Phantasmagoria, monstrosity, perversion and the Degenerate in Art In Australia

Surrealism as an art movement is at its foundation transgressive, cynical, satirical and critical. All the adjectives within the title of this posting can and do apply to a variety of surreal art. The early Surrealists pointed out the hollow men, ideas and doctrines of its time, using visual symbol and word. Attacks by the surrealists mocked a complacent, accepting bourgeois society directly, or through the political and religious structures that motivated and lead it. Surrealism was and remains fiercely intellectually driven, anti-Fascist, anti-nationalist, anti-theistic. There were an array of reasons for how or why this intellectual rejection of conventional structures developed, social and geo-political, dating to well prior the 1st and 2nd world wars, that I will not go into here. Here I merely wish to demonstrate how Surrealism did, and still does, encapsulate all the aims and characteristics of what Art is understood to stand for in intellectual terms, and why this practice is under threat. 

In 2015 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Victoria heard an appeal for a 2014 judgement by Justice Kyrou, who had found against myself and fellow artist Demetrios Vakras. The following question was posed by one of the appeal court's judges, Justice Digby: "Did Mr Cripps (the Gallery Director) know the [art] exhibition (by Vakras and Raymond) would be contentious?" Apart from the sheer irrelevance of such a question to determine any of the facts in the case, it demonstrated the very stark chasm of understanding existing between the reality of what are intellectual pursuits, like art, and the law as represented by its practitioners. Arguably, one might consider our judges sit at the higher end of our society's intellectual bell curve, yet the reality is this is as false an assumption as the one made in any belief in the existence of an inherent fairness in law. Secular societies, like our own, generally equate fairness with logic and reason. These are intellectual concepts and they are valid but they do not feature as complementary characteristics within our legal system. The rule of law concept is governed by other motivations and ignores pagan concepts such as logic and reason. Fairness does not figure where precedent and case law, as a codex and charter, operate. As one gets too close to see through the veil to the real system under which our courts operate, one sees how more and more it closely aligns with religious imperatives of control, rather than for agreed to contracts around social protection and regulation. Suffice to say here there is an inherent absence of what are traditionally held and understood concepts of logic and reason within our legal system.

Our legal system relies upon the setting of precedent and rule of law and its application under case law conventions in order to work. This though relies upon all players in the court behaving as they should. If Vakras' and my case is to be shown on appeal to have been mis-judged, then perhaps some will claim that this demonstrates the court's methodology does make the correct call. However, under so basic an analysis, we instead have a logical fallacy, as such a conclusion would ignore what it took for that appeal and correction to have been made. It is the case the appeal only went ahead because we lost everything we've worked for across our adult lives in order to fund the appeal and compel the law to do the right thing. We were forced to ensure that the appeal would proceed otherwise, regardless of errors in law, errors in judgment, and the magnitude of these errors it would not have gone ahead. Others coming after us as a consequence of the judgement against us, whether this is understood or not, currently have had to deal with a minefield of legal outcomes with ramifications that spread into limiting our human rights.  It needs to be stated loudly and defiantly over and over that a fair and healthy legal system does not limit rights, nor limit access, nor limit truth, in order to instead enable the meting of a kind of justice that achieves only individual aims, aims bearing no relationship to lofty claims of protecting a citizen's universality in the eyes of the law. Vakras' and my experience situates such lofty claims into the realms of sheer fantasy. Judicial impartiality is critical to the fair and equal application of so stringent a doctrine as case law and rule of law. A judiciary must be as selfless and as blind to external biases as the symbols of the court claims they shall be and are. The reality is, as we have come to know to our complete detriment, that the facts become what the judiciary decides them to be, regardless of evidence, making the law as flawed as the ability for its judiciary to resist what individually held subjective sensitivities and confirmation biases they each may possess.

"His" HONOUR Lee-Anne Raymond 2014

So, when a judge of one of the highest courts in Victoria, Australia asks; Would an art gallery director have been aware that art might be contentious?, and no one except the unfortunate artists, responsible for said "contentious art", understand the absurdity of such a question, you have as Kafkaesque a situation as any that can be imagined in fiction.

