"Following the July transit bombings in London" -- i.e., terrorism works. "Tate pulls artwork to avoid offending Muslims," from AP, with thanks to Twostellas:
London — The Tate Britain museum has removed a work made up of sacred texts from Christianity, Judaism and Islam torn and mounted on glass to avoid offending religious sensibilities following the July transit bombings in London, the museum said Sunday.The museum said it was particularly concerned that John Latham's piece “God Is Great” could upset Muslims. It pulled the work from an exhibition of Latham's art despite his objection.
“Having sought wide-ranging advice, Tate feels that to exhibit the work in London in the current sensitive climate, post July 7, would not be appropriate,” the museum said in a statement.
Three of the four men suspected of carrying out the July 7 attacks, which killed 52 victims and the bombers, were young Pakistani Britons. All were Muslim, and much political debate in Britain has since focused on homegrown Islamic extremism.
“God Is Great” consists of a large sheet of glass and copies of the Koran, the Bible and Judaism's Talmud that have been cut apart, with the pieces mounted on either side of the glass to make it appear that they are embedded in it.
The museum put up a notice in the exhibition explaining the decision, including Latham's objection to it.
Latham, 84, who made his name as a member of London's 1960s artistic avant garde, said the piece, which he made 10 years ago, was not anti-Muslim.
“Tate Britain have shown cowardice over this,” he told The Observer newspaper. “I think it's a daft thing to do because, if they want to help the militants, this is the way to do it.”
Well, if this artwork doesn't upset the Muslims...Don't worry, something will....
It's curious, isn't it, that while the museum was "particularly concerned" about upsetting Muslims, it apparently didn't care about upsetting Christians and Jews.
Who gave them authority to be England's censor?
Who at the MCB did they consult over this?
Who at the Home Office was consulted over this?
If The Tate cannot be trusted with protecting the right of artists to create challenging works of art, then what is its purpose?
Insipid & relentless, the appeasement goes on.
Another victory for the British born Londonistan bombers.
Is the old man the only one left with a lick of sense?
Why get mad, it's already too late, it's too late for the soggy, sick, feminized British dhimmis --too late.
Before long they'll remove offending humans from the presence of the terribly sensitive and superior Muslim. Maybe they'll ask them for permission to create a panel of elder Muslims so the can judge and determine what in their dhimmi society offends them ...
This is just another act of dhimmitude in a list that is growing ever longer, and in a hurried fashion. Just where will all this end?
It seems that the West has lost the will to survive in its present form; indeed, it may be said that if it goes on much longer in this vein, then the West WILL NOT BE for very much longer.
What if I, as a WASP, wish to view this piece of art? Why have MY wishes, in MY country, have to be overridden by the wishes of these intolerant newcomers? When have my sensibilities - and I have a few, and I could make up many more! - been taken into consideration in this country?
I have myself worked in foreign countries, and when I did so, I used to endeavour NEVER to make unreasonable demands on my hosts; on the contrary, I always tried hard to mix and assimilate.
If anything was said to me, or in front of me, about my country, about my countrymen, about my country's history, or about my church, the Church of England, then I just jolly well took it on the chin. I had to, anyway; there was nobody to pander to me and my whims, my caprice, or my sensibilities.
Much to the credit of the older generation, I was taught, and when I was very young, that it was most unbecoming to behave like a cry baby. Why were Muslims not taught the same?
Muslims are highly unlikely ever to visit this art gallery in any great numbers anyway. Their prophet forbade them both to create art and to enjoy it, save for calligraphy and architecture. Art is, after all, one of life's pleasures; and we all know what prophet Muhammad thought of his flock enjoying the pleasures of life, don't we? Only he, the prophet, was afforded many of the pleasures of life, especially the sensuous ones. After all, wasn't it Allah Himself who kept sending down surahs, through the Angel Gabriel, to underscore the prophet's right to all the sensual pleasures Muhammad could dream up for himself?
