Recently there was a brouhaha in Great Britain over two paintings that had been on display at the Saatchi Gallery. They were both by the pseudonymous artist who goes by the name SKU. Thy paintings overlaid Arabic script on images of a nude woman, and included the Qur’anic verse that constitutes the shahada, or Profession of Faith, which is one of the five pillars of Islam. These paintings were, according to The Times of London, apparently meant to depict the conflict between America and Islamic extremists.
However, the inclusion of the Islamic declaration of faith, known as the shahada, in the painting prompted complaints from Muslim visitors who demanded that the paintings be removed. One suspects that SKU wanted to cause a stir, so useful these days for an artist’s career, and that’s exactly what he got.
No one was making those Muslim visitors look at those paintings; no one was forcing them to visit the privately-owned Saatchi Gallery. But the Muslims held firm. The painter, SKU, proposed a supposed “compromise”: the paintings would not be removed, but would instead be covered with grey sheets. In that way, present and absent at the same time, the paintings would still attract attention and discussion — with some people perhaps lifting the sheets for a view, or asking museum officials about the reason for their being covered, and what was being kept from view,, and why, which would focus more attention on those paintings, among visitors and in the media — which has already carried many stories about these otherwise unprepossessing works — than they might otherwise have received.
The Muslims grandly conceded to let the paintings remain,as long as they were covered. What makes this tale of craven self-censorship even more disturbing isthat the Saatchi Gallery has always sought to be “edgy” and “out there.” Charles Saatchi has been proud of defying all attempts to censor the display of any of his paintings. The show exhibiting part of his collection at the Royal Academy of Art in 1997 contained a painting of Myra Hindley, who took part in the the torture and killing of five children between the ages of 10 and 17, the infamous “Moors murders.” Hindley and her partner Ian Brady were described by the trial judge as “two sadistic killers of the utmost depravity.” Many people condemned Saatchi’s showing of the painting; some even resigned in protest from the Royal Academy. But Saatchi kept the painting in the show.
Charles Saatchi’s collection also included “The Holy Virgin Mary’”by Chris Ofili.,which is a painting of the mother of Christ set atop two huge slabs of elephant dung. It created a storm of predictable protest when shown in London in 1997 and again when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999. Christian groups called for the painting to be removed because it was ‘“offensive to religious viewers.” ’Saatchi didn’t budge. Nor did he suggest a compromise like that accepted by he Muslims, of leaving the painting in place but covering it with a sheet.
The question remains: why was Charles Saatchi so willing to cover up the two paintings by SKU that offended Muslims, but unwilling to consider doing the same for much more offensive works, the portrait of serial killer Myra Hindley and Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary”?
Islam, among all the world’s religions, is the one we are most afraid to defy. We treat it with kid gloves. You must not make fun of the faith, ridicule any of its beliefs, mock Muhammad, or, as SKU did, mix Qur’anic verses with non-Islamic material deemed offensive to Muslim sensibiilities.. But if its a question of ofeending Christians, why go right ahead — put the Virgin Mary on slabs of elephant dung. Or show Andres Serrano’s photograph of a small crucifix immersed in a vial of his own urine, and that “Piss Christ” will be considered a serious art work and continue to be on display for hundreds of thousands of viewers, despite howls of protests from Christian groups. Only after 24 years of being shown was “Piss Christ” finally put out of its miserable existence by a Catholic group in Avignon whose members tore up the photograph.
This unequal treatment of art works deemed to blaspheme Islam or Christianity is a result not of respect for Islam but of fear of Muslims. We know what they are capable of: the murders of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists; the killing of the documentary film maker Theo van Gogh for his movie describing the mistreatment of women in Islam; the attempts to murder Swedish cartoonist Lars Wilks; the threats to kill British Pakistani writer Salman Rushdie. But no one wants to admit to that fear, so they feign respect.
The gallery ought to have stuck to its guns. It should have told the Muslims who demanded the removal of SKU’s paintings that Charles Saatchi had in the past shown paintings that offended Christians, such as that by Chris Ofili of the Virgin Mary (propped upon elephant dung), and continued to do so despite protests; that these SKU paintings may have offended some Muslim sensibilities but were meant to raise questions about clashing identities, and they did not constitute hate speech; that freedom of expression, artistic as well as political, was a central value of British and Western civilization; finally, that those living in the West and enjoying its freedoms had an obligation to respect the values of that civilization.
