I look forward to reading more about this most alarming story. I know much of Bellmer's work and I don't believe he produced anything even remotely relating to Muslim issues. His work is strange and surreal, disturbing, erotic, obsecene, perhaps paedophilic but that is all. If he is no longer allowed, who will we be permitted to see?

Posted by: philiph35 at October 7, 2006 5:29 PM

I'm outraged! They still aren't anywhere near being sharia-compliant. No art depicting deity, humans, animals or plants should be permitted. In fact, no representational art at all. No landscapes. No cityscapes. Only abstract geometry should be allowed. Shame on them!

And don't start me on museums with their displays of worthless pre-Islamic jahiliyya, or music venues and dance clubs with their alcohol, mixed-gender cavorting and other such haram filth.

Just think: if we get this right London could end up rich in true Islamic culture - another Damascus, Riyadh or Tehran! Just think...

Posted by: Null at October 7, 2006 5:52 PM

The concentration of Muslim Bengalis around the Whitechapel gallery is so massive that there hve been moves by the locals to have it referred to as Banglatown, in imitation of references to Gerrard Street, in Soho, where a (much smller) concenration of Chinese restaurants has led to it being called Chinatown.

Since we are talking about the most conservative and socially reactionary elements in the country, I think that the Whitechapel, which was originally sited where it was to bring art to the working classes, should seriously consider moving its premises.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 7, 2006 6:27 PM

The curator should just go ahead and lay down and die. muslims don't care for culture, so chances are, they'll never see it anyway. And if they aren't smart enough to accept and understand, they have no business being there.

What does the curator propose we do with the works of art? Burn them. He should just burn them now, so the muslim DENSEsibilities are never hurt. We, the civilized world, would miss them of course. But, according to the curator, it's his decision to see fit as to what the civilized world is allowed to see.

Posted by: freewoman at October 7, 2006 6:38 PM

1) Hans Bellmer's work is awful.
2) That conclusion has no bearing on the matter at hand.
3) If a private gallery thus feels intimidated by the mere local presence of some Muslims so that it will rid itself of Bellmer, how long will it take until the Muslim populations in England, in France, in Spain, in Italy, become large enough, and powerful enough (they are cerrtainly already bold enough) to demand that the museums open to the public either put in storage or otherwise hide from view paintings that would offend Muslim visitors, or Muslim schoolchildren on a field trip with their nice teachers hoping to introduce all the children, including the Muslim ones, to the art of the Western world

One can imagine those who run the National Gallery, or the Louvre, or the Prado, or the Uffizi, some day becoming intimidated (oh, and a bomb can always go off in a gallery if demands are not met, and pronto), someday banning not the deplorable Bellmer, but Beato Angelico for his Annunciation, or for that matter Bosch for his Jardin de las Delicias that so bewitched Felipe II, but would offend Muslims in so many ways with its brimstone-and-butterfly visions, or Balthus for his sprawling girls, or haunted climbers in the Swiss Alps, or...well, here you can simply write in almost all of Western painting, and see what, once you have removed what would offend Muslims, the landsapes and abstract art that alone would be left.

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2006 7:22 PM

The little bastards probably wouldn't even like Jackson Pollack as he is not strictly geometric.

Posted by: SCV at October 7, 2006 7:33 PM

un f*cking believable!!!!!

Posted by: g hadi hater at October 7, 2006 7:33 PM

Gone are the days when the worst in Whitechapel was Francis Tumblety. Where art thou, Francis, now that the neigborhood has gone to pot?

Posted by: August22 at October 7, 2006 7:48 PM

Here's an irony. On the Whitechapel Art Gallery website it says this about Bellmer:

"Bellmer’s work was eventually declared ‘degenerate’ by the Nazi party and [he] left Germany for Paris in 1938."

And now the Nazis' successors, the new believers in "degeneracy", have succeeded in getting his work banned in Britain. Is this Berlin in 1934?

Posted by: JFGR at October 7, 2006 7:58 PM

Muslims offend me, when can we take them off display?

Posted by: IceDragon at October 7, 2006 8:24 PM

Here's an irony. On the Whitechapel Art Gallery website it says this about Bellmer:

"Bellmer’s work was eventually declared ‘degenerate’ by the Nazi party and [he] left Germany for Paris in 1938."

