This month, the Israeli ambassador to Sweden, Mr. Zvi Maz'el, literally pulled the plug on the lamps spotlighting an exhibit at a Stockholm museum. The object he objected to was nothing more nor less than a tender-hearted tribute to a cold-blooded murderer, who a few months earlier deliberately and with premeditation blew up more than twenty people (Jewish and Arab) while they dined at a restaurant in Haifa.
Predictably, much of "the international community" was outraged ? not by the glorification of a murderess, but by Mr. Maz'el's undiplomatic response to the exhibit. Why? Because Mr. Maz'el had violated the sacrosanct. He not only damaged a work of "art," he obviously wanted to "censor artistic expression."
In 1999, Brooklyn Museum in New York mounted a show titled "Sensation." Amongst the exhibits was a rather repulsive painting by an African-British artist, a semi-abstract of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung and decorated with pornographic cutouts. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani called the work "sick and anti-Catholic," and tried to cut off public funding for the city-supported museum. Mr. Giuliani is still jeered by the righteous leftists for his "Nazi-like" attempt to "censor artistic expression."
"Works of art" on whatever subject and in whatever form one wishes to express it have become holy and untouchable. Place a cross into a beaker of urine and it's a blasphemous mess. But put it on display in a gallery or museum, and it's not nauseating ? it's not even anti-Christian; it's a work of art. Cut a dead cow into cross sections and you probably can't even sell it for beef. Mount the same sections in Plexiglas® and the art critics can't wait to "ooh" and "aah" over the deep social commentary expressed by the "artist."
Claim that the USA and Israel were jointly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and you're dismissed as a conspiracy-theory nutcase (except, of course, in much of the Arab world). Describe Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as slaves bowing to a white master and you will rightly be portrayed as a racist. But pen a meandering, semi-literate "poem" full of racial stereotyping and epithets of the lowest sort, in which the author accuses Powell, Rice and Ariel Sharon of complicity in, and foreknowledge of, the 9/11 attacks, and the city of Newark, New Jersey will crown you as their poet laureate.
Negative criticisms of the questionable talent required for such creations invariably result in the critic being labeled a cretin, who doesn't understand or appreciate art and the artistic soul. And anyone foolhardy enough to protest that an exhibit is offensive to Christians or Jews is immediately labeled a fascist, who wants to suppress free expression. In their book, the self-righteous, enlightened thinkers of the world are granted the undeniable right to express any idea in any form they choose. As long as it's called art, it's above reproach.
Israel needs to take a page from this scholarly tome.
I propose that Israel rename the security fence and proclaim it a work of art. Call it something like "Cinderella Awakens From Her Dream State," and tell the world that it's being built solely for the purpose of making an artistic statement. Post some poetry on the walls of the "exhibit" too; the more forms of artistry incorporated into one exhibit, apparently the better. A lovely lyrical ode to truth, perhaps. Or maybe the poetry could take a whimsical approach and be in limerick form: "There once was a fella from Oslo?"
Obviously, the fence is as large as it is because the ultimate objective is for it to be visible from outer space, like the Great Wall of China ? an intergalactic medium marvel. When President Bush sends his manned mission to Mars, the astronauts will photograph this massive and brilliant endeavour, thereby creating the planned second phase of the artistic installation. Maybe the local Martians (Wesley Clark claims they exist, so they must) can look up at Earth and view the curious, meandering line across that part of the planet, in awe at this wondrous, beauteous sight. When they arrive, our astronauts can explain to the Martians that this is indeed a glorious piece of artwork. (Any Martians who don't "get it" would be shipped off to? I don't know, Pluto?)
Israel can invite Christo to wrap the fence in parachute cloth, as he did Berlin's Reichstag building in 1995. This would surely bestow upon the fence a wider acceptance and greater appreciation, since art lovers everywhere are in apparent agreement that Christo's wrappings are truly amongst the most sophisticated of artistic representations.
Once Israel declares the fence to be a work of art, no one would ever again be permitted to say a negative word about it. Anyone who would dare to call for its removal would be subject to immediate reproval by their betters. Peace Now, ISM and their fellow travelers ? those self-appointed arbiters of good and evil ? would think twice about defacing or destroying the fence. If they tried to do so, not only would they be labeled as fools for their failure to appreciate the artistic merit of this exhibit (or, as it would be commonly known, "Cinderella's Dream"), but they would be immediately condemned by the international community as insensitive, fascist suppressors of artistic statement.
And this can be applied further. When Israel razes the home of a terrorist murderer, they have only to state that their soldiers are artists and their purpose is to elevate that house into the realm of creative expression, and it will immediately be applauded as a masterwork. If piles of elephant dung are art, surely a pile of used construction materials is similarly a creative masterpiece that no one dares to criticize.
Excursions into the tunnels of Sinai, seizing weapons-laden ships, sorties on terrorist training camps in Syria or Lebanon, even checkpoint searches and targeted executions of terrorists would henceforth be presented to the world as "performance art", and thus be granted immunity from any negative criticism. Certainly it is as legitimate to paint these actions as theatrical artistic performances as it is to sell tickets to see a semi-clad young woman in a Soho loft reading Ezra Pound while tossing potato salad onto her audience. Or to see the image of a murderess floating placidly in a sea of the blood of her innocent victims.
The media will no longer report any of Israel's legitimate defensive activities as political news; instead, they will be presented in the Arts sections of their publications or broadcast programs. And rather than perpetual condemnation, the enlightened thinkers of the world will praise Israel's brilliance and creativity ? while critics of these activities would, of course, be accused of trying to "censor artistic expression."
Israel will at last gain worldwide support and acclaim.
Maybe the government of Israel can try presenting its dismantling of villages in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as performance art, too, and see if that makes their actions any more palatable for the residents of these areas.