The Saatchi Gallery can still remove those sheets that now cover SKU’s two paintings. It could also post a sign at the gallery’s entrance, warning that ‘Some Muslim visitors may be offended by the two paintings of SKU, and we suggest they not look at them.’ That would provide a salutary shock. Muslims used to having their demands met would be put on notice that they had gone too far. Non-Muslims used to yielding to those demands would have their own spines stiffened as a result. Both are consummations devoutly to be wished.

Spiro says
Why is yielding to Moslems the thing to do
When are we going to stand up for out rights and faith or have we given in and surrendered
I find Moslem attitude and demands vey offensive
And christiphobic
Michael Copeland says
Rasmus Palodan is showing the way in Denmark.
https://gatesofvienna.net/2019/05/rasmus-paludan-either-you-throw-out-the-muslims-or-they-take-over/
mortimer says
SHARIA LAW IS STUPID: figures must be DECAPITATED or “HUMILIATED” in are of ANIMATE figures.
Reliance of the Traveller @F17.9
(O: It is offensive to use cloth for interior decoration in houses (A: meaning that if curtains and the like are used merely for decoration, it is offensive, though there is nothing wrong with using them to screen a room from view), even for shrines at the tombs of the righteous and learned. It is unlawful to decorate walls with pictures (n: of animate life, as at p44)
Concerning attending a feast: Reliance of the Traveller M9.2:
But if the blameworthy thing will be removed through one’s attending, or if the above-mentioned pictures are on the ground, a carpet, or pillows people lean upon (N: or other humiliated deployment, which is lawful), or if the living figures are decapitated, or there are pictures of (n: Vegetative life such as) trees, then one must attend.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT ATTEND ACCORDING TO SHARIA LAW.
Case closed.
mortimer says
All curators of art museums and other museums should have the above passages ready to convince Muslims who complain that they SHOULD NOT ENTER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SHARIA LAW SAYS THEY MUST NOT ATTEND WHERE ARTISTIC DEPICTIONS OF ANIMATE FIGURES are DISPLAYED and HUNG ON THE WALL
Maybe the curators will put the paintings ON THE FLOOR so that Muslims may WALK ON THEM … nah, the curators won’t do that.
(Don’t pious Muslims ALREADY realize that they are rebelling against Sharia law by entering an art gallery?)
Salome says
Nice one, mortimer. It occurred to me that, since an angel won’t enter a house that has in it a picture or a dog, Muslims ought not to be entering art galleries.
gravenimage says
Actually, there is probably an “out” for Muslims if they are only entering an art gallery (or pub, or restaurant that serves pork, or strip club, or Infidel place of worship, or what-have-you) if they are there only to try to impose Shari’ah law on the ‘filthy Infidels’, or to murder them in a Jihad terror attack.
Rufolino says
Why ? In a word, FEAR !
This won’t end well, we are enabling Islamic supremacy.
Naildriver says
I doubt merely covering it will absolve either the artist or personnel at Saatchi of being targeted, if possible, by Muslim devotees for some sensational terrorist event.
It is a very publicly noticed event already, that will serve Islamic devotees pretense to ‘defense’, just as NZ for Sri Lanka or the Mohammed movie before Benghazi, or , the Garland Texas Draw Mohammed, attempted slaughter.
Apologists for Islam in the bloody after math, will say; ‘why on earth did you needlessly provoke them?’
And, the lesson will be that fewer artists will include Islam as subject matter — and fewer galleries will handle such work – but Saatchi and the artist did calculate this to some extent; So watch them kiss up to Muslims in other ways big time .
Another win for terrorism – in this case a mere verbal protest gets this obsequious and patronizing action of covering them, but it’ll likely be more than they bargained for..
.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Charles Saatchi’s collection also included “The Holy Virgin Mary’”by Chris Ofili.,which is a painting of the mother of Christ set atop two huge slabs of elephant dung. It created a storm of predictable protest when shown in London in 1997 and again when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999. Christian groups called for the painting to be removed because it was ‘“offensive to religious viewers.” ’Saatchi didn’t budge.”
Charlie ‘budged’ this time because he knew that if he didn’t, Mohammadans would make his gallery (and him, if he was in the gallery at the time of the “budging”) “budge” very quickly in many directions.
gravenimage says
True, Flavius.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Germany debates ‘mosque tax’ to replace foreign funding”
https://www.france24.com/en/20190512-germany-debates-mosque-tax-replace-foreign-funding
gravenimage says
Insanity either way–letting the vicious Saudis and others like Pakistan infiltrate German society, or else making German Infidels pay for their own takeover by Muslims. Suicidal madness. Thanks for that link, Flavius.