And now the Nazis' successors, the new believers in "degeneracy", have succeeded in getting his work banned in Britain. Is this Berlin in 1934?

______________

Very astute! Whether or not I personally like the art is immaterial to myself; I think it should be shown. I may not like rap or hip-hop, but I still respect the right for others to enjoy it. This is just downright evil and wrong. I hope the re-instate the works of this artist and tell the Muslim community that if they don't like it... they don't have to attend the art exhibit!

I didn't go crazy over the Da Vinci Code movie... I just chose not to see it. Problem solved.

Posted by: Monkeywho at October 7, 2006 8:30 PM

First the Romans invade...
Then the Saxons invade...
Then the Normans invade...
Now the... *sigh*

My grandfather bore the scars of liberating Europe. I'm afraid my children will have to follow in his footsteps.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at October 7, 2006 9:36 PM

Are there any books needing to be burnt, lest they offend any muslims?

Posted by: Allan@Aberdeen at October 7, 2006 9:50 PM

Given the Islamic mindset that bans picturing almost everything when will ALL art galleries be scrapped? I don't think I've ever seen any Islamic art but I'm sure that it will be about as wonderful as the kind Hitler favored after banning "degenerate art". So much for culture under sharia. No wonder these idiots long for martyrdom-who'd want to live in a world designed by sharia?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 7, 2006 11:00 PM

That will give a winning point for Moslems when you fear of their teror and violent action.

When Moslems read that news, I'm sure they will laugh at us the infidel.

They will talk each others to their Moslems brother that their violent actions in Europe is success to "dictate" European freedom even in infidel homeland.

Posted by: Mohammed_Pedophiles_Club at October 8, 2006 1:03 AM

Interesting that there is nothing on this in the Sunday papers. I hope there will be more on Monday and that the comment will be unfavourable to Muslims. Bellmer is not an artist I care for and I am sure that most people find him boring or awful (for one reason or another). But the key point is that there is almost certainly absolutely nothing in the exhibition which is in any way related to Islam. No one needs to go to it and nothing can be seen from the outside at the Whitechapel - I imagine that any poster is pretty tame. If Bellmer has to go, so does everyone.

As for me, I am in Madrid and will spend some of the afternoon in the Prado. The room containing the Garden of Delights is my favourite, though I tend to admire most the Breughel Triumph of Death. Perhaps today I will view it as a melancholy image of the triumph of Islam.

Posted by: philiph35 at October 8, 2006 2:54 AM

In Chicago there's an exhibit called "Desire No Shackles" featuring the works of women whose works reflects attitudes towards Islamic Fundamentalism and Muslim violence against women:

http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/2006/10/desire-no-shackles.html

Thanks to Indigo Red.

Posted by: atheling at October 8, 2006 3:09 AM

ISLAMSFORLOSERS said "Given the Islamic mindset that bans picturing almost everything"

Why aren't TV and movies banned in Islamic nations?

Posted by: Shahryar at October 8, 2006 7:26 AM

Hugh,

Bellmer's work is not awful, it's great. I mean, the guy was a pervert but what's the difference between a pervert and an artist-pervert? The artist reveals. So it's an education. And education is to lead out the student into knowledge, a knowledge that censors would supress. If it isn't relevant, the quality of Bellmer's work, why mention it?

Posted by: AbuNudnik at October 8, 2006 12:56 PM

Creating Art depicting the human form (even clothed) has generally been forbidden for the Muslim to engage in (a few exceptions from the Persians) . The reasons given are incredibly lame; the real reason is that such art encourages humanism - human compassion, love of humanity - which is naturally antithetical to Islam & Sharia. Think of all the great Arab artists (including novelists) that could have been overthe centuries were it not for that great tyranny of mind & body which is Islam.

Posted by: FM at October 8, 2006 2:18 PM

For more info, Here is a translation of an article from Le Monde on the subject :
http://extremecentre.org/2006/10/06/messieurs-les-autocenseurs-bonjour/

Posted by: brubos at October 8, 2006 6:21 PM

Years ago when "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out I remember some Christian groups complaining about it, and my own church simply said "they didn't condone it." That was it. The movie played, and if you wanted to see it you did and if you didn't you rented something else from Blockbuster. Not a big deal. I didn't see it and I doubt anyone in my church would have cared if I did.

The same rules should apply for everybody.

Posted by: GoldieLox at October 10, 2006 12:10 PM