PROPHETIC VISION

Sep 27, 2009

I write on Thursday, September 10th, the day before the Art Hop opens. No one (including myself) has yet seen the exhibit of photographs of Gaza at the FlynnDog. And yet, as part of its promotion of the weekend's events, there have been two BFP essays concerning "hate speech" and "anti-semitism", garnering by today 42 comments.

I've followed these comments with interest to try to understand what -- in the complete absence of any evidence of the exhibit -- people are doing with their hearts, their minds, and their invitation to public speech. Here are some patterns I've gleaned from the texts:

No one has seen the photos, so most of the "controversy" is necessarily abstract. In one of the two initial pieces, Mark Hage, one of the organizers of the exhibit remarks, "Art can liberate us from fear, ignorance". Which, quoted, called forth two comments: "It can also lie..." (elipsis by the commentator), and "So can an Acorn Squash," a comment quite mystical, but vaguely equating art-intelligence with that of a soulless fruit. 

Concerning the first comment, though, the writer, in the context of a debate about the upcoming exhibit, implies the possibility that the photos of two photograhers on the scene of the recent Gaza events, may "lie". Viewer, remember that. The images you see -- like all art -- may be lying. 

"Propaganda labeled as art is still propaganda," another not-yet-viewer writes, warning the art hoppers that what they will be looking at is (not "may be") propaganda. The writer would not close down the propaganda -- "I don't advocate silencing them but they certainly seem to be out to lunch." -- "out to lunch" implying, I gather, that the photographers, the host, and the organizers of the exhibit have gone off duty for the moment, no longer responsible this lunch hour, to the public which they are supposed to serve. 

The writer goes on to explicate his critique of contemporary art in general: "Art by nature, always seems to have to be a view of a tradgedy (sic) or something that will disgust the viewer. Some people believe the crucifix with jesus peppered with dung is art? To me it seems that people use 'art' to make gross predjudice, ignorance and loose facts relevant." The not-yet-seen exhibit will likely, in his view, reflect the latter.

Name calling of the presenters aside ("PC", "moron liberals", "uneducated", "monster"), the comments I find most interesting are those dissociating themselves from the exhibit per se, but clearly offering themselves as a context in which any exhibit concerning Palestine must be viewed. 

Floating over all is the threat of a second holocaust following "disparagement" of the Jewish people. "We Jews know the effect of such disparagement," one contributor writes, "the robbing our people of the legitimacy of our own existence." A slippery slope to an existential threat? The writer explains that "We know from harsh experience that verbal and visual expressions of hatred often lead to violence." Remember, this is in an essay about the upcoming South End Art Hop, an essay which calls for a "response to hate", such as happened with "the picketers from Kansas" or with Sweden's failure "to criticize an article in a major newspaper of Scandinavia that alleged that Jews killed Palestinians in Gaza to harvest their organs." (This is a rhetorical technique known as guilt by association.)

The writer is well aware of the over-application of the word "anti-semitic" by some in the Jewish community. "Clearly," he writes, "not all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic. I have spoken publicly about my experience in East Jerusalem, standing beside Palestinians as their home was demolished for no good reason; harvesting olives outside of Nablus with Palestinians threatened by Israeli settlers. But the assertion through words, photographs, cartoons, or artistic suggestion that Israelis are Nazi-like, genocidal murderers is hate speech."

While he admits that he cannot comment on this year's exhibit on Gaza because he hasn't seen it, his comment above clearly implies that photographers involved may be artistically suggesting that Israelis are Nazi-like, genocidal murderers, and that the potential viewer had best be prepared to reject such assaults, which he, with Swedish writer and political leader Per Ahlmark, compares to those "most dangerous anti-Semites [...] who wanted to make the world Judenrein, 'free of Jews.' Today, the most dangerous anti-Semites might be those who want to make the world Judenstaatrein, 'free of a Jewish state.'"

That's a lot of associative projection onto two photographers, both of whom were present during the Gaza events, and as many of us would, took photos of the most affecting scenes to present themselves.

As we take in the Art Hop this weekend, let us beware of seeing more than there is to see, and be open to what is actually there to be seen.