Art in the Time of Fascism

[Secret Chief]

Possible fates for a piece of art in the public domain...in the UK...

1. Try to remove it and face up to 10 years in prison. (Cancel culture!)

2. It is deemed offensive to our nation and the State remove it (by force and with arrests).(NOT cancel culture!)


The lesson: Do not shine a light on anything not favoured by the state (such as a devastating impact of nuclear tests) and stick to making statues of Winston Churchill.

- Freedom of speech? Not these days, if you’re an artist in Britain | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett

The UK is a modern western liberal democracy so of course this is of no concern. But just to be on the safe side don't discuss it in schools because it's possibly illegal.

Your (State-sanctioned) thoughts?

 

[Stevicus]

Possible fates for a piece of art in the public domain...in the UK...

1. Try to remove it and face up to 10 years in prison. (Cancel culture!)

2. It is deemed offensive to our nation and the State remove it (by force and with arrests).(NOT cancel culture!)


The lesson: Do not shine a light on anything not favoured by the state (such as a devastating impact of nuclear tests) and stick to making statues of Winston Churchill.

- Freedom of speech? Not these days, if you’re an artist in Britain | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett

The UK is a modern western liberal democracy so of course this is of no concern. But just to be on the safe side don't discuss it in schools because it's possibly illegal.

Your (State-sanctioned) thoughts?

I'm not entirely clear why they feel it necessary to remove the works of art in question. I would need more background information as to what is going on.

In the U.S., it's treated more as a matter of property rights. Whoever owns the property gets to decide what is displayed on it. If it's public property, then the government decides.

Although, there have been criticisms about government financing of the arts, where people have complained about their tax dollars being used to finance "smut" or "anti-Americanism."

I think things like this are to be expected, though. Instead of allowing people to speak and taking more of a live-and-let-live attitude about disagreements, I've noticed that people have tended to be less tolerant over the past 20-25 years. They want to ban this, cancel that, fire that guy for wearing an offensive t-shirt, and so on and so forth. This is the culture which has pervaded during these past few decades. Once you get people in that frame of mind, then it can only spread and escalate.

 

[Estro Felino]

In the U.S., it's treated more as a matter of property rights. Whoever owns the property gets to decide what is displayed on it. If it's public property, then the government decides

Here we have a department called Ministry for Cultural Assets.
I don't know whether in the US you have a similar department.
Here any building or object which has cultural value is property of the state demanium.

 

[Secret Chief]

It seems hypocritical to say the least that on the one hand government can forcibly remove a piece of art (the same government taking up the "fight" against cancel culture and promoting freedom of expression - when it suits) but then protect another by threatening imprisonment.

 

[Secret Chief]

In the U.S., it's treated more as a matter of property rights. Whoever owns the property gets to decide what is displayed on it. If it's public property, then the government decides.

The "All Along the Watchtower" piece was on private property. The police forcibly entered the building to dismantle it.

 

[Estro Felino]

It seems hypocritical to say the least that on the one hand government can forcibly remove a piece of art (the same government taking up the "fight" against cancel culture and promoting freedom of expression - when it suits) but then protect another by threatening imprisonment.

I do agree with that.

 

[Stevicus]

The "All Along the Watchtower" piece was on private property. The police forcibly entered the building to dismantle it.

I couldn't really understand why, though. I found another article on the topic (Antepavilion designers arrested as police raid East London site (archpaper.com)) which had the statement from police:

Chief Inspector Joe Stokoe, from the Met police’s public order command, told The Guardian: “We believe certain protest groups are specifically intending to disrupt some business locations or potentially cause criminal damage to property. If this happens, we will take further action as required to prevent offences being committed or deal with anyone committing criminal acts. Today [Sunday], we took proactive action to prevent and reduce the likelihood of criminal activity during the course of the weekend. This action should further demonstrate our commitment and proactivity to preventing criminality.”

However, according to the Metropolitan Police, therein lies the issue. Police feared the structure was going to be used as part of an XR protest on Sunday regarding press freedom. In September last year, 77 people were charged as XR protested outside printing presses owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News UK to highlight his publications’ failings to report on the climate crisis. Campaigners blocked roads to the Broxbourne site in Hertfordshire using three-story-tall bamboo and steel cable towers, a remarkable piece of engineering that allowed protesters to attach themselves to it in peaceful protest out of reach from the police.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume that the creators of this artwork were planning to do the same thing. So, the police are definitely wrong on that point alone. You can't just assume someone is planning to commit a crime just because they build a bamboo structure.

“By smashing in the doors of the Antepavilion and seizing a sculptural art installation the police have completely lost touch with the law,” Trowland told AN. “This is intimidation, plain and simple, with no sense behind it whatsoever. Wave a piece of bamboo in front of them and they charge like a bull, all smashing and no thinking. This is what you get when you dare to protest a corrupt, billionaire owned press who withholds the truth about the climate crisis and profits from division.”

I recall bamboo figured prominently in the election audit here in Arizona. They were testing ballots for traces of bamboo. And in Britain, the police are said to "charge like a bull" if a piece of bamboo is waved in front of them.

