“Islamization?” they said. “That’ll never happen. You’re just being paranoid, bigoted, racist, and ‘Islamophobic.’ There is no Islamization in the West. The West stands firmly on its own principles, and never bows to violent intimidation. Free speech is a cardinal principle of any free society. Oh, but we have to draw a line between free speech and ‘hate speech.’ And Degas’ ‘Bather’ is now ‘hate speech.'”
“Dutch Museum Debates Censoring Degas Work to Avoid Muslim Offense,” by Abigail R. Esman, IPT News, February 18, 2020:
They are two of the most beloved artists of all time: Edgar Degas, celebrated for his extraordinary draftsmanship and tender, dynamic paintings of ballerinas; and Vincent van Gogh, adored not just for his tragic life story, but for his shimmering canvases, those world-famous images of starry nights and bright sunflowers.Now, a museum dedicated to Van Gogh’s oeuvre is asking whether it is “appropriate,” in anno 2020, to exhibit a drawing by Degas.
To be sure, it’s not just any drawing. The sketch in question depicts a bathing woman from behind, her derriere revealed in all its flesh and glory. It is also a drawing the Amsterdam-based Van Gogh Museum purchased last year at auction for the eye-widening price of $6 million.
Yet apparently even before acquiring the “Bather,” part of a series Van Gogh is known to have especially admired, museum staff discussed the issue of whether it could or should be placed on view. Earlier this month, the Van Gogh Museum’s new director, Emilie Gordenker, observed on Dutch national TV that while she is pleased the work is now hanging in the museum, she considers it important to address the question of “whether female nudes are appropriate for people of all cultures.”
This, as everyone immediately understood, was code, a subtle way of asking, really, whether nudes should be exhibited at all in a museum located in a city where Muslims happen to live.
It’s not the first time a question like this has been asked. In 2006, a Berlin opera house cancelled its performance of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” out of concern for the “incalculable safety risk” posed by a scene depicting the severed heads of Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, and Neptune. A year later, the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague bowed to pressure from Muslim radicals who threatened the museum if it exhibited photographs by Iranian art student Soorah Hera that depicted gay men disguised as Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali. The works were removed from the exhibition, and Hera was forced into hiding. And following the death threats and assassination attempts against several European cartoonists who had depicted the prophet Mohammed, a sin in Islam, gunmen stormed the editorial office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. Twelve people were killed and11 injured in the attack.
But since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Western cultural leaders have tended to be less willing to compromise on these issues. More important, there is nothing blasphemous about the Degas drawing, nothing about it to send radicalized Muslims into a violent rage. It poses no “security risk” to the museum. What’s more, no Muslim or Muslim group has threatened to take action, or even mentioned any discomfort with the drawing, at least publicly, nor has the museum indicated otherwise. And no one appears to have requested it not be placed on exhibition.
So why, then, the debate?
“The role of museums is changing,” Gordenker told TV program “Buitenhof” on Feb. 9. “They are increasingly seen as part of the culture and society around them.”
But is that really new? Many in the art world can recall the uproar when, in 1999, then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani threatened to cut off all subsidies to the Brooklyn Museum over its plans to include a painting by the artist Christopher Ofili of the Virgin Mary, created with oil paint, glitter, and elephant dung. (The work is now part of the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.) The museum refused to bow to his pressure, and the public by and large stood with it. You do not censor art, the public declared. You especially do not censor art without first understanding it. And the censorship of public institutions is not an American value….
Gork says
Europe can destroy their culture in the name of “inclusion” and all that. Frankly, I’m done caring at this point. If they won’t fight for their own culture, I’ll be damned if I’ll fight for them.
william carr says
As art is ‘haram’ anyway to Muslims why would any Muslim visit an art gallery? Unless of course to damage the paintings.
However speaking as an artist and former teacher of art plus being completely non religious
I think there is nothing to understand about the Ofili ‘painting’ It is simply obnoxious but unfortunately that is what a lot of so called art has become these days.
gravenimage says
+1
Old Fat Bald Socially Inept Ron says
Butt cracks and boobies = Vulgar
Young mutilated vaginas and beheaded Infidels = Beautiful
Islam, ya gotta love it ❤️
FYI says
Degas is my idea of Art and I have always loved Van Gogh.
