ARGUMENTS FOR INDIAN ARTISTS BOYCOTT OF TEL AVIV MUSEUM SHOW
The Indian Artists Boycott of the Deconstructing India show to be held at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art in April 2012, is in solidarity with the International Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel called by Palestinian intellectuals, artists and citizen groups, and the India Campaign. The call for boycott, inspired by the earlier successful international boycott against Apartheid South Africa, is a non-violent Gandhian campaign to pressurize Israel to recognize the rights of the Palestine people directed at mainstream Israeli institutions, and not at individuals.
Once Israel follows UN norms and recognises the legitimate demands of the Palestinians, the Boycott will be called off, just as the boycott against Apartheid South Africa was called off when the apartheid system was dismantled.
The curatorial note is written on the Tel Aviv Museum letterhead. What the Tel Aviv Museum says about itself on the website confirms that it is a central part of the art establishment in Israel. It is no dissident institution. Founded in 1932, the Museum was chosen in 1948 by David Ben-Gurion, the architect of Israel and its first Prime minister, to formally proclaim the Establishment of the State of Israel in a ceremony. It is a major institution, which is on the tourist sites of the country, part of the “central hub of modern Hebrew culture” which by definition, leaves out Palestinian culture. In fact Palestinians will find it very difficult to see the Indian show because of the various blockades and security checks that they have to pass through: it is not for them. While the curator’s intentions may be good, it is difficult to believe that a change will come from within this institutional framework.
While there are dissident artists and groups within Israel, who may be working in similar ways as us, this show is not hosted by them or in an alternative space. In fact, some of the progressive people in Israel also support the Boycott.
The Israeli government is now building Brand Israel which uses cultural events and figures to promote Israel as an exciting, glamourous tourist destination, to whitewash the actual realities there. Singers Paul McCartney and Madonna who performed there were projected in this way. The Indian artists who will show in the highly publicised New Museum Wing will be used to vindicate and promote Brand Israel. I was not sure whether I was comfortable with that.
Some artists feel that we should keep cultural spaces separate from politics. However, the curatorial note of “Deconstructing Israel” is itself political. It speaks of colonization, partition of India and creation of Israel which are all political events. The artists have been chosen because they “deconstruct stereotypes”. We are not deconstructing stereotypes for fun or interior decor, but to make a political, institutional and social critique.
Indian artists are making works on political subjects like global and national economic exploitation, poverty, rights of farmers and workers and minorities, religious intolerance, gender and sexuality issues, ecology; and use directly political material and quotations in their work. Many of us have been directly involved in protests and agitations, write eloquently on various public issues, and worked to support and build alternate spaces and platforms outside formal institutions to express our voice.
In fact, many Indian artists are invited internationally to show in biennales and important exhibitions precisely because they are making “political’ work. We cannot suddenly turn around and say we are not political.
In the curatorial note, the curators compare the histories of the two nations as being victims of colonization, comparing the partition of India with the creation of Israel and the ensuing problems and animosities, which itself is problematic. I do not believe that the cases are similar. The Israeli State proclaims that it is built on desert land, an empty land which it civilized and made fertile. This thesis from the start negates the existence of the Palestinians for centuries on this land and dismisses their culture and civilization. It is not a democracy as described in the curatorial synopsis but a military state practising the system of apartheid, that has compulsory two- year military service for all its young people, the main purpose of which is to repress and control the Palestinians. The Tel Aviv Museum rewards free passes to Israeli soldiers for their recreation after their tiring duties, and they form an important part of the museum audience.
To answer the argument that all governments are repressive and why only target Israel: I believe this is a purist argument that cynically precludes all action. In fact I have not heard of a boycott call against USA, China or other places mentioned by artists as repressive, from people repressed by them. There are specific international petitions like the recent protest against Ai Wei Wei’s arrest that many of us have signed, but it is interesting that neither Ai Wei Wei who worked on the Beijing Olympics, nor other targeted Chinese artists or academics, have actually called for a boycott of Chinese institutions. They may not want , or need a boycott.
There is a misconception that this is just a show of moral disapproval, something “holier than thou”. The Boycott is not about some “good people” punishing some “bad people” for their “bad deeds”. The Boycott is a tactic and a strategy for collective action, most famously adopted by Mahatma Gandhi for the Swadeshi movement, to put pressure on a worst- case situation to change it. As we know, we did get Independence by following these strategies, which have influenced the world. No change is instant and needs to build up over time. However each action is like a building block.
Some artist friends felt that as artists, we had no power to change anything, so what was the point in the Boycott? The answer is that artists, intellectuals and sportspeople are seen as opinion makers which is why they are asked to take a stand on issues. In the earlier successful Boycott of Apartheid South Africa, the strong stand taken by individuals and small groups built into a large movement that pressurized world governments into imposing sanctions, which finally led to the dismantling of Apartheid.
Though others like Nalini Malani had categorically decined to show in this exhibition sometime ago, this was not made public. I felt that the issue should go into the public sphere to provoke debate and bring awareness. To boycott or not to boycott is each artist’s decision, but it is interesting that everybody in the art world is now thinking about the matter, as well as the spontaneous letters that have come in solidarity.
Pushpamala
Bangalore August 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment