Dan Harlow

A couple of days before vandals punched a hole in one of Monet’s masterpieces in France, a group of neo-Nazis (unrelated) stormed into the Kulturen Gallery in Sweden armed with axes and crowbars and destroyed half of Andres Serrano’s exhibit “The History Of Sex”. The group shot the entire incident on a hand held camera and posted the video, accompanied with industrial music and a lettered commentary asking “This is art?” to YouTube and LiveLeak (English version and Swedish version). By the time the intruders were done, an estimated $200,000 damage had been done to the exhibit and leaflets reading “Against decadence and for a healthier culture” had been left behind.

Since the video shot by the Nazi thugs violates the terms of service for YouTube it was only a matter of time before it got taken down (again). The English version is still available on LiveLeak but it too will probably come down soon. I do feel however that it is important for people to see what happened so I utilized my “high tech” screen capture software (A-PS) to frame grab as much of the video as possible. I make this available not because I wish to publicize what these Nazi thugs did, but rather to talk about controversial art and peoples reaction to that art. I feel this is an important topic to discuss because freedom of expression is a right not everyone in the world enjoys these days. (The red blocks covering up all the “naughty bits” are part of the original video.)

No stranger to controversy, Andres Serrano’s work has drawn outrage from angry citizens and even governments before. In 1989 when his photography “Piss Christ” was exhibited, “detractors accused Serrano of blasphemy while others raised this as a major issue of artistic freedom. On the floor of the United States Senate, Senators Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms expressed outrage that the piece was supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, since it is a federal taxpayer-financed institution.” In 1997 a print of “Piss Christ” was destroyed while on display at the National Gallery of Art in Melbourne, Australia.

Gallery chief Anki Dahlén was quoted as saying “It is terribly sad that democracy can’t be upheld and people don’t have respect for other people’s work”.

I find it interesting that the above statement does not go both ways. As a good citizen and lover of art I should (and will) respect the vision and right of the artist to comment freely with their art. Yet at the same time why does the artist get to get away with controversy while everyone else must just “accept it”? Does not the artist also have to have respect for other people’s beliefs? Why is it acceptable for an artist to immerse a plastic crucifix into a jar of urine and photograph the result while it’s not acceptable for people to be outraged by such a statement? Who has more freedom, the artist or the viewer?

Though the exhibit which was destroyed was not quite as controversial as the artist’s previous efforts, it does expose the long standing elitism of the art world over regular society and common folk. Yes the Nazis who forced their way into the gallery and smashed up the place are criminals, but don’t they represent a segment of society which does not have a platform to express itself? As an artist Mr. Serrano is free to express whatever he pleases and can rock the boat at will, yet there are always two sides to the coin. While I don’t side with Nazi thugs, there are plenty of people who do not want to have to live in a world where long standing beliefs and values are freely challenged in public.

The notion of beliefs and values are really what is at the heart of the argument here. Everyday we see more and more violence and tension between the secular world and the religious. The religious supporters see a world which once gave them comfort and answers slipping away into a world of doubt and uncertainty. Though seen as old fashioned and outdated, religion does allow a person to live a structured life in accordance to rules and traditions which helps bring some sort of meaning and order to life. In the secular world rules and traditions are replaced with the freedoms of choice and each person is allowed to interpret and question the world as they wish.

To return to the question in my headline (sorry about burying the lead down here), is the vandalism also art? Does the reaction to art constitute and artistic expression all it’s own? Could it even be considered performance art? These questions are intriguing and also controversial. Most people agree that an artist is deliberate and has dedicated a considerable amount of time, energy and effort into creating a work of art whereas a vandal just comes along and smashes it up out of anger. Surly a violent emotional response to a photograph can’t be art? Can it?

In this case the vandals took the time to stake out the museum to determine which works were to be destroyed and which were to be left alone. They planned a time to strike (a half hour before closing) and they prepared themselves not only with a camera, but had access to video editing equipment to make a video of their actions. Is that not just as deliberate as creating art? In fact does the video they left behind deserve being called an art film? Since the vandals are not famous artists, perhaps this was the only way they could express their art - by violently destroying someone else’s expression. Then again, destroying someone else’s expression is typically considered oppression and I doubt the Nazi thugs have ever been oppressed - aside from maybe receiving the similar sort of teasing people get when they sport a mullet in public.

So who has more rights, the artist or the society? As an art lover and someone who enjoys a secular lifestyle I will always choose art over tradition yet I would be hypocritical to think that my way of looking at the world is the only valid point of view. Perhaps, in some odd way, the Nazi thugs who smashed up the gallery were also making an artistic statement as a sort of backlash against secular freedoms. Though what they did was criminal, perhaps they feel Mr. Serrano’s work is also criminal. Whose to judge?

I also want to point out that the New York Times originally ran this story stating that the music played in the video was a “strain of thundering death-metal music” while in fact the music is more industrial. I know this is a small point, but when a newspaper such as the NY Times claims to be a credible and reliable source of information it’s reporters should have an understanding of what they are reporting. Using blanket statements and pointed adjectives such as “thundering death-metal music” to describe the soundtrack to a neo-nazi video only seeks to hang an extra noose around the necks of the vandals. It reminds me when O.J. Simpson was in the news back in the 90’s and Time magazine photoshopped his mug shot to make him look “more guilty”. Why is this necessary to subtly pass judgment on the guilty? Is their crime not enough to prove their guilt without adding thin layers of misinformation on top of it? What did the reporter hope to gain? I’m sure it was not out of ignorance since this was a NY Times Arts reporter and surly Carol Vogel knows the difference between “Death Metal” and “Industrial”. Or does she not consider metal or industrial to be “art”?

Oh well, who are we to worry about what is and isn’t art?

Popularity: 10% [?]