Such a question might justifiably be posed by one completely unfamiliar in anyway with art, art concepts and art practice. It cannot though justifiably be asked by one with limited or no understanding of Surrealism alone. Because, though a judge may not be aware of surrealism, art and artistic pursuits are understood to have elements to varying degrees of and potential for contentiousness. Art, it is accepted and known, will push boundaries, so our supreme court should be just as aware as my high school educated hairdresser is that one does not go into an art gallery expecting to not be presented with a challenge. One goes into an art gallery expecting challenges, expecting to disagree as well as agree, expecting to potentially have their thinking changed or charged by exposure to a different perspective.

Such a question, as it was asked in a court of law regarding a judgement under appeal seeking to ascertain if that element of the appeal is valid, might well presuppose that art that is "contentious" is the either invalid, or unlawful, or both, or that it is to be held as less likely to be justifiably art at all. Perversely and in addition art that is "contentious" has for now been found by the Supreme court of Victoria to be possibly "racist", due to a use of "foreign" words. In the 2014 trial the claim was made, and the judgement upheld that claim, that because words written in a script other than the English "alphabet" (sic) to describe the meaning behind the visual works, it was possible to detect "racism".  In this trial the statement was made that the text needed to be corrected into English, or made more vague, or taken away all together so as to remove the potential for offence made by the "contentious" and/or probably "racist" art. This was all said to have happened, but, it was asserted, to have been done without any claim that the art was "racist", it was just that the director thought it might be "racist" because he did not understand the writings at all, and anyway there were "foreign" words used. Those "foreign" words were Greek, 4 in all, and all were provided with their english word equivalents in translation. Other "foreign" Greek words included the signature of the artist to his works, a practice of his since the late 1980's. How it could be possible to conclude that the use of Greek at all, or the use of Greek words translated into their Latin text equivalents might be possible to be perceived to be "racist", is now the subject of a Federal court claim. What were these sinister words? Chaos, Chasm, Christ and Wisdom. The problem apparently arose because these words being written in their Greek equivalents, transformed them into holding another meaning altogether, making them very scary words indeed.

Surrealism's use of symbols, the fantastic, and the grotesque, as applied in satire or as biting juxtaposition, was not something new but something it embraced within it visual arts sphere enthusiastically and adeptly. In our 2009 exhibition "Humanist Transhumanist" we did little differently and adhered enthusiastically to these traditions in our presentation complete with visuals, text panels and self-published manifesto. The fantastic and grotesque in application has long been employed by artists and as recently as the Gothic Romanticists in immediate historical context with and as precursors for the Surrealists. The Surrealists mined the Gothic repertoire not only for thematic value but in seeking to transform medium and technique. Blake's use of imagery and text, the technical transition into a use of print making, etching and aquatint translated into Ernst's collages and ManRay's photographic experimentation.

From Goya's seditiously biting War series, to Fuseli's nightmarish visions of a human psyche undermined by an inner torment, the exploitation of symbolic meaning sat behind an application of fantastical imagery to great provocative effect. As a two centuries earlier Dürer might have thought, it is sometimes necessary to distort, juxtapose and disfigure, to disjoint and cause alarm in order to effect understanding and comprehension of an alternative idea and way of thinking. (Try telling this to a judge in present day Australia.) In the case of Goya and Fuseli each utilised religion, superstition and pagan themes to bind their visions. Fuseli and his contemporaries were critiqued for their "bombast & extravagance", though not in a law court. Satirical caricaturist Gillray, a contemporary and beneficiary of Fuseli's themes, applied an openly raw and grotesque symbology of imagery and words to hit home his message of seedy sedition, collaboration and/or political hypocrisy. 

Presages of the MILLENIUM with The Destruction of the Faithful 1795 James Gillray

The Surrealists were shaped by these influences during similar times of upheaval, deploying a new and unrecognisable symbolism with which to turn accepted thinking and taste on its head. Surrealism was classified Degenerate along with other modern art forms by The Nazis and Hitler. The Nazis' required art (contradictorily it would seem but never argue with a Nazi) to need no explanation in order that it be better understood by the ordinary German/people. The contradiction was that explaining the art made it more degenerate than ever of course because, before explanation you might only have the suspicion it will be contentious because you can't understand it. In 1937 the Nazis instructed that art must be simpler, in 2009 Vakras was told as much by Robert Cripps who again confirmed in court in 2014 that the art was not simple enough to be understood and so it was possible for him to then assume it held a more nefarious meaning. For this reason the viewer of the art needed to be protected from potential harm with the positioning of disclaimers. In the judgement by Justice Kyrou following that trial Surrealism and at least the Surrealism of in particular Demetrios Vakras and also of Lee-Anne Raymond was rendered Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) as that judgement concluded it was possible to conclude the art might potentially be "anti-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" and therefore too contentious. Neither Cripps or Justice Kyrou managed to explain either how or why this could be so. It was simply accepted in judgement that if the art could not be understood, it might be considered "anti-Palestinian", because  "Palestinians are oppressed" by Jews.