I went to a “modern Art” exhibit once and I saw,nailed to the wall{I kid you not}a slab of meat.I was about to tell the Curator about the Vandalism when I was told it was apparently part of the exhibit.. but i didn’t complain on behalf of Vegans and Vegetarians did I,I just wrote down “offal” in the Visitors book.
At least Degas and Van Gogh were authentic artists:why on earth would anybody talk offense at their works unless they are Leftists{..or like those White Lefty Liberals who love to virtue-signal by taking offense on behalf of black folk..}
We see the museum censors acting the same on behalf of what they imagine must be offensive to muslims{like Christmas,bacon..}
Aingel Strong says
As search for European Couples on Bing et al throws up Royal Family Trees and hundreds of pictures of Nudists, all sexes and ages*. Where is the evidence people of other cultures cannot handle nudity? The fact is moslems hate any Art, that is not their own spirogyro stuff. They were never bothered about sticking Nudes in front of our children, so what are they bothered about?
*An online search for “white couples” throws up mixed raced couples, the majority a female white and a black male.
NOTE: 95% of the porn on Earth is stored on servers in Iraq and Egypt. The most viewers live in Asia.
Ade Fegan says
and do you care about offending muslims because you like them so much ?
or because you don’t want them to blow you to smithereens ?
Leon Degney says
The latter of course!
Westman says
The museum’s “concern” is a weasel-word for the fear of what would happen if jihadists decided to destroy not only the Degas in question but many other paintings and art objects – which the jihadists will destroy if they eventually gain enough power in The Netherlands.
The Netherlands is deep in hypocrisy, prosecuting Geert Wilders for warning of immigration-fueled Islamic Jihad; a precise expression of what is actually driving the museum’s action. Like Sweden, the elite Netherlands government is holding up the facade of benefits from Islamic immigration while the citizens have, opposing, actual experience. And when one is dependent upon government largesse, provided by your own tax money, who can afford to speak the truth?
keith says
Whatever happened to the concept of not looking at something if you didn’t like it?
If this sort of madness continues, then these fools will be out of a job due to Muslims banning ALL art in any form.
Aussie Infidel says
Keith, I couldn’t agree more. If you don’t like a painting, don’t continue looking. Plenty of art has no appeal to me, but I don’t want to stop others from looking.
But therein lies the problem. Firstly we have a totalitarian cult which demands that EVERYTHING in this world must conform with its rigid ideology. And secondly we have the reaction of bureaucrats (who are mostly Leftists), whose rules of conduct are, “Don’t do anything controversial, and make sure you protect your own arse”.
Gabriel said, “We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog”. — Bukhari 4.54.50.
It’s crazy that a comment such as this in an obscure medieval religious text, could stultify the minds of a quarter of the world’s population. But that’s why most Islamic art is little more than geometrical forms embellished with Arabic calligraphy.
Islam always tends to the lowest common denominator.
Rufolino says
Islam spells death to the human spirit.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Rufolino.
Jerry says
There is a simple solution.
Keep the exhibit on view.
Just put a sign at the entrance is unsuitable for Muslims.
Put a similar one at the arrival hall in the airport.
barbaracvm1 says
First it is Degas and Van Gogh are to be hidden.. How long until Monet, Renoir, Mary Constable ( she is woman) will the gallery’s take down their pictures. When does Rembrandt, Michelangelo have their works hidden?
Keys says
Yes. Death by a thousand cuts.
And take down that offensive-to-Muslims Netherland flag in front of the museum too.
Rufolino says
Have people forgotten that a few years ago magnificent ancient statuary on the Capitol in Rome was covered up with boarding so that a visiting Islamic leader wouldn’t take offence ?
But Italians did take offence, and there was an outcry !
Clearly, despite the outcry, attitudes of politicians and authorities have not changed in the slightest.
Europe’s leaders (but not its people) are determined to assist in Europe’s cultural destruction.
gravenimage says
Yes–so much dhimmitude.
Wellington says
The obsequiousness by craven dhimmis seemingly has no end to it.
Islam is counting on this as it is counting on the utter destruction of Western concepts of freedom.
And here the God-damn dhimmis are more culpable than Mohammedans, thus demonstrating again that excuse making for enemies of liberty is actually worse than said enemies themselves.
