h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ooh - Link tennis.

I raise you ...Chris Rock http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8&feature=related

Want to come up with any more comics to perpetuate racial steretypes?

Not now, I've got The Thick Of It to watch.

This made me laugh though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iau-e6HfOg0

>pretty much every story like this tends to evaporate under scrutiny)<

Oh really. I wonder where you live. Maybe they do in your area when they are put under the microscope. Do you have much of a Muslim community where you live?

I was a volunteer. We brought out a magazine every month. On each cover we put an image to do with art that reflected the many racial/cultural groups in the borough. Never had a problem as the community appreciated that we made the effort to be inclusive about all the arts of different cultures. We didn't put one out representing Muslim culture, but then what with the taboo on imagery we might have offended them, so discretion was the better part of valour..certainly no cartoons As I say no problem until the surrealist painting which was as the way I see it part of the Western art tradition, for want of a better term, and there many artists working in this tradition living in the borough, including the big Camberwell College of Art and many galleries..

And what a fuss. Yes obviously not all Muslims in the borough, but from male elders/imans, letters were recent condemning it in the strongest possible terms as an outrage. Female naked flesh on display was a blasphemy. No account was taken that this was a *work of art*. And they weren't the least interested in that explanation.

A grovelling apologetic letter was sent by the comittee, mostly white 'liberals' for want of a better term..none of them artists themselves though, just art officers from the council..there's a whole industry of these type of people who absolutely love to organise arts groups and oversee funding. There understanding of art is a total joke, IMO.

No account was taken of the views of artists who believe in freedom of expression which is a big tradition in our culture. No it was made abundantly clear to us that from now on any painting on the cover coming from the Western art traditon must absolutely not involve and sort visibility of flesh..in fact they suggested it might be better to stick to stuff like 'still lives'.

I was so disgusted I resigned.

Really Otto you give the impresion of someone bending over backwards to dismiss anything which is inconvenient to your view on this topic.

I'm not saying such anacdotes are representative of all Muslims. But plenty do think like this, especially those with power in the mosques, and they have no interest in compromising with anyone elses' cultural views. But if you prefer to think of my account as something destined to evaporate, your choice.

Oh and I'm sorry I can't link to the actual painting. I've searched online and can't find it. I think it was a Dali. It was relevant because Tate Modern is in the borough of Southwark, and the painting was on display there.

You mention something about children seeing things like this. Do you think they should be excluded from art galleries where nudes are shown? Should Tate modern stop school parties visiting?

Didn't do me any harm as a kiddy wink. Got me on the road to gettin' some culchure

Okay I've found it. I'm pretty sure it was this Magritte, 'The Rape'. There must have been a special exhibition on at Tate Modern, as I think the painting is normally in Belgium.

Yes thinking about what I know now..a lot more about Muslim, especially male Muslim thinking, I can see why the elders may have got their knickers in a bunch. I find it quite political and female assertive.. and you'd need a very thick and totally opaque burqa to hide it..

Yes maybe we were a bit naive. But art should make people think IMO, and confront you, sometimes with uncomfortable complex ideas. Not always safe like pretty pretty impressionist stuff. Those art officers must have had a fit when they saw what we'd done.

Yes it's in yer face But we could only afford to print it in B&W, more's the shame

(But I don't recall any complaints apart from some Muslims.)

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/StephanieWytovich/Magritte_TheRape1945.jpg

My point about stories evaporating under scrutiny was a national one, not a local one. Time and again we get nonsense stories in the media that bear little resemblance to the real facts, which could have been ascertained by any halfway competent fair-minded journalist. So you'll understand my scepticism. And yes, there is a Muslim community in the city where I live. It's very multicultural.

My main point still stands though - not putting something on the *cover* is hardly a great sacrifice to make. It certainly doesn't equal "a blatant disregard for the art and culture of anglos" - which is an over-reaction. And it doesn't amount to a "serious attack on freedom of expression". That's a complete failure of proportion. We should save these expressions for when they're really necessary.