I suppose they might as well make bamboo against the law. It seems they're more worried about bamboo than anything else.

 

[Augustus]

The UK is a modern western liberal democracy so of course this is of no concern. But just to be on the safe side don't discuss it in schools because it's possibly illegal.

Your (State-sanctioned) thoughts?

one of the many things that studying history taught me, and which I have never forgotten, is how to recognise the typical characteristics of fascism. It’s become a sort of mental list to which I turn from time to time when considering our current political situation. “Powerful and continuing nationalism” (tick); “disregard for human rights” (what was that about offshore asylum camps?); “rampant cronyism and corruption” (you bet).

Then, of course, there’s “disrespect for intellectuals and the arts” – something that had been festering long before the Brexit vote but became even more explicit then, with ministers’ contempt for “experts”

That (terrible) 'signs of fascism' article has contributed to more pisspoor Hitlering think pieces than I can count.

It seems hypocritical to say the least that on the one hand government can forcibly remove a piece of art (the same government taking up the "fight" against cancel culture and promoting freedom of expression - when it suits) but then protect another by threatening imprisonment.

One was a police operation which may or may not have been justified (not enough evidence to say), another was some busybody local councillors (who didn't forcibly remove anything although they acted like ****s) and another relates to a law made by the national government regarding criminal vandalism.

It's not really apples to apples.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's not really apples to apples.

"who didn't forcibly remove anything although they acted like ****s"...
No one has said force was involved.

Odd isn't it, very much seems like apples with apples to me.

Art work acceptable or unacceptable in the eyes of the authorities.

 

[Nakosis]

Possible fates for a piece of art in the public domain...in the UK...

1. Try to remove it and face up to 10 years in prison. (Cancel culture!)

2. It is deemed offensive to our nation and the State remove it (by force and with arrests).(NOT cancel culture!)


The lesson: Do not shine a light on anything not favoured by the state (such as a devastating impact of nuclear tests) and stick to making statues of Winston Churchill.

- Freedom of speech? Not these days, if you’re an artist in Britain | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett

The UK is a modern western liberal democracy so of course this is of no concern. But just to be on the safe side don't discuss it in schools because it's possibly illegal.

Your (State-sanctioned) thoughts?

The main concern of the state/government is keeping themselves in power. Anything that appears to be a threat to that has to be dealt with.

 

[Secret Chief]

I couldn't really understand why, though. I found another article on the topic (Antepavilion designers arrested as police raid East London site (archpaper.com)) which had the statement from police:





I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume that the creators of this artwork were planning to do the same thing. So, the police are definitely wrong on that point alone. You can't just assume someone is planning to commit a crime just because they build a bamboo structure.



I recall bamboo figured prominently in the election audit here in Arizona. They were testing ballots for traces of bamboo. And in Britain, the police are said to "charge like a bull" if a piece of bamboo is waved in front of them.

I suppose they might as well make bamboo against the law. It seems they're more worried about bamboo than anything else.

WATCHTOWER POLICE RAID — Antepavilion

 

[Augustus]

Art work acceptable or unacceptable in the eyes of the authorities.

"The authorities" have removed some statues and not removed other statues.

"The authorities" have removed some graffiti and actively protected other graffiti.

Art work acceptable or unacceptable in the eyes of the authorities

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Possible fates for a piece of art in the public domain...in the UK...

1. Try to remove it and face up to 10 years in prison. (Cancel culture!)

2. It is deemed offensive to our nation and the State remove it (by force and with arrests).(NOT cancel culture!)


The lesson: Do not shine a light on anything not favoured by the state (such as a devastating impact of nuclear tests) and stick to making statues of Winston Churchill.

- Freedom of speech? Not these days, if you’re an artist in Britain | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett

The UK is a modern western liberal democracy so of course this is of no concern. But just to be on the safe side don't discuss it in schools because it's possibly illegal.

Your (State-sanctioned) thoughts?

i cannot speak them freely

the state is watching

 

[Secret Chief]

i cannot speak them freely

the state is watching

It surely is. Privacy is so last century.

 

[Kooky]

It seems hypocritical to say the least that on the one hand government can forcibly remove a piece of art (the same government taking up the "fight" against cancel culture and promoting freedom of expression - when it suits) but then protect another by threatening imprisonment.

In what way do you see it as hypocritical?

In both cases, the government decides what happens to a piece of art, does it not?

 

[Secret Chief]

In what way do you see it as hypocritical?

In both cases, the government decides what happens to a piece of art, does it not?

It does. The hypocrisy is in perpetrating or preventing removal.

 

[Kooky]

It does. The hypocrisy is in perpetrating or preventing removal.

What you seem to suggest is that we can only remain consistent in our principles if we only ever do one thing regardless of reason or circumstance.

 

[Secret Chief]

What you seem to suggest is that we can only remain consistent in our principles if we only ever do one thing regardless of reason or circumstance.

OK, so what are the government's principles?