The year 2024 has been described as being ‘the ultimate election year’, when more people than ever in history may vote in national polls for their governments and leaders: in over 70 countries worldwide, representing 49% of the world’s population. Polling outcomes may weaken stable democracies by electing leaders or parties with antidemocratic leanings – and propensities to suppress creative expressions of political, social and cultural protest.
Censorship of artists and/or their works is typically imposed, by holders of levers of power and influence, to curb or cancel public expressions they judge to be unacceptable. Autocratic regimes seldom favour using laws as instruments of suppression, because due legal processes are invariably too slow for them and may result in judges and juries protecting freedom of expression. Conversely, democracies are more likely to have enshrined in their national constitutions absolute and inalienable guarantees of human rights including freedom of expression buttressed by the rule of law, from which such governments are not immune.
Today’s international human rights frameworks were developed in the shadow of the Second World War and especially the genocide of the Holocaust, with the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (UDHR). The preamble to UDHR clarifies its key purpose: ‘Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.’ Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of then late US President Franklin D Roosevelt, chaired the UN commission that developed UDHR, of which she said, ‘It is not a treaty … In the future, it may well become the international Magna Carta.’ All 193 member states of the United Nations have ratified UDHR, although antidemocratic regimes typically ignore or circumvent its guaranteed rights and freedoms.
PEN America’s Artists at Risk Connection 2023 report, Art is Power:20 Artists on How They Fight for Justice and Inspire Change, spotlighted the persecution – threats, harassment, detention, imprisonment – of artists from across the world over the political contents of their creative expressions. Such victim artists are described in the report as being ‘canaries in the coal mine … having a special role to play in sounding the alarm and pushing back against the forces that want to make them be quiet’. Many artists are understandably guarded about expressing potentially inflammatory political views, especially for fear of damaging their professional standing and reputation – often resulting in self-censorship. Resistance and push-back by artists against actual or potential censorship requires courage.
Ai Weiwei publicly criticised Israel–Hamas hostilities in Autumn 2023, which resulted in the cancellation of his exhibition at London’s Lisson Gallery (see Francis Frascina’s ‘Disproportionate Force’ and Sarah E James’s ‘Taking a Stand’ in AM473). Following the eruption of that conflict, Ai posted a tweet that evidently offended the gallery, saying: ‘The sense of guilt around the persecution of the Jewish people has been, at times, transferred to offset the Arab world. Financially, culturally, and in terms of media influence, the Jewish community has had a significant presence in the United States. The annual $3bn aid package to Israel has, for decades, been touted as one of the most valuable investments the United States has ever made. This partnership is often described as one of shared destiny.’
In response to Ai’s tweet the gallery stated: ‘There is no place for debate that can be characterised as anti-Semitic or Islamophobic at a time when all efforts should be on ending the tragic suffering in Israeli and Palestinian territories, as well as in communities internationally … Ai Weiwei is well-known for his support of freedom of expression and for championing the oppressed, and we deeply respect and value our longstanding relationship with him.’ Nevertheless, the gallery cancelled Ai’s exhibition in November 2023.
Ai subsequently explained to the online arts publication Hyperallergic: ‘The works to be exhibited at Lisson Gallery are inherently political, entwined with contemporary global cultural politics. The irony lies in staging such an exhibition precisely when art is most crucial for expressing alternative perspectives. Yet, self-censorship robs artists of this vital opportunity, a poignant contradiction in a time demanding diverse voices.’
Public art organisations may also be victims of censorship, from which they may not be immune. In January 2024 Arts Council England (ACE) published new guidelines for its Relationship Framework with regularly funded clients (Editorial AM474). The crux of this was that ‘overtly political or activist’ statements by funded clients might create ‘reputational risk’ and possibly threaten ACE’s funding to them. ACE’s guidance closely followed several ACE-funded clients publicly addressing issues arising from and involved in Israel–Hamas bloodshed.
Numerous public outcries against ACE’s guidelines were voiced across England’s cultural sector, including visual artists. London-based artist Oreet Ashery (Interview AM381) posted on Instagram her response to ACE: ‘I am an artist who makes political statements. As ACE threaten regularly funded art organisations that professional associations with those who make “political statements” endangers their reputation and potential funding, we say we will not be silenced. #justiceforpalestine.’ Art Monthly’s March 2024 cover featured the new artwork I am an artist who makes political statements that Ashery produced to accompany her statement on Instagram.
On 28 February 2024 ACE issued a revision: ‘If a risk is identified … make time to consider and discuss the risk, and what it means … Individuals have the right to express their personal views, within the bounds of the law, and organisations should not attempt to constrain those rights. It is, however, good practice for organisations to maintain a clear and up-to-date social media policy that makes explicit the distinction between individuals speaking in a personal capacity, and on behalf of your organisation.’
In March 2024, London’s Barbican Centre complied with requirements of artists Yto Barrada and Cian Dayrit to remove their works from its exhibition ‘Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art’, which runs until 26 May 2024. The artists protested against the Barbican’s decision not to host a series of public lectures by Indian writer Pankaj Mishra that were due to take place there, which would have included discussion of the Holocaust and allegations that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Barrada explained: ‘we cannot take seriously a public institution that does not hold a space for free thinking and debate.’
© Henry Lydiate 2024