Having seen the picture, I can understand why it would cause offence, and I'd say that it was a mistake to put it on the cover and an apology was appropriate. I'm sure, though, it was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to offend or upset. If the complaints were asking for it to be banned completely, that's not reasonable. And I wouldn't support complaints about, say, the Mona Lisa, being featured on the cover.

"Really Otto you give the impresion of someone bending over backwards to dismiss anything which is inconvenient to your view on this topic."

I don't understand what you mean.

My view on the topic is that there needs to be compromises between groups with different beliefs if they are to live together in the same society. I have no problem with making minor concessions to other cultures where the cost is low compared to the benefit, and because the majority culture has *everything* its own way (something I'm sure you're more even acutely aware of than I am), that means compromise will often come from those with the power and control. Minority groups are *already* making substantial compromises in their everyday life which are easily overlooked by the majority, as I've tried to illustrate.

Some people seem to have a huge problem with even the slightest compromise or concession, and to magnify tiny concessions and considerations out of all proportion. I don't understand why this is - we can give an inch without worrying about it ending up being a mile. This is absolutely not the same as giving way on genuinely important issues and questions that are fundamental to liberal democratic values (majority rule, minority rights) - as I have made clear several times.

If I came over as dismissive or sniffy about your anecdote (and I might well have done), then I apologise. It's just that I hear and read so much prejudiced nonsense in the mainstream media, it's hard to take any of these stories seriously, and that's probably an error on my part.

"You mention something about children seeing things like this. Do you think they should be excluded from art galleries where nudes are shown? Should Tate modern stop school parties visiting?"

No, and no. In general. But there are artists for whom an exception should probably be made. But surely you see the difference between choosing to attend an exhibition and having a magazine delivered to your home.

Ahhh, the pleasant release from hatred and bile that accompanies Tiggy going on holiday...

My point of view on rights is that I have no interest in the form of liberalism that says that you have to respect other cultures' values. I have no intrinsic respect for other cultures' values just because they happen to be the values of some culture. Same for my own culture's values. Of course, my values come from my culture so I'm not claiming that I'm outside culture - but there's nothing I can do about being the person that I am, which is inherently shaped by the culture I grew up in.

So I don't mind imposing my values on others. However, I don't think burkhas, halal butchery or fox hunting should be banned. My basis for saying that is that while it's perfectly reasonable to have laws that protect people from each other (but not protection against offended delicate sensibilities), it's not reasonable to have laws that stop people from doing things that don't hurt anyone else. So I'm quite happy to have laws that make discriminating against gay people illegal, regardless of whether or not that steps on the toes of religious bigots of any variety, but I'm not happy to have laws that stop people from dressing how they want.

Oh my, that really is a rather cheeky smile on that painting.

>And I wouldn't support complaints about, say, the Mona Lisa, being featured on the cover. <

Oh do my a favour Otto. The ultimate 'Virgin Mary' for the *reasonable* secularist. You really do like your art castrated don't you?

I've made the point earlier myself, that in general 'compromise' is needed for society to function. But too much of it just isn't healthy, as too much non compromise also isn't healthy. But art is always a good weapon. It attacks the mind to get you thinking. This is good.

And if something comes through your letterbox you don't like or really want to look at, it takes 2 secs to put it in the dustbin.

I should add that in order to receive that magazine you had to actively sign up to receive it, ie it indicated you had an interest in the arts as practised and exhibited in the borough, by all sections of the community. It wasn't just sent out willy nilly to everyone. So you take a risk if you want *art* It maybe something pretty and aesthetic one moment, but something totally other the next. And if you don't want that, it's easily avoided.

"Oh do my a favour Otto. The ultimate 'Virgin Mary' for the *reasonable* secularist. You really do like your art castrated don't you?"

It was just an example, not a statement of my view about the most provocative image allowed. But I thought we both agreed that the Magritte wasn't, in hindsight, appropriate for the cover.

"I should add that in order to receive that magazine you had to actively sign up to receive it, ie it indicated you had an interest in the arts as practised and exhibited in the borough, by all sections of the community. It wasn't just sent out willy nilly to everyone."

