Artwork is likely to offend

Museum of Civilization exhibit raises issues of free expression.

PAT JOHNSON REPORTER

A much-discussed exhibit opens this week at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and is certain to spur debate about the boundaries of art and politics, as well as the suitability of public displays that might be considered offensive to some.

The Lands Within Me: Expressions by Canadian Artists of Arab Origin is slated to open Friday, Oct. 19, at the museum in Hull, Que. Little is known about the contents of the exhibit, yet that has not precluded a flurry of controversy around the opening. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, which have been blamed on extremists based in the Arab world, the museum "reviewed" its fall schedule and indefinitely postponed the opening of The Lands Within Me exhibit, intending to present the display later with greater context. That decision prompted an outpouring of criticism, including accusations of racism and a call by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to go ahead with the show as planned.

On Sept. 28, the museum relented and issued a statement that the exhibit would open as scheduled on Oct. 19. By that point, however, the public had become aware of at least one segment of the exhibit some deemed inflammatory.

A video installation is reported to include an interview with a Palestinian woman who claims the Americans are supplying weapons to Israel for the purpose of testing them on women and children.

A spokesperson for the museum would not provide specifics about potentially controversial content in advance of the opening, but acknowledged that it seems destined to provoke varying responses.

"Everybody obviously will have their own views on the content of the exhibition and the artwork that we present," said Pierre Pontbriand, vice-president of public affairs. "I'm sure there will be various views expressed and it will give way to dialogue and discussions, we hope."

The exhibit includes paintings, sculptures and installations by 26 Canadian artists. It is intended to show the cultural intermixing that occurs in Canada and how that fact influences art, according to Pontbriand.

"The artwork will talk by [itself] and we will leave it to the reporters and the public and the visitors to the museum to judge for themselves the quality of the work," he said. Meanwhile, regardless of the content, any suggestions of censorship raise hackles in the artistic community and in other segments of society. Several Jewish artists in Vancouver have strong views on the censoring of art.

Aviel Barclay, an artist and scribe specializing in ketubot calligraphy, among other media, said that to hide away unpleasant or disturbing images may be a safety mechanism for some people, but that does not detract from the gravity of an artist's heartfelt message.

"If it's someone's personal experience, I can't really protest it," said Barclay. If, as some have suggested, the new exhibit contains anti-Zionist references, Barclay said she falls, albeit uncomfortably, on the side of free speech.

"I think it's important that people are allowed to use art as a venue to express themselves and to communicate things," she said. "Sometimes [there] might be things I don't want to see. I'd rather it wasn't happening."

Jeannie Kamins, another Vancouver artist, has come face-to-face with these sorts of disturbing issues before. When she was in art school, another student in a joint exhibition attempted to "reclaim" the ancient Indian symbol of the swastika.

"I was totally offended by it, period," said Kamins. "You can reclaim it, you can put any other kind of description or excuse to it - I don't want to look at it."

As strongly as she felt about that incident, she said that, without the right of someone to express themselves in that fashion, we risk a greater fate.

"How can you have a free and open society without the right to exhibit?" she asked. "The process of censoring does more harm because it stifles discussion on real issues."

Kamins described the original decision to postpone the Arab art exhibit as "racist."

"I believe that visual art is another language and I believe that it is to communicate ideas ... it is to provoke thought," she said. "There is art that offends me and I wouldn't support it - I wouldn't go to a show that had it - but I wouldn't take away the right to show."

Another artist in the community, Linda Frimer, said she has seen the effects of censorship and she has seen the effects of art that offends. Neither is a pretty option.

"It's quite a complicated issue," she said. "I think we have a moral responsibility to each other, and yet we have to understand the basis or the foundation of where the work is coming from."

Frimer suggested that the responsibility lies with the artist to create his or her work within a context that does not harm fellow humans.

"I think there can be boundaries around the way it is presented, in context and explanation," she said.

Although she said she has limits to what she wants to look at and she would prefer that people do not use art to hurt each other, she defends the role of free artistic expression.

"It is the artists' right," she said. "They need to express themselves and they're often the seers of the generation - the forerunners of what's coming ... so we have to hear from them. But I think we have to make sure we're not putting up something that is going to cause more harm than good."

As a compromise, Frimer said, art that is likely to offend portions of the public could be exhibited in less public spaces.

^TOP