In the expression of ideas deemed seditious, anti religious or anti-social it would seem that art can become degenerate anywhere, including in Australia.

The surprise is this occurred in a modern democracy, in Australia in the 21st century, and it would seem for now, to little or no protest of any kind from an obviously comfortable, complacent and compliant Australian art scene. Art, of the politically, socially and religiously powerful expresses the ideas of these foundations in only uncritical, consistent with conventions of taste, and compliantly supplicating ways. Such art celebrates the status quo not only in taste but in thinking, in attitude, and in effect society will stagnate where a thriving art scene of this kind is supported and endorsed. Protection of socially approved-of art forms, that have no idea to challenge or theme to propound, so as to prevent hurtful offence being caused to anyone, does us the worst kind of social harm. History has shown this over and over. Such art, the art of sycophancy, reflects the kind of society it exist within, and such art in time with the benefit of hindsight becomes categorised as propaganda at worst, decorative at best. 

Surrealism panel at NGV & Lee-Anne Raymond (by Demetrios Vakras) 2015

The freedom to criticise ideas is under threat in Australia, the effect of which is being seen in the arts. Like the metaphoric canary in the coal mine we as artists are signalling to you all it is time to come up for fresh air. Take a clear deep breath and think. Subjects are now off limits that formerly had no such barrier to being debated. Criticism of social systems, political figures, religions, cultural practices are all off limits for fear of causing offence as the result is very real and punitively punishing consequences. It is as though being offended because someone has critiqued your idea is a new kind of assault crime to charge a critic with. Do not criticise my ideas because as I identify with them by critiquing them you will have critiqued, humiliated and offended me, and for that I will sue you and the court will agree with me. This is the legacy of our Supreme Court of Victoria case, the case against artists Vakras and Raymond.

Next time you feel affronted or challenged in a gallery steel the personal ire you may experience enough to ask the following question of yourself. Should I upon entering an art gallery expect anything less? 

references

Gothic Nightmares. Fuseli, Blake and the Romantic Imagination Martin Myrone (Tate Publishing)

images

""HIS" HONOUR" 2014 (pencil on paper) Lee-Anne Raymond 

"Presages of the MILLENIUM with The Destruction of the Faithful" James Gillray - p 187, image 133 - Gothic Nightmares. Fuseli, Blake and the Romantic Imagination 

Surrealism panel at National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) & Lee-Anne Raymond (photo and text by Demetrios Vakras) 2015

Je sui Charlie Hebdo - in memoriam

With respect and in memoriam:  http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html

As an atheist and surrealist artist who has and who will continue to criticise religions I reserve the right to offend, insult, humiliate, ridicule and defame all gods and their associated prophets. But depicting one and critiquing one prophet only, Mohammed,  is illegally and illegitimately outlawed not only on the threat of but by the real prospect of execution. The brittle religion of Islam is protected on pain of death by followers of that faith. Those defending the rights of that faith to express itself without criticism fail to understand they are defending the intolerant and a brutal ideology based on intolerance.

I make no apology to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or other religions and supernatural belief systems for any hurt. With regards criticism of religions the mainstream media, political climate and social commentary have contributed to the demonising of anyone who critiques Islam because to do so is claimed to be racist and right-wing. Yet conversely Christianity or Judaism are fair game because, they somehow deserve it having caused enough bloodshed, pain and outrage in the past. Err, what? The sheer contradiction, lack of logic, and lack of historical knowledge is breathtaking.

Charlie Hebdo were largely shunned and cast as intolerant by this mainstream as, "white privileged male racists" for their critical satire lampooning Islam (only Islam). Charlie Hebdo though ridiculed all religions and politicians or societal structures on a wide scale and has done so with anarchic glee, none were/are/will remain immune. Why did/does their satire of Islam illicit a different examination by apologists, was it, is it fear of offending intolerance? Such acts of provocation, of anti-establishment dissent and resistance have a long history in France and in pre and post industrial western Europe. For free thinkers, and those who enjoy the freedoms afforded within a free society, whether tasteful or not, such criticism including the right to satire and ridicule a subject, are recognised cornerstones of that free society. Charlie Hebdo are a stark and now painful reminder to society that it needs prodding and lambasting for it to wake from its "sleep of reason”. Charlie Hedbo in all of its satire was delivering one message, perceive of what you are forgetting to protect and preserve, your hard won and long treasured freedoms.