The (inoffensive) article.
http://www.lissonnewspace.co.uk/exhibitionDisplay.asp?ExhibitionID=31
Click on the picture to get a bigger view.
If only I had any artistic talent I'd create something that really would offend.
Frankly, this is a blatant desecration of 3 of the world's major religions. It's extremly disgusting on the part of the Tate Gallery.
If I were in London, I would have personally thrown urine and feces on this trash but the Tate might have misunderstood my actions and offered me internship.
I object to this so called work of art
going by the above article, it seems to be placing the filthy quran on a par with the holy scriptures of God
and why on earth would he call it "god is great"? is that not the muslim battle cry?
seems to me this individual is totally dhimmi himself, but even this is not enough to please these people at the tate
now if hed daubed the filthy quran parts with elephant dung........
Granny, don't you just love the short bio line on the artist:
John Latham John Latham (b.1921) takes up a special place in Britain’s art history. He has been best known for his art activism of the sixties: burning the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Definitely Tate material.
Actually now that ive seen the abomination, courtesy of granny, i think it is gross in the extreme. i would say its only the filthy quran that should have been included in it, along with the constitutions of saudi arabia, syria, iran, pakistan, brunei........
Granny W, thanks for the link. I don't know much about art but I know a con artist when I see one. Still, I'd defend, perhaps not to the death, but to the extent that I can be bothered, the old codger's right to con the public.
He has been best known for his art activism of the sixties: burning the Encyclopedia Britannica
Hmm! Still, fair play to him. But of course this isn't the point.
Let's face it there's loads of Muslims visiting Tate Modern. Muslims with slightly poncy Yorkshire accents battering the door down to see Tracey Emin's 'confessional art'. No? Still, better not offend them.
This bit of so-called 'art' is actually a piece of moral equivalence - it implies that all monotheistic religions are equally bad. So why do those arty types at Tate Modern think it will offend Muslims in particular? Could it be that they think Muslims are more combustible than Jews and Christians, and may take offence in a more explosive manner? No, surely not - Islam is a religion of peace.
Aha, I get it. They believe that Muslims might be offended on behalf of Jews and Christians, the people of the book, whom Muslims respect so much. Or something.
I used to work very near Tate Britain which was a good place to spend half an hour at lunchtime.
There is actually some good stuff there if you know where to go.
Not everyone's taste but (having organised a nativity or two in my time) this is a personal favourite.
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999876&workid=5541&searchid=11141&tabview=image
Moslems would find it offensive (and salacious) in it's depection of unveiled girls confidently worshiping with music and song.
Granny W. mistake - Tate Britain, not Tate Modern. I just assumed this thing was at Tate Modern because it was crap. Tate Britain's better.
Wouldn't some of those girls in your picture already be married if Muslims had their way? To men in their fifties?
Wouldn't some of those girls in your picture already be married if Muslims had their way? To men in their fifties?
Undoubtedly.
I have just been having a browse around the Tate website. Under the section for Islamic art is a series of works by Langlands and Bell. This is a piece entitled ('cos you would have never guessed otherwise) The Great Mosque Seville.
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=22100&searchid=11329
As you will see it is a white sheet of paper with some braille on it.
Shy Guy
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=72853&searchid=11396&tabview=image
This is not actually in the Tate (as I expect you know) but is part of their Turner link.
Dear Mark.
You speak for me.
Cheers.
...militant "offended" Christians, militant "offended" Muslims, all objecting to a "so called" piece of art ......& the difference, in a free society, between them is
.....what exactly?
In a "free democratic society", no quarter should be given to any religious group where free will & human imagination has created a work of art / piece of crap / "abomination", what-ever where their religion is the subject matter.
If the society that allows such artistic expression & interpretation offends you, then please go & live in a place where you won't be subjected to such horrors that the free society you live & thrive in may occasionally "throw up".
This thread is about censorship because of religious fascism - not "my book is Holier than theirs", my righteous indignation is......
Dear Teratism:
Thank you. You're welcome. Cheers to you, too!
