroying art or history or culture because you disagree with it's
>message
>> >is exactly what dictatorships have historically done to erase alternative
>> >opinions.
>> >Take a side or not, but recognize the danger inherent in this approach.
>>
>> Yes, the freedom of expression is under fire here. I could understand
>> that some random Israeli citizen does this but a democratic government
>> should be wiser than that and not give the impression they support
>> this kind of censorship.
>
>Well it's not like they sent the army in.
Who knows? Perhaps that's the next step ;-)
> I don't think art exists in a
>vacuum, a controversial piece is seeking a controversial reaction and this
>one certainly managed that. For me the most interesting point is how this
>piece got a reaction that mirrors Israel's reaction to a suicide bomber. I
>don't think that makes it great art though, that would have to be able to
>portray something about the situation that might touch the hearts of any who
>saw it, rather than just offending a target group or two.
Yes, I don't think the installation itself invited me to reflect on
how regular people can turn into suicide bombers due to circumstances
(I could think of more effective ways). It seems the installation was
mostly made for shock value which is always a successfull way to draw
attention.. OTOH The reaction of the ambassador (and subsequently that
of the Israeli government) made it interesting but for different
reasons than intended by the artist. Indeed, as you say, the reaction
mirrored that of the reaction on suicide bombers namely vandalism (the
bulldozer thing).
Anyway, I don't think it was wise or diplomatic of the ambassador nor
the Israeli government to react in this way. Instead of seeking
dialogue they simply responded with vandalism. This doesn't do their
cause any good (although they are of a very different opinion).
Mani Deli
bad is vandalism.
At worst it is the act of religious zealots.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>At worst it is the act of religious zealots.
Ah, those are the people who blame God for their own faults :-)
keith o'connor
work - possibly add someone shoving money into sharons back pocket.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Flobby Bischer" <blube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T3VQb.645$mf4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Dilettante
> ROFLMAO...that's another 'keeper' from you!
Ok then, put your mouth where your ROFLMAO is. What side do you want to take?
D.
Miriam
racial -motivated murders committed in Norway, in, lets say, modern
time. Nazi groups are resposible for 2/3.
Just a few years ago a young black boy was attacked by a couple of
young nazis. A very bad and sad event. These nazis spotted him in a
street and harmed him so much that he died.
Then many years ago a nazi group executed a former member, as a result
of infighting or something - don't recall much about it, but they
killed a young man who had some sort of connections to them.
The last one took place in 1972 on Lillehammer. Mossad sent in several
agents in a secret operation and shot down a man, more or less outside
his home, I believe, who they had identified as a important
palestinian terrorist leader. The man they killed turned out to a
maroccian man, married to a norwegian woman, father of a young boy,
with no connection whatsoever to terrorism.
By all means, I fully recognize Israel's right to excist as a county,
but there are many stories to be told in the middle east. The man
making this artwork is jewish himself. He probably has family and
friends living in Israel and is afraid of suicide bombers - I can't
imagine that this artwork is about defending the killings.
Rhoda Rhunner
>What side do you want to take?
>
>D.
The outside - where I might just find
a breath of fresh air...
arachedeux
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:55:44 -0000, "arachedeux"
> <arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> >news:9bha10ttg7f6q34l8...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:22:21 -0500, "Flobby Bischer"
> >> <blube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Destroying art or history or culture because you disagree with it's
> >message
> >> >is exactly what dictatorships have historically done to erase
alternative
> >> >opinions.
> >> >Take a side or not, but recognize the danger inherent in this
approach.
> >>
> >> Yes, the freedom of expression is under fire here. I could understand
> >> that some random Israeli citizen does this but a democratic government
> >> should be wiser than that and not give the impression they support
> >> this kind of censorship.
> >
> >Well it's not like they sent the army in.
>
> Who knows? Perhaps that's the next step ;-)
That's a performance piece that's eerily attractive given how dangerous
viewing it would be.
SNiP
> Anyway, I don't think it was wise or diplomatic of the ambassador nor
> the Israeli government to react in this way. Instead of seeking
> dialogue they simply responded with vandalism. This doesn't do their
> cause any good (although they are of a very different opinion).
Agreed although I adore the sentiment behind the ambassador's actions. The
true beneficiaries are the artists behind it, who are probably adding zeros
to the end of their prices as we post.
cheers,
arachedeux
news:a54b10l4elraifj64...@4ax.com...
> Destroying anything that presents itself as artwork, whether good or
> bad is vandalism.
>
> At worst it is the act of religious zealots.
Not an emotionally driven communicational interface between artist and
viewer then? ;-}
cheers,
Chris
> bad is vandalism.
>
In the sense that vandalism is the intentional destruction of another's
property, it's often a good thing. Remember it derives from those folks who,
along with lots of others, sacked Rome - an appallingly corrupt and decadent
state towards the end - and opened the way for the rebirth of Western
society (along with bringing such innovations as spurs and trousers...)
> At worst it is the act of religious zealots.
And more likely the act of people who are well acquainted with their
history, and who understand what happens when people who should know better
do nothing.
Chris
Dilettante
> The outside - where I might just find
> a breath of fresh air...
Don't let me keep you, especially when you butt in on others' conversations.
D.