Fair enough. That puts a rather different complexion on things.

Reading between the lines of your posts, Effers, I hypothesise:

One member of household subscribes to your newsletter. Male patriarch sees newsletter, is outraged. Shows newsletter to "community leader". "Community" is outraged, despite not actually being subscribers to newsletter.

Does that seem plausible?

RF

>But I thought we both agreed that the Magritte wasn't, in hindsight, appropriate for the cover.<

It was more that I suddenly realised yesterday why the reaction was so strong from male Muslim elders. But thinking about it further, I've thought how does one decide what's appropriate to not upset one group? It's within the Law. It would start to get impossibly complicated once you go down the road of not upsetting all the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Welles' people, of whichever cultural sub-group. Artists often shock. It doesn't kill anyone. And what we did was within Law. Just as veil wearing is within Law and I've argued it should stay that way, even if it offends some others. And Halal/Kosher is within Law for people of those religions. Whether we should allow religions special priviledge to be outside Laws that the rest have to abide by, is a whole other debate. But yes we do still at present. So yes I now think it cuts both ways. One simply cannot draw the line outside of Law. And if people don't like the Law, they argue to get it changed which may or may not happen in a democracy; that's the deal.

Dogster's post makes a lot of sense to me, as a way around all the multitude of contortions you start to have to do to appease every sort of group you can imagine living in the UK, and I don't just mean racial/cultural groups. This is where pc thinking gets ridiculous.

***

Yes RF, that may well have been the scenario thinking about it..or something like it. Maybe they saw it at the library? I believe it was available there for people to choose to read it or not. But who knows.

I sort of wish some community group, muslim or otherwise, would get up in arms about a certain Legs 11* van which regularly drives up the A34 from Birmingham around 4.15pm. I really am tired of having a larger than life photo of another woman's backside and legs, bending slightly forward in a thong, stockings and heels, stuck somewhere in my line of vision no matter where I look (which kinda has to be ahead really, being in the driver's seat). Surely it's a distraction for most red-blooded males and as such a danger on the road?

Deb

(disgusted from somewhere other than Tunbridge Wells)

*other poledancing clubs are available

"Dogster's post makes a lot of sense to me, as a way around all the multitude of contortions you start to have to do to appease every sort of group you can imagine living in the UK, and I don't just mean racial/cultural groups."

I don't see that "multitude of contortions" is required, and I certainly don't think that every group needs to be "appeased" on every issue. But as I've said before, when the cost of accommodating a particular group is low, and the benefit (to them) is high, then I don't see what arguments there can be against doing so. In our everyday lives, I think most of us would be only too willing to do something that would benefit someone else greatly at little or no cost to ourselves, so I don't see why we can't do it as a society.

"This is where pc thinking gets ridiculous."

None of this has anything to do with political correctness, which is quite different. Political correctness is *not* about offence, but about the way that language shapes thought, and about using language appropriately in ways that don't stereotype or pigeonhole others.

> But as I've said before, when the cost of accommodating a particular group is low, and the benefit (to them) is high, then I don't see what arguments there can be against doing so.<

Okay so why could those Muslims not have accomodated a group of artists giving up their free time to produce a magazine for the *whole community*? Why did they make such a fuss about something emmanating from a different culture to theirs. Why spoil things for artists who are trying to get people to look at stuff from all different angles by looking at art from various cultures in Southwark? Why make them feel gagged about advertising an important exhibition of Surrealism at the world famous Tate Modern, that many Southwark citizens are immensly proud to have in our borough.

No they didn't give a stuff about accomodating us as artists and what's important to us. Art never killed or harmed anyone. It gets people thinking and gives huge pleasure to people of many cultures. As I said it takes les than 2secs to throw something in the bin.

Hence I resigned, and as much for the pathetic behaviour of the council art officers who had the insulting idea of sticking to still lives in future as examples of western art, and basically gagged us in terms of what could go on the cover. Covers are of course vital in getting people to open up and read stuff. Oh yeah really groovy, still lives, that's gonna make people get excited about art. No, neither the arts officers or the Muslim elders gave a t**s about accomodating us.