I can only wonder why Israel has so far failed to follow the example of the enlightened Swedes. And the question of what is art? The answer, obviously, lies in how you frame it.
Predictably, much of "the international community" was outraged ? not by the glorification of a murderess, but by Mr. Maz'el's undiplomatic response to the exhibit. Why? Because Mr. Maz'el had violated the sacrosanct. He not only damaged a work of "art," he obviously wanted to "censor artistic expression."
In 1999, Brooklyn Museum in New York mounted a show titled "Sensation." Amongst the exhibits was a rather repulsive painting by an African-British artist, a semi-abstract of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung and decorated with pornographic cutouts. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani called the work "sick and anti-Catholic," and tried to cut off public funding for the city-supported museum. Mr. Giuliani is still jeered by the righteous leftists for his "Nazi-like" attempt to "censor artistic expression."
"Works of art" on whatever subject and in whatever form one wishes to express it have become holy and untouchable. Place a cross into a beaker of urine and it's a blasphemous mess. But put it on display in a gallery or museum, and it's not nauseating ? it's not even anti-Christian; it's a work of art. Cut a dead cow into cross sections and you probably can't even sell it for beef. Mount the same sections in Plexiglas® and the art critics can't wait to "ooh" and "aah" over the deep social commentary expressed by the "artist."
Claim that the USA and Israel were jointly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and you're dismissed as a conspiracy-theory nutcase (except, of course, in much of the Arab world). Describe Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as slaves bowing to a white master and you will rightly be portrayed as a racist. But pen a meandering, semi-literate "poem" full of racial stereotyping and epithets of the lowest sort, in which the author accuses Powell, Rice and Ariel Sharon of complicity in, and foreknowledge of, the 9/11 attacks, and the city of Newark, New Jersey will crown you as their poet laureate.
Negative criticisms of the questionable talent required for such creations invariably result in the critic being labeled a cretin, who doesn't understand or appreciate art and the artistic soul. And anyone foolhardy enough to protest that an exhibit is offensive to Christians or Jews is immediately labeled a fascist, who wants to suppress free expression. In their book, the self-righteous, enlightened thinkers of the world are granted the undeniable right to express any idea in any form they choose. As long as it's called art, it's above reproach.
Israel needs to take a page from this scholarly tome.
I propose that Israel rename the security fence and proclaim it a work of art. Call it something like "Cinderella Awakens From Her Dream State," and tell the world that it's being built solely for the purpose of making an artistic statement. Post some poetry on the walls of the "exhibit" too; the more forms of artistry incorporated into one exhibit, apparently the better. A lovely lyrical ode to truth, perhaps. Or maybe the poetry could take a whimsical approach and be in limerick form: "There once was a fella from Oslo?"
Obviously, the fence is as large as it is because the ultimate objective is for it to be visible from outer space, like the Great Wall of China ? an intergalactic medium marvel. When President Bush sends his manned mission to Mars, the astronauts will photograph this massive and brilliant endeavour, thereby creating the planned second phase of the artistic installation. Maybe the local Martians (Wesley Clark claims they exist, so they must) can look up at Earth and view the curious, meandering line across that part of the planet, in awe at this wondrous, beauteous sight. When they arrive, our astronauts can explain to the Martians that this is indeed a glorious piece of artwork. (Any Martians who don't "get it" would be shipped off to? I don't know, Pluto?)
Israel can invite Christo to wrap the fence in parachute cloth, as he did Berlin's Reichstag building in 1995. This would surely bestow upon the fence a wider acceptance and greater appreciation, since art lovers everywhere are in apparent agreement that Christo's wrappings are truly amongst the most sophisticated of artistic representations.
Once Israel declares the fence to be a work of art, no one would ever again be permitted to say a negative word about it. Anyone who would dare to call for its removal would be subject to immediate reproval by their betters. Peace Now, ISM and their fellow travelers ? those self-appointed arbiters of good and evil ? would think twice about defacing or destroying the fence. If they tried to do so, not only would they be labeled as fools for their failure to appreciate the artistic merit of this exhibit (or, as it would be commonly known, "Cinderella's Dream"), but they would be immediately condemned by the international community as insensitive, fascist suppressors of artistic statement.
And this can be applied further. When Israel razes the home of a terrorist murderer, they have only to state that their soldiers are artists and their purpose is to elevate that house into the realm of creative expression, and it will immediately be applauded as a masterwork. If piles of elephant dung are art, surely a pile of used construction materials is similarly a creative masterpiece that no one dares to criticize.
Excursions into the tunnels of Sinai, seizing weapons-laden ships, sorties on terrorist training camps in Syria or Lebanon, even checkpoint searches and targeted executions of terrorists would henceforth be presented to the world as "performance art", and thus be granted immunity from any negative criticism. Certainly it is as legitimate to paint these actions as theatrical artistic performances as it is to sell tickets to see a semi-clad young woman in a Soho loft reading Ezra Pound while tossing potato salad onto her audience. Or to see the image of a murderess floating placidly in a sea of the blood of her innocent victims.
The media will no longer report any of Israel's legitimate defensive activities as political news; instead, they will be presented in the Arts sections of their publications or broadcast programs. And rather than perpetual condemnation, the enlightened thinkers of the world will praise Israel's brilliance and creativity ? while critics of these activities would, of course, be accused of trying to "censor artistic expression."
Israel will at last gain worldwide support and acclaim.
Maybe the government of Israel can try presenting its dismantling of villages in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as performance art, too, and see if that makes their actions any more palatable for the residents of these areas.
I can only wonder why Israel has so far failed to follow the example of the enlightened Swedes. And the question of what is art? The answer, obviously, lies in how you frame it.