Best,
This incident shows, yet again, the obvious ostensible difference between Muslim fundamentalists (if that's not a redundancy) and Christian & Jewish fundamentalists: while some of the latter (as represented in a couple of posts above) find this exhibit offensive and use strong language to denounce it, they would not dream of doing anything criminal, let alone threaten to or actually mass-murder innocent people, to protest it. Muslims have done so.
Personally, I believe such exhibits (including the crucifix immersed in urine in New York City, etc.) demonstrate the health of the modern West -- not in and of themselves, of course, but in the fact that our society can tolerate them --, while the hand-wringing fear of offending Muslims on the part of Museum representatives demonstrates the disease of the modern West that has paradoxically grown out of that health.
Albion: so your idea of democracy is the freedom to publicly insult the beliefs of fellow-citizens and force them into silence when they protest. Sounds Muslim to me. Are you sure you are in the right forum?
Don't bother to answer. I do not want any more discussions with you and your fascist likes.
The article above leaves out something else. The various holy books, or parts of them, apparently surround a hole, under which is a wastebasket -- the dustbin of history apparently awaiting all three, is the implication.
Hypothetical variants on the piece constructed show what is really going on. Suppose, for example, that the transgressive "art" ("would that word do, here" -- kindly raise your voice quizzically at the end, in the manner of Michael Kitchin leaving a query in midair, in "Foyle's War") in question consisted only of a Talmud and a Bible, and the waiting wastebasket. Suppose that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Board of Rabbis had protested to high heaven. What would the result have been? We know the answer to that. Or suppose the "art" had consisted of either the Talmud, or the Bible, with the same protests. Ditto.
It was telling to hear the plummy-voiced Godfrey Barker on the BBC World Service, being interviewed about this act of self-censorship, and demurely referring to a "new climate" without daring to point out what is pointed out in this posting, which is to say, this is not a matter of general sensitivity to protests from every quarter, but only to Muslim sensitivities, and that "new climate" is a climate of fear -- fear that the Tate itself, or the National Gallery, or Westminster Abbey, or the Fitzwilliam, or the Ashmolean, might all go up in flames. And so they might, given that the statutes and paintings of living creatures that they contain, simply by being statues, or by being paintings of living things, constitute for Muslims "transgressive art" that deserves, in their view, destruction.
Any worries about that? Any thoughts about the future of Europe? What does Chris Patten, the appeasement-minded self-assured swine who has been ridiculously appointed to be the Chancellor of Oxford, and just come out with some book, where he employs such infantile words as "superpower" (with hints of Superman and Batman Comic Books) have to say about this kind of thing? Nothing, of course, because Islam, and what it teaches, what it inculcates, is a subject he, and many like him, are too timid to touch.
Paolo:
Thats the second time you have insulted me.
I am an English Democratic Republican, for your information. (for the second time).
Whether you like it or not, in England everything is & should be fair game for art & comedy & whatever anyone wants to say, do & create.
Its called freedom, asshole.
So whos the fascist here, Paolo?
Get a life in a country where your religion holds sway - obviously the reality of a diverse artistic nation is not for you.
Hugh, how right you are. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Board of Rabbis would not protest because why bother? Transgressive art is the only art we have left. If one isn't "transgressing" some taboo's former boundaries, one simply isn't "hip." And if one isn't hip one doesn't matter. The breaking of social, cultural and religious taboos seems to be the only thing left giving art any meaning whatsoever. It is valuable because it transgresses and transgresses because it is valuable seems to be the reasoning.
A visit to the National Gallery shows all too starkly the general downward spiral after a long, slow upward ascent from early to late middle ages on up through the 18th Century - at least it seems so to my mind. After that (was it the coming of democracy, perhaps?) it's definitely all downhill. The worship of the common man and his increasingly common, and finally vulgar, art works holds mounting sway.
What we're left with is entirely derivative, superficial, artificial and banal. Yet everything within me screams to protect it, not only because there are somes gems suspended within the general shoddiness, but shoddy art is better than no art.