Infidel Numero Uno says
A term we should be using whenever referencing those who insult Christianity. Christophobe, christophobic, christophobia.
Wellington says
Yeah, and just imagine the hysteria, even violence, by Muslims if instead of Serrano’s “Piss Christ” we had a “Piss Mohammed.” Of course, Christians objecting to Serrano’s “work of art” was merely indicative of their limitations.
But, with Muslims, whom I often prefer to call Buttlims because they can’t even manage to pray with dignity, what with their asses in the air when they do (message to ALL Muslims: the way you pray deservedly sets you up for ridicule; the way you pray is extremely risible as well as being worthy of contempt), try mocking anything about Islam and thereafter watch out. Put another way, Christians (Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et al. too) when mocked or insulted don’t resort to violence. Muslims invariably do. Yeah, it’s that “violence thing” about Buttlims that, so appropriately, make them a pain-in-the ass to the rest of the world.
Islam sucks many times over and many ways over. This is the “problem” in microcosm. Yes indeed, the burden which is Mo’s creed continues. Any non-Muslim who still has any respect for this religion is a fool of the first degree. Let’s see here, Pope Francis, Justin Trudeau, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, apparently every Democratic politician in America and loads of Republican politicians too, are just a “few” who come to mind. Seems more than a few directors of art galleries could be included in this “sterling bunch” as well.
DHazard says
Comply or else. This is the message the World now hears from Muslims. What an accomplishment. Really makes you want to convert.
Pam says
This does prove what group of people are violent if they don’t get their own way. Their goal is to get people to submit to Islam and we know what happens when muslims don’t get their way.
Westman says
What’s amazing is the majority of Westerners know that Islam is a religion of aggression but only an ostracized minority will admit it. Entertainment lunkheads, angry unfulfilled college students, alienated feminists, jealous socialists, political parasites, and the media keep gaslighting the nation while the majority of citizens tend to believe their own eyes – but can’t afford the consequences of speaking up to the “new brownshirts”.
livingengine says
Islamic terror in Dearborn
Giacomo Latta says
To mix Arab ethnicity and muslim attire is the sleaze promoted by CAIR here. They know damn well there are still millions of Christian Lebanese in this world and Christians in muslim countries as well, where they haven’t all been killed by muslims.
gravenimage says
For a long time Dearborn was mostly Arab Christians–Arab Christians who were fleeing persecution by Arab Muslims.
FYI says
What on earth would an Abdool be doing in an Art gallery?
Since when do those islamic philistines have any appreciation for such things?
Shouldn’t they be “praying” to their pagan Arab god {Al}Lah the “BEST of deceivers” k3:54 instead?
Al lah:a god who apparently has ONE leg and two right hands.
Al lah may have a leg to stand on but islam doesn’t.
What next to appease the Holy Yusufs of islam?
ABDOOL HOUR:MUSEUM CLOSED TO KUFFAR
{In protest,I will reveal this astonishing fact about muhammed{APOh,Allah prays on him}
Sahih Muslim pg1641 hadith 2069
“Aisha came back to Asma and she told her ‘this is the UNDERPANTS of the prophet.we do wash it so the sick ones can be recovered by it”
muhammed had miraculous underpants with healing properties.Surely it must have been every devout muslimas great honor to wash the great prophet’s amazing underpants.As for curing the sick:I doubt that..it surely made them ill….}
gravenimage says
At The Saatchi Gallery, Muslims Make Demands
……………………..
Repulsive self-censorship.
And while SKU may not know it–most artists these days are sadly ignorant about history–this image with the Shehada is very apt. The nude–not painted by SKU, needless to say–is Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres’ “The Grand Odalisque” from 1814–a Muslim sex slave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Odalisque#/media/File:Jean_Auguste_Dominique_Ingres_-_The_Grand_Odalisque_-_WGA11841.jpg
SKU’s shtick is “Ctl+Alt+Delete — the issues facing mankind and our planet require a fundamental re-boot of our ideas and behaviour”.
Not only is this pretty banal–especially given his using images others have created and just photoshopping them together–but what is new at this point about cravenly appeasing aggressive Muslim demands for censorship?