In other words, The Netherlands needs to grow a spine. Ditto for many other Western nations with Sweden, Canada and the UK also at “the top” of this cowardly list. I would also include the Democratic Party of the USA which has become so supine in its subservience to Islam that is has actually managed to become a caricature of itself.
Donovan Nuera says
The Van Gogh Museum ninnies need to walk a block over to the Rijksmuseum and look at the large wall on which is fastened the ornately- carved stern remnant trophy of the HMS Royal Charles that legendary Dutch Admiral Michiel de Ruyter STOLE during their daring night Raid of the Medway May 17, 1667 and sailed it down the Thames across the sea and back to Amsterdam! These Ninnies need to understand just how wimpy they have become and should be ashamed of their letting down their proud and gutsy heritage!! (Raid on the Medway:Best. Naval Prank. Ever.)
Phil Copson says
“….(Raid on the Medway:Best. Naval Prank. Ever.)….”
——————————————————————-
Nope – Sir Francis Drake’s pre-emptive raid in April 1587 on the Spanish fleet in the Port of Cadiz – (“the Singeing of the King of Spain’s beard”) – sinking 25 ships, and delaying the Spanish Armada from setting sail, gave England a further 12 months in which to organise it’s defences against the coming invasion.
Had the Spanish succeeded in invading England in 1588, then Europe was wide open to every military dictator then and since, whether Philip the 2nd, Napoleon, the Kaiser, or Hitler.
An independent Britain is the best guarantor of both it’s – and the Continent’s – security.
Donovan Nuera says
I had not read about that raid. 3 huzzahs to Sir Francis! I cannot imagine what it must have been like to be a sailor in that era. My Spaniard forebears no doubt felt humiliated.
I just meant to spotlight the hilarity of de Ruyter stealing the Royal Navy flagship from under their nose. He was like the Captain McHale of the Anglo-Dutch Wars.
gravenimage says
Netherlands: Museum censors Degas work to avoid offending Muslims
…………………….
Just grotesque dhimmitude.
And note that Muslims don’t just hate nudes, but *all* figurative work, How far is the Van Gogh museum willing to go? The fact is that most of Van Gogh’s own work would be considered Haram as well.
By the way, this is probably the piece in question:
“Reading after the Bath (La toilette, lecture après le bain)”
https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/prints/collection/p2759S2014
Of course, Muslims would be almost as enraged by a print of a woman reading as would be by her being nude.
eduardo odraude says
And why is figurative art, at least when it portrays ensouled beings (animals and humans), something forbidden in Islam? Because Allah alone has creative power, and for an artist to depict ensouled beings is to pretend to creative power. Human creativity is blasphemy in Islam, at least in Muhammad’s Islam. Which is one reason why Islamic societies are so backward. Compare that with the biblical paradigm, where human beings are made in the image of the Creator, and thus are permitted to create.
gravenimage says
*So* true, Eduardo–very important point. And for Jews and Christians, learning about the universe among other things expresses awe and love of God’s creation–rather than man overstepping his bounds and enraging “Allah”.
We see the fruits of these radically different worldviews all the time.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, the Islamic theology based on Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira tends to assume that to predict (as science does) how things will behave is evil human presumptuousness, since Allah at each moment decides how everything will go, and he can change his mind at any time. In Islam nature does not have its own consistent logic, and Allah need not even keep his promises he is so absolute in his tyrannical power. In Islam, “goodness” often has no relation to what humans perceive as goodness. Goodness is defined not according to its own inherent qualities, but just as whatever “Allah” and Muhammad do or cause to happen, no matter how evil, as depicted in the Qur’an and Hadith. In the Judeo-Christian paradigm, goodness is not relativized in that way. Human beings are seen as being able to perceive the good directly in its inherent qualities, and God is conceived as in a sense having no choice about being inherently good in an objective sense. Goodness is conceived as God’s very being, and God cannot abandon it without becoming something other than God. I take it this is why according to Islamic traditions, one of the things Muslims cursed the Jews for was that the Jews, in the way they conceived God, allegedly fettered him. And God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is indeed in a way fettered; fettered to truth, goodness, and beauty. But such “fetters” are simply God’s own most divine qualities, not external fetters placed on him.