Isn't it?
Albion. Good for you sir! Don't let them get you down, indeed.
Paolo. The poster is defending his millenia-old society. And he displys passion. What's wrong with that? Not everyone wants to destroy. Perhaps you're on the wrong site friend.
Hugh. Not bad, but leave out the "plummy voice".. Isn't that "accentism"? ;>D (Trying to become less grammar school, innit?)
Rebecca,
That is an exceptional post. I must admit, although I object to state funding of the arts, I agree with you.
This is a piece entitled ('cos you would have never guessed otherwise) The Great Mosque Seville....a white sheet of paper with some braille on it.
Nice one, Granny W - a real find.
Anyone know what happened to that pile of bricks? Did they get re-used?
Here's an idea: artists get to make art, and people who don't like the art get to complain about it.
From what I read, the art work is not intended to upset anybody. It's not like the Bible in urine or anything like that. It's meant to be some kind of ecumenial statement about the unity of religion or something. The reason the Tate fear a Muslim backlash is because the holy texts of various religions (including Islam) have been cut in half to make the visual effect that they are suspended in glass. The Tate has decided that Muslims are so small minded that they will discard the peaceful message of the art and burn down some KFCs because a Qur'an has been damaged. Hopefully the overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims will soon set the record straight and remind us that Islam is compatible with freedom of expression by recommending that the art should be displayed. How about it, Sir Iqbal?
the holy texts of various religions (including Islam) have been cut in half to make the visual effect that they are suspended in glass.
Huh? You don't have to cut texts in half to make the visual effect that they are suspended in glass.
Who said that?
'The Brit's are a nation of giggling shop-keepers...'
Tate Britain is the venue that hosts the Turner Prize, possibly the world's most 'insensitive' art exhibition. Back in 1998 the winning exhibit was a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,498228,00.html
That was perfectly OK with Tate Britain, but now that the Bible, Talmud and Koran are shown alongside each other the gallery suddenly turns "sensitive" and bans the work. Why? Because it might "cause offence to Muslims". Offend the Jews and Chrisitans as much as you like. They don't matter one bit. But Muslims? No, you can't touch them. All this not in the Middle East, but in a country with a Christian history. The ground of Tora Bora, Waziristan or wherever Osama happens to be right now is probably shaking with his laughter...
I forgot to post this, my final link from the Tate when the story was new and it may be too late now.
But http://www.tate.org.uk/cgi-bin/visitorsbook.pl
The comments reflect the view here, in some cases are much more blunt.
The most recent comments are from members of the BNP but don't let that put you off. There are plenty of reasoned comments in DW vein over 11 other pages.
Artist hits at Tate 'cowards' over ban [9/26/05]
Once again, a British institution has buckled under the imagined fear that Muslims might be offended, in this case a well known museum which pulled a work of art using religious books. (See a photo at this link.)
Isn't modern art supposed to challenge the mind? Obviously the Tate fears that jihadist sensibilities might be inclined toward explosive reaction, but the museum wasn't even threatened.
John Latham's God Is Great consists of a large sheet of thick glass with copies of Islam, Christianity and Judaism's most sacred texts - the Koran, Bible and Talmud - apparently embedded within its surface. [...]
Last night Latham, 84, who insists that the piece is not anti-Islamic, told The Observer: 'Tate Britain have shown cowardice over this. I think it's a daft thing to do because if they want to help the militants, this is the way to do it.
'It's not even a gesture as strong as censorship: it's just a loss of nerve on the part of the administration.'
Meanwhile on the continent, Muslim artist Chokri Ben Chikha has no problem offending Christians by a poster of a bare-breasted virgin Mary holding a bowl of blood and a squawling baby Jesus. The poster advertises a play, Our Lady of Flanders, to show the difficulties immigrants suffer at the hand of cold-hearted Europeans. The play also has plenty of anti-Semitic dialogue, which the artist says he wishes to "show" though not condemn. For his efforts, he is supported by the Belgian government.