Wellington says
“…most artists these days are sadly ignorant about history…”
Quite true, gravenimage. Ditto for politicians (think, as an example, AOC {yeah, just imagine what she knows about 19th century America–would bet a case of one’s favorite beer she couldn’t even remotely, as examples, describe the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis of the early 1830’s, the five main features of the Compromise of 1850, or even the basic tenets of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854}; lawyers (Avenatti?); so-called scientists (e.g., Bill Nye); the current pontifex maximus; Hollyweird in general; what passes for journalists nowadays (e.g., the egregious Jim Acosta or the entire editorial board of The New York Times); most educators from kindergarten through graduate school, et al.
A dearth of a solid understanding about the past is the key of keys to perpetual ignorance (of course, as with someone like Howard Zinn, you can actually know a great deal about the past but because of Leftthink still be profoundly confused—yes, Leftthink, as with Islamthink, can make an even well educated person quite silly).
As Cicero noted, no matter how much a person may know, they are still ignorant if they do not know the past. A lot of ignorant people out there nowadays. Tons of them. One thing they have in common is a paucity of knowledge about what preceded us. Surely. Obvious beyond obvious.
gravenimage says
All grimly true. Wellington.
CRUSADER says
**** “Evolved Giving Model” ****
COMMERICIALIZING
SOCIAL CULTURAL POLITICAL TAKEOVER
continues on….
(Blair Imani promotes hijab and Islam in this ad!)
“My Social Good News” reports the PROPAGANDA:
***************************
TOMS Launches Stand For Tomorrow To Invest In Organizations Addressing
“The World’s Most Pressing Human Issues”
Stand for Tomorrow will support TOMS evolved giving model, allowing customers to support an issue area they stand for through their purchase.
TOMS launched “Stand for Tomorrow” to address the world’s most pressing issues through impact grants as part of their evolved giving model.
TOMS has always stood for a better tomorrow. Since 2006, TOMS has given shoes, sight, and safe water to more than 88 million people — impact that has only been possible because of the customers who have joined the movement.
The world around us is changing, and the issues facing our communities are more complex than ever. These changes have prompted TOMS to think about their opportunity and obligation to evolve their impact strategy and overall giving model to address some of the most pressing issues of today.
In addition to helping give shoes, sight, and safe water to people in need, customer purchases are helping give impact grants to organizations addressing today’s most pressing issues like gun violence, homelessness, and mental health.
Customers can now visit TOMS.com to ‘Pick your Style. Pick your Stand.’ When the customer purchases a TOMS product, they can also pick an issue area they stand for, and their purchase helps direct TOMS giving to the issue area they choose. Customers can choose to direct their stand to shoe giving, safe water, ending gun violence, the homeless, mental health, or equality.
Each Stand is accompanied by a role model who is active in the issue they are supporting:
Women’s Rights: Aijia, singer/songwriter
Equality: Blair Imani, author and activist
Safe Water: Mari Copeny aka Little Miss Flint, activist
The Homeless: Marcus Crook, co-founder of clothing brand HoMie
Mental Health: MILCK, singer/songwriter, for mental health
Ending Gun Violence: Winter BreeAnne Minisee, activist and youth leader
The first stand launched in 2018 was End Gun Violence Together. TOMS committed $5 million to organizations working to end gun violence. TOMS also activated the community to help pass universal background checks in the House. Through a call to action on TOMS.com, over 730,000+ people sent postcards to Congress. And in the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, and Philippines, TOMS is standing with local changemakers, people dedicating their lives to address the issues facing their communities, with a focus on homelessness and gender inequality.
TOMS will continue to assess what issue areas are important to their consumers and where they can have the most impact through their giving. Please visit TOMS.com/impact to stay up to date on what TOMS is currently working on.
https://mysocialgoodnews.com/toms-launches-stand-for-tomorrow-to-invest-in-organizations-addressing-the-worlds-most-pressing-human-issues/
CRUSADER says
http://blairimani.com/blog/11/i-d-why-activist-blair-imani-will-no-longer-wear-hijab-post-trump
WHY ACTIVIST BLAIR IMANI WILL NO LONGER WEAR HIJAB POST-TRUMP
On November 9, 2017 activist Blair Imani decided that wearing her faith’s traditional head covering no longer enabled her to feel safe. Here, she describes navigating the intersection of self-expression and self-protection, and the need for change…..
gravenimage says
This Muslimah’s claims that she doesn’t feel safe is just claptrap.
Kay says
Very interesting– gives a lot more depth to the piece of art. Next to the sheet covering, I’d like to see a display of the original historical painting (even a photograph of it) uncovered and explaining the true history.
gravenimage says
These “artists” seldom give any provenance of the works they use. SKU may not know much about it himself–indeed, it is likely that he does not.