Apologies to atheists here. My point is not to start an argument between theists and atheists. My main point is to compare the paradigm of Islam on the one hand and the Judeo-Christian conception on the other. Even if both are a pure tissue of fantasy, they have profoundly different social outcomes. Islam leads societies toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The Judeo-Christian paradigm leads over time to free and open societies.
gravenimage says
Very true, Eduardo.
Alice says
Great post! This difference is huge!
gravenimage says
Thank you, Alice. Islam is such an arid, joyless creed.
somehistory says
“she considers it important to address the question of “whether female nudes are appropriate for people of all cultures.”
The “culture” she’s worried about doesn’t seem to have a problem with raping the female. She should ask some of that “culture” if they do the rapes while the children and women are fully clothed.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, in a free culture, Islam would come in for intense criticism, ridicule, lampooning, protest, discussion, artistic depiction, and so on. But instead we have museum directors afraid for their lives, or worried that their $6 million painting might be destroyed by one of the all-too-common devout Muhammadans among Muslim populations.
gravenimage says
And if nudes are inappropriate for Muslims, all they have to do is avoid galleries and museums. The idea that we should be deprived of enjoying art just because Muslims hate it is grotesque.
Jaydam says
Well said Gravenimage.
But with the way things are going, it won’t be too long before all western art will be consigned to a back room, never to been seen again. As the Muslims will surely find it extremely offensive, and be in uproar,… till it is hidden away or destroyed.
Our grandfathers must be turning in their graves at what has become of Europe and western societies in the last few years.
gravenimage says
Too true, Jaydam.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, Islam is deadly to the mind and to societal evolution, shuts it down, ties it up, paralyzes it. Well, too many Westerners have too often taken their freedom for granted. Naturally, they are starting to lose it. Perhaps that will be the only thing that finally makes them start to appreciate it again and begin to fight for it.
gravenimage says
Yes–I doubt many Westerners understand where this dhimmitude leads.
Donovan Nuera says
Italian politicians (who have forgotten about the massacre at Otranto, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Sack of Rome by the Pashas) veiled the nude statues in the halls of a government building on Capitoline Hill a few years back when I believe the Iranian delegation came for some lame meeting.
Donovan Nuera says
What almost every publication forgets to mention (or never learned about) during discussions the infamous elephant dung Madonna was that one of the most offensive things glued onto the “painting” by the stupid artist were dozens of cut-outs of crotch shots from porn magazines. Just so everyone has a better idea of the context. Liberal publications never mention that aspect as they want to hide behind public amnesia.
Donovan Nuera says
…. but nonetheless, the self-censoring wimps at the Van Gogh Museum are idiots. Muslims probably are not a big percentage of the visitors anyways as art depicting Man is forbidden because Mo said so because….it is forbidden!
UNCLE VLADDI says
Cuck, two, three four! CUCK, two, three, four! Cuck…!
jca reid says
Typical of these dingbats! Orwell’s ‘Newspeak’ is alive & well & progressing into the 21st. Century. A “phobia” is an illogical, irrational fear. People’s concerns about this Fascistic Terror Doctrine is NOT irrational, nor illogical. It is clear, concise & most logical. What would you call people in the 1930’s/40’s most concerned about the advancement of Nazism – Naziphobic? This is just the same but subtler & far more insidious & cancerous.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
What kind of journalism is it to discuss a work of art without showing a picture of it? Let’s correct that. This seems to be the painting in question, at 3:55 in this video, “Badende vrouw” by Edgar Degas, circa 1886:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNNcF8laSQ
Sam Balter says
Listen,Listen,, islam can be defeated..The solution has been with US for almost 1400 years,but people with eyrs were too cowardly to see……Yes, it can be done…Heres how…..Golden Rule…..Make them fear US..Kill Many..make them pay the jizyah.Make their women your concubines..Convert their childen.Make millions of men slaves,,Mistreat them as fhey others..Humiliate them..Give them a choice,,Convert or Die..And dont criticize the Chinese for doing the Right thing…M.Y.O.F.B……
Kolga says
Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
Aristotle.
Trick_or_Treat says
…converts to islam, then immediately plans a massacre, where have I heard this before? Seems to do it to them every time, just ‘WHAT’ is it that keeps inciting them? Oh, this is starting to get boring!