clear

Subscribe

Recent Posts

clear

Categories

clear
Sunday, 19 February 2006
"Edgy" art
Share
clear

Nick Cohen, one of the few sensible journalists to write for "The Observer", has some pertinent comments about "transgressive" art:

Last week, I went to the East End of London to witness the death of the avant-garde. At first glance, Gilbert and George's Sonofagod Pictures: Was Jesus Heterosexual?' exhibition at the White Cube did not look like a wake. The bright and glistening gallery is in Hoxton, a corner of town that has been full of life since it was colonised and gentrified by 'Young British Artists' in the early Nineties. As fashionable visitors move between its loft conversions and cafes, 'edgy' is the highest compliment they can bestow and 'taboo' the gravest insult. Taboos are taboo in Hoxton.

Even on a wet Thursday lunchtime, there were plenty of sightseers from the metropolitan intelligentsia enjoying the show rather than mourning the passing of their world. In prose that might embarrass an estate agent, novelist Michael Bracewell told them in the catalogue that Gilbert and George were engaged 'in rebellion, an assault on the laws and institutions of superstition and religious belief'.

Burbling critics agreed. Gilbert and George still get a 'frisson of excitement' by including 'f-words, turds, semen, their own pallid bodies and other affronts to bourgeois sensibilities' in their work, wrote a journalist with the impeccably bourgeois name of Cassandra Jardine in the Daily Telegraph. 'Is it the perfect Christmas card to send George Bush at Easter? Yeah, yeah,' added groovy Waldemar Januszczak of the Sunday Times

Their justifications for edgy art won't work any longer and not only because the average member of the educated bourgeoisie likes nothing better than f-words and pallid bodies on a visit to the theatre or gallery. After the refusal of the entire British press to print innocuous Danish cartoons, the stench of death is in the air. It is now ridiculous and impossible to talk about a fearless disregard for easily offended sensibilities.

Sonofagod is clearly trading under a false prospectus. Gilbert and George narcissistically present themselves as icons towering over a shrivelled Christ. 'God loves Fucking! Enjoy!' reads one inscription. This isn't a brave assault on all religions, just Catholicism.

The gallery owners know that although Catholics will be offended, they won't harm them. That knowledge invalidates their claims to be transgressive. An uprising that doesn't provoke a response isn't a 'rebellion', but a smug affirmation of the cultural status quo.

If they were to do the same to Islam, all hell would break loose. In interviews publicising the show, Gilbert and George showed that they at least understood the double standard. They're gay men who live in the East End where the legal groups of the Islamic far right - Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Association of Britain - are superseded by semi-clandestine organisations which push leaflets through their door saying: 'Verily, it is time to rejoice in the coming state of Islam. There will be no negotiation with Islam. It is only a short time before the flag of Islam flies over Downing Street.' Even if the artists found the audacity to take on the theocrats around them, they know no gallery would dare show the results.

The fear of being murdered is a perfectly rational one, but it is eating away at the cultural elite's myths. In the name of breaking taboos, the Britart movement has giggled at paedophilia (Jake and Dinos Chapman) and rubbed salt in the wounds of the parents of the Moors murderers' victims (Marcus Harvey). It can't go on as if nothing has happened because the contradictions between breaking some taboos but not others are becoming too glaring. They were on garish display last year when the Almeida Theatre, the White Cube of theatreland, showed Romance by over-praised American playwright David Mamet.

His characters hurled anti-semitic and anti-Christian abuse at each other and very edgy it sounded, too. The justification for his venom was that he had set the play against the backdrop of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. He meant the hatreds on stage to reflect the hatreds of the Middle East.

Readers with an interest in foreign affairs will have spotted that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is between Muslims and Jews, not Christians and Jews. Islamophobic abuse ought to have followed the anti-semitic abuse if the play was to make sense. Neither Mamet nor the Almeida had the nerve do that. Their edginess was no match for the desire of the prudent bourgeois to save his skin.

The insincerity extends way beyond the arts. Rory Bremner will tear into Tony Blair, but not Mohammed Khatami. Newspaper editors will print pictures of servicemen beating up demonstrators in Basra, which may place the lives of British troops in danger, but not Danish cartoons, which may place their own lives in danger.

You can't be a little bit free. If you are not willing to offend Islamists who may kill you, what excuse do you have for offending Catholics, the families of murdered children and British troops who won't?

Nick Cohen had sensible things to say about grammar schools too. All in all, a sensible chap.

clear
Posted on 02/19/2006 5:37 AM by Mary Jackson
Comments
13 Mar 2006
Send an emailjohn utting
brilliant analysis of the hypocrisy pervading all areas in the abject surrender to the co ntinual pressure from islam.the ball is rolling now and nothing will stop it john2

11 Mar 2006
Send an emailRory Connor
To my surprise The (Irish) Sunday Tribune actually printed this on 12 February. I sent it to individual journalists as I did not think I had a hope of publication. Regards Rory Connor "Freedom of Speech or Incitement to Hatred" (Sunday Tribune Editorial 5 February 2006) "All people, all religions, have to be open to criticism but it must be constructive and sensitive. [A debate] ...cannot be achieved by extremism in either culture." "We in the Sunday Tribune are against censorship and believe passionately in freedom of speech. But the publication of cartoons that Muslims find so offensive was not correct. For that reason we are not reproducing them today". Is the Tribune serious? Do you recall the obscene and vicious attacks on Nora Wall (Sister Dominic). "Vile Nun", "Pervert Nun", "I was Raped by Anti-Christ". Did you imagine that these came from people who were concerned about child abuse? Do you remember the article by the Sunday World's Crime Correspondent Paul Williams "Rape Nun's Abuse Pact by Smyth". He claimed that Nora Wall had procured children for Fr. Brendan Smyth! Nora Wall sued and got damages of E 175,000. I don't recall the Sunday Tribune (or any "Liberal" newspaper) highlighting the issue. Did you even mention it and if so when? Several years ago the Irish Times did an article about "Piss Christ" an artistic masterpiece that showed a crucifix in a bucket of urine. American Christians who wanted to deny public money to the artist were called "fascists" by the Irish Times. What was the constructive and sensitive response by the Tribune? Do you really think that liberals can (literally) spew vomit over Christianity and their own culture and then demand tolerance of Muslims? Ireland and Weimar Berthold Brecht was the leading intellectual in the Weimar Republic. He was also a Stalinist booklicker. His own mistress Carola Nehler, star of The Threepenny Opera, visited the Soviet Union was arrested and disappeared forever into the Gulag. Brecht did not protest or lift a finger to help her (it would have meant allying himself with "reactionaries"). The obscene treatment of Nora Wall, Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and Sister Xaviera by Irish "liberals" is on the same moral level and you are equally unfitted to fight against our modern fascists.