James Lincoln says
The deference that non-Muslims display toward Muslims is, to borrow a phrase from the above article, not because of “… respect for Islam but of fear of Muslims.”
The overriding issue is F E A R . And on top of that, Muslims who act in accordance with their Islamic faith are being given a free pass by the leftist socialists and mainstream media.
This is not going to end well.
Wellington says
“This is not going to end well.”
My compliments, James, on a masterpiece of understatement.
Seamus says
You Brits are bowing to this muussie bullshit demands. I thought you were better than this. But, oh yes you fools in London elected a muussie mayor. How did that go for you.
Kepha says
Charles Saatchi, were I young, I would dance around you flapping my arms with my thumbs in my armpits calling, “Cluck-cluck-cluck AAAAAAH! cluck cluck cluck AHHHHHHHHHHH!” You are no brave pioneer searching out the limits of free expression and fighting for artistic freedom, but a totally predictable adolescent ingrate who goads and pokes those who love you and wish you well while being a complete and utter @%$#-licker to a real bully who has sworn to do away with all freedom of expression.
CRUSADER says
That’s saying a lot !!!
eduardo odraude says
Or maybe the only reason he has in the past goaded and poked Christians was that he thought it would be good for his business. Maybe he didn’t actually think “Piss Christ” had any artistic or critical value, but he thought it would increase his profits. In which case, all he evidently cares about is money.
Kepha says
@Eduardo, of course. But he’s not only a worshiper of Mammon, but also a coward as well.
Kesselman says
We’re not required to consider Islam a religion or tolerate it simply because a 7th-century psychopath said so. In fact, Islam is a criminal enterprise, with Sedition and Conspiracy to Murder.
eduardo odraude says
Theology and law are very different. In theological terms, it is of course debatable whether Islam is a religion. I’d say that Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity are authentic religions and that Islam is a counterfeit. The first four religions I consider authentic because I believe they all have authentic spiritual experience at their foundations. I don’t think that is true of Islam. Either Muhammad was a conman, or he was inspired by demonic evil, or both. And I don’t think that foundation can produce anything but an ersatz “religion.” But that is all in the domain of theological debate.
Law is a different story. The First Amendment removes from law and government the power to decide theological debates. So if someone can sincerely claim he is following a religion, the US government will accept that, absent evidence showing that the person has recently invented the “religion” purely for tax advantages or other obvious criminal reasons. Obviously Islam was not recently invented. Muslims who are not merely nominal sincerely believe Islam is not just a genuine religion, but the greatest religion. That means that, apart from emergencies, US law cannot outlaw Islam. Something like an official state of emergency, combined with the ability of the executive to persuade Congress and the courts that Islam is responsible for the emergency, would be required before the US government could outlaw Islam. Even then, once the state of emergency ended, so might the emergency laws.
Terra Nova says
Muslims, is there anything else we can do for you, may be to hold your hand when walking into an Art gallery, don’t be afraid, the nude lady is not going to attack you !
Saatchi, you are not a real artistic person, you have the nude covered, but I tell you, Mary sitting on elephant dung is appalling to me, but then I don’t like to look at anybody, whoever it is to sit on a heap of elephant dung, it is not artistic in any way to me. But congratulations with the new cover up job.
Muslims seem to be afraid of the human female body, only in cases of rape they are not, because it happens in secret and in secrecy “, muslims are really the Masters, that is why the Jihadis always have their faces covered up, not to be” recognised.”And that is the least of their secrecies”
EU, UN and the “Western Governments” thank you for protecting your citizens , You don’t want to take decisions at all, while you are sitting on your pluche chairs, you only are collecting the money and you are shovelling difficult decisions up to the next governments, you have left then and nobody can harm you, you did your best,” and the next governments in your organisations do the same, already for decades, until there is such a big explosion, of hate, you created hate
which would not have been necessary if you would have gotten some spine, but you are all responsible for this mess. EU , where are you, concentrating on other things, but not the real problems, doling out money
which lands in the hands of dictators, etc.
I am amazed sometimes, how you can speech with dry eyes and believe it yourselves, and then the next and the next one speeches, with nothing really said but the president of the EU is really funny, I must say, a real believe worthy, strong man for the job and all the others too.
It is true, NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE, and I surely hope that people are seeing and hearing this for the next EU elections, before The New World Order depopulates and enslaves us.