>I think most of us would be only too willing to do something that would benefit someone else greatly at little or no cost to ourselves, <

Tiggy pointed out the survey showing a large majority want the burqa banned. How does that sit with your claim then?

Effers - you might like reading/watching (there's lots on YouTube) Slavoj Zizek. He is a Marxist, but not your typical Marxist (he's also a Lacanian psychoanalyst) and he's very non-PC. He's the one that pointed out to me this thing about the contradiction in a certain type of liberalism: you can't be liberal AND respect cultures which are illiberal. You have to choose one or the other at some point, and the refusal to do is what you're describing as 'contortions' I think.

That said, although I think we should certainly have the right to offend people, I tend to agree with Otto that if we can choose not to at little cost to ourselves then that's usually a better choice. (Just so long as it's a choice and not backed up by a law forcing us to.)

Of course sometimes it is important to say things that upset and offend people.

Sorry, can we be clear on this, because I'm increasingly confused. Were they objecting to one very... graphic.... picture on the *cover* of the magazine, which you yourself earlier seemed to be accepting was inappropriate? Because that's the message from your earlier post.

Or were they objecting to the magazine, the exhibition, and art in general? Because that's what you now seem to be implying. Or are you having a total sense of proportion failure? In a democratic society, don't people have a right to complain about things that they don't like?

I still don't see the problem. A situation where the cover stays uncontroversial, but that more controversial works can be pictured inside seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise, and does not in any way constitute "gagging".

As for Muslims and other minority groups accommodating or making concessions for the majority culture, can I refer you back to post 198?


>>I think most of us would be only too willing to do something that would benefit someone else greatly at little or no cost to ourselves,

>Tiggy pointed out the survey showing a large majority want the burqa banned. How does that sit with your claim then?

I'm not sure it has anything to do with it.

I said we were naive. We should have realised, had we known more about Muslim males in power attitudes, towards women and sex and nakedness, that they might well have got their knickers in a bunch. I don't think I said it was inappropriate. If I did give that impression, I don't. I think their reaction indicates the power of art to challenge people about their thinking. Reasonable people realise this, and take it or leave it, they don't try to gag others simply because it does what it says on the can, ie challange you. As I say it showed their utter disregard for the importance and signifivance of Western art in all its ways, not just being about pretty, insipid pictures for people to hang on their walls for decoration, to make living rooms look 'nice;'.

This conversation is really going around in circles. I get the strong impresion from your posts Otto that you don't have a real understanding about how pasionately many artists feel about art and what a hugely valuable thing it is to our society. We don't use words like 'sacred' cos that sounds a bit silly. But its of that order of importance IMO.

In the sub culture I frequently inhabit, these things are well understood. I don't really want to go into some long 'sermon' here about the importance of art to our culture, especially in its abilities to challenge norms, politics, power structures of society.

It's quite difficult to discuss this with you meaningfully if you don't have a full understanding of the way art operates in our culture, in terms of the way I see it. 3 years doing Fine Art at Goldsmiths kind of gives you a particular view about the way it functions.

Anyway I did the only thing I could reasonably do, from my POV, and resign.

I'm not interested in pursuing this specific point any longer; though I'm happy to debate issues here generally if the thread continues.

Whoa there Effers you're inferring a lot of intentions to the objectors that I can't see anyway you have any way of knowing. In your shoes my issue would be with the management for not backing the artistic decsion. I see nothing wrong with an aplogy for any offense caused while still stating that there was no legal or moral case to answer.

Tiggy concoted a mindlessly shit analogy about culture and breaking into homes that didn't work where he wanted it to. It does fit here I commend newscasters for telling me images that might shock me are coming up. The image was delivered without prior knowledge of what was coming.

I think our little boy should be able to see everything but till he 12 or so I'd like to pick what and when, certainly in our own home I'd expect to have that control. If I were bothered by surrealist nudey paintings and I'm not but if I were and I took him to a gallery then that's different because I'd check what the exhibition contained first.