The Arts and Islam - exploration or provocation?
Chris Wilkinson on the Guardian Arts blog asks "Are artists afraid to approach radical Islam?" prompted by a piece by Peter Whittle who claims that "The arts are increasingly censoring themselves when it comes to Islam". Whittle argues that radical Islam is threatening and violent when it comes to criticism, and thus the arts are being frightened into silence and are unable to express their real opinions. Wilkinson rebuts him and points to a raft of artists that are indeed engaged in exploring Islam and Muslims but have not created the headline sensations that Whittle points to as proof of Islam's supposed barbarism.
What is the purpose of the arts? That is the question that underlies this debate. Whittle seems to think that the label of 'art' permits anyone to say anything at all, and elevates 'provocation' onto a pedestal when it is under the guise of art.
It seems perfectly reasonable that the arts should address Islam and Muslims, in fact the arts are often the channel by which new ideas and phenomenons are addressed in Europe and America. The issue is how and why. Exploration and critique? Bring it on. Gratuitous displays and offensiveness? I don't see the point. The authors need to at least have a basic understanding of what they are talking about, and a goal for their production. It also needs to be clear - is the aim of the 'attack' 'critique' 'exploration', whatever you call it, to criticise Islam, or to cause fear, misunderstanding and even hatred of Muslims. If it is a criticism of Islamic tenets, be my guest. It's not unique or groundbreaking, it's happened before. The faith can take it, after all it's been around for a while. If it is blindsighted hate, or ignorant provocation under the guise of free speech, then it devalues both its subject and the hallowed paradigm of freedom of expression.
When the Danish cartoon story broke there was much discussion in the media about the right to be offensive. Is that what we aspire to as a society? The right to be offensive? I find that demeaning to human beings that that is the best we can do. Surely we should yearn for politeness, etiquette and good behaviour on all sides? Criticism and difference of opinion have their etiquettes too, something we seem to have forgotten.
Muslims do tend to be over sensitive to the arts as a form of exploration and dialogue, partly because western arts appear to go out of their way to be offensive, and partly because there is no identical tradition in the Muslim world. Muslims have their own artistic traditions but they follow different formats.The Muslim world tends to engage in more spoken or written forms of discourse where books, poetry and didactic interchange are more traditional formats. Get a bunch of top scholars together and the levels of criticism and argument are likely to be high, but its not something we see often in the public domain.
However, death threats and violence from Muslims must stop. It's really no way to deal with those who have nothing valuable to say and are being provocative for provocation's sake. What Muslims need to learn is to channel the arts and use it as a means for expression.
What is the purpose of the arts? That is the question that underlies this debate. Whittle seems to think that the label of 'art' permits anyone to say anything at all, and elevates 'provocation' onto a pedestal when it is under the guise of art.
It seems perfectly reasonable that the arts should address Islam and Muslims, in fact the arts are often the channel by which new ideas and phenomenons are addressed in Europe and America. The issue is how and why. Exploration and critique? Bring it on. Gratuitous displays and offensiveness? I don't see the point. The authors need to at least have a basic understanding of what they are talking about, and a goal for their production. It also needs to be clear - is the aim of the 'attack' 'critique' 'exploration', whatever you call it, to criticise Islam, or to cause fear, misunderstanding and even hatred of Muslims. If it is a criticism of Islamic tenets, be my guest. It's not unique or groundbreaking, it's happened before. The faith can take it, after all it's been around for a while. If it is blindsighted hate, or ignorant provocation under the guise of free speech, then it devalues both its subject and the hallowed paradigm of freedom of expression.
When the Danish cartoon story broke there was much discussion in the media about the right to be offensive. Is that what we aspire to as a society? The right to be offensive? I find that demeaning to human beings that that is the best we can do. Surely we should yearn for politeness, etiquette and good behaviour on all sides? Criticism and difference of opinion have their etiquettes too, something we seem to have forgotten.
Muslims do tend to be over sensitive to the arts as a form of exploration and dialogue, partly because western arts appear to go out of their way to be offensive, and partly because there is no identical tradition in the Muslim world. Muslims have their own artistic traditions but they follow different formats.The Muslim world tends to engage in more spoken or written forms of discourse where books, poetry and didactic interchange are more traditional formats. Get a bunch of top scholars together and the levels of criticism and argument are likely to be high, but its not something we see often in the public domain.
However, death threats and violence from Muslims must stop. It's really no way to deal with those who have nothing valuable to say and are being provocative for provocation's sake. What Muslims need to learn is to channel the arts and use it as a means for expression.
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 13:50
1 Comments:
Thank you for this balanced informative piece on the relationship between modern Art and Islam. It could have benefited from some discussion of the recent approach of some artist's to Christianity and other religions though.
Post a Comment
<< Home