You and yours have to clean up the mess you made, it is not that you wanted everything at peace, no, you were so scared that you did not even dared to open your mouths, 2nd world war all over again. Did not you people know the history of the second world war.? NEVER AGAIN, but you created the same stage all over again and I know the population of this planet has to learn how to live in peace with each other, but with Islam in their present form and behaving, there is no chance! Not that I blame everything on Islam, the Western countries have done “their great jobs” to in the past, but somewhere you have to make a new beginning, but most clergies don’t want to give up their ego’s and the power over others and the money .And you make it worse day by day, until we will get an explosion of hate, the world hasn’t known yet.
We are only going backwards in a very fast tempo, and going backwards in this way is no supposed to go like that, because you perish in the end, Going backwards is not part of evolution, and going “forward” like this
I doubt it, but it all has to take its course, unless WE do something to change it !!!
Billy Chickens says
Lucifer will not be mocked.
Jack Holan says
Each capitulation strengthens and justifies the belief and mentality of the Muslim that they are Right. The Non-Muslim walks away with the Mentality they must never insult Islam.
gravenimage says
Spot on.
eduardo odraude says
If you are afraid and therefore decide not to display Islam-critical art or opinion, the least you can do is announce that you are self-censoring and explain that you are doing so because of death threats from Muslims and because of the record. Then post the long list of people who have experienced violence from Muslims for disobeying Islamic strictures.
In a way, the grey sheets in this gallery say, “Muslims censored these works,” but that message is not honest and direct. The grey sheets should have printed on them: “Censored by Muslims.”
eduardo odraude says
If more people announced that they self-censor about Islam because of concerns about violence, then we’d get fewer non-Muslims urging the welcoming of immigrants and migrants from the Muslim world. The dunderheads who have not been paying attention might start to realize that bringing in Islam means bringing in censorship, authoritarianism, and fear.
Simon Platt says
A better compromise might have been to cover the complainants in grey sheets.
gravenimage says
I’ve mentioned this before, but not for a while. I’ve had my own artwork censored by Muslim demands.
My first art show was at the International House in Berkeley when I was a student. I installed my artwork in glass cases early in the day, and excitedly returned to see the work after classes. Instead of the installations, I found the art had been torn down, and many pieces badly damaged.
Needless to say I was both devastated and bewildered.
Since this was a Friday and at that point after office hours, I was unable to find out what had happened.
On Monday, I found out that there had been complaints about my work. I couldn’t image what–then I remembered that one of the pieces featured a tasteful nude. Who had complained? Some uptight alumni? But no–it was Muslim students–Iranians, specifically.
This was 1979–I had thought that any Iranian students there were liberals glad to free of the Islamic revolution–it never occurred to me that many of them would be *in favor* of the oppression there.
And this was my first run in with dhimmitude–although I would not learn the word for many years. The secretary first offered to cover up the offending piece, but this was not good enough–they wanted it taken down–and *all of it*, not just the nude.
I never found out conclusively, but I think it unlikely that Muslims were allowed to tear my work down themselves–the damage was all to my artwork, not to the glass cases. I imaging either the secretary or custodial crews took it down, and had little understanding of how it had been put up, leading to damage. They didn’t wait for me to come back, so I could at least take it down myself–neither did anyone leave me a note.
Several of the pieces–although not the nude itself–were damaged beyond repair. What I thought would be my first art show was ruined by Muslims–and by dhimmis eager to appease them.
All of the art had been approved by staff before it was hung–not that this ultimately mattered. My show was replaced by a generic “History of International House” until the next exhibit.
It would take me years to realize the significance of this–for a long time, it was just a sad and seemingly inexplicable incident.
TKF says
When it comes to Islam, the tolerance ALWAYS runs in only one direction.
gravenimage says
So true–here’s an example of a Muslim demanding “tolerance”:
“Sultan of Brunei requests “tolerance” from EU leaders for his implementation of Sharia stoning of gays”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/sultan-of-brunei-requests-tolerance-from-eu-leaders-for-his-implementation-of-sharia-stoning-of-gays
martin says
Where ever satan has his moooslimes
toomanhobbies says
simple solution… if you are offended by something no body else is THEN LEAVE AND DONT COME BACK!
Andrew E Walker says
This is a good article, but it omits the most salient point. The artist involved in this business, SKU, told the Times: “It seemed a respectful solution that enables a debate about freedom of expression versus the perceived right not to be offended.”
There is no right, perceived or otherwise, not to be offended. As Tugendhat J held in Trimingham v Associated Newspapers:.
“To the extent that the words complained of include insults and other offensive matter, insulting and offensive speech is protected by the right of freedom of expression.”
In other words, we are all free to offend others.