The ability for any force or will to destabilise and undermine free societies exists and the responsibility to protect what underpins them sits squarely with those who treasure freedom. We are these custodians, us, we are the ones who must protect such a society by exposing its flaws, foibles and fallacies. This is what Charlie Hebdo was getting at with every lampooning of authority.

Surrealism was born from such an era emerging from within a society that needed reminding of what it was allowing to slip through its fingers. The freedoms we take for granted today were under attack then by an ideology and a warlord of a different kind.

We are living in as similarly an absurd time as now surrealists, satirist, critics of all kinds are again being shunned and marginalised for critiquing that which is oppressive and backward in Islam. Defenders of Islam claim it should not have to defend itself due to random misguided acts of violence by its followers - which forgets that all these followers, follow the same doctrine, the Koran and Hadith. Under such circumstances a response is warranted. By not responding strongly or at all fails to neutralise those elements within Islam who continue to take all of the prophets "teachings" to their literal conclusion. And, their mantra is always the same.

In the related violence and hostage taking in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo murders by the Islamic terrorists, the Kouachi brothers, their associate, Islamic terrorist "Coulibaly told BFM he had 'coordinated' his actions with the Kouachi brothers and wanted to defend Palestinians and target Jews" (ABC).

So, there we have it. Mocking the prophet, criticising Islam all links back to the conflict in Palestine and an insidious Jew hatred in the mind of the terrorist. It is the most deep seated and chronic of encumbrances affecting the very viability of Islam and the reason for why it is the biggest threat to the stability of a modern society which, as in the France and Europe of the 1930’s, continues to prefer to be blind to and in denial of it.

The primary motivation as always are predictably an unbridled racism toward and hatred of Jews. To critique Islam means you support Jews and are anti-Palestine so one must be eliminated to defend the other. Criticism of Islam apparently justifies any backlash by Muslims against that critic. Criticism of Judaism or Christianity elicits no such equivalent assertion or defence. It is the critic of these acts who must instead answer for the criticisms made. It is the critic who is forced to defend their criticism as if their criticism is somehow responsible for inspiring acts of violence done to protect Islam from insult. Islamic Jihadists* blame any insult to their prophet on Jews and claim they are defending Palestinians from Jewish violence who cause conflict by their very existence in Palestine. Jews do not apparently belong in Palestine and need to get out one way or another. With this sentiment those who sue surrealist artists, when informed their ideas about Jews and Palestine are racist and have a historical beginning pre the establishing of Israel, are in alignment. It is a successful tactic in the aim to subvert and deflect blame so that only the critic and the Jews are responsible for the actions of violent religiously motivated murder, such as that enacted by the Kouachi brothers on their unarmed victims.

Put simply Islam hates a critic and hates Jews. Passages in the Hadith essentially state the existence of Jews in Arab lands is to be addressed by their elimination from those lands. Jihadists* act murderously on such passages because to do so, as goes their own claims, defends Palestinians and Arab lands invaded by Jews (the so name “occupation”). Islam even hates its own progressives. Islam hates its apostates, a Muslim may not leave Islam to do so is the worst of sins punishable by death. Islam tolerates people of the book, Christians, but then defines them as non-Muslims describing the Christian trinity as a blasphemy. Islam in particular just hates Jews.

Modern Islam in contrast with other major religions continually demonstrates its unwillingness to peacefully co-exist. The so called "religion of peace" label is a marketing propaganda well utilised to deflect blame and erect barriers to nullify any scrutiny. The idea that a religion operating without scrutiny is a problem waiting to happen is not so far fetched or without precedent if we look at the conduct of the modern Catholic Church and its other associated institutions recently held to account. Islam as per most religious institutions lack the maturity and intellect to be self regulatory. Yet, there are those who maintain we must absolve Islam from responsibility for addressing acts, that are done in accordance with its doctrine, by the faithful who exact brutal revenge because the doctrine demands it.

The problem for modern society is that Islam acts to its exclusion, consistently demonstrating that its tenants are incompatible with modern thought and even basic principles of human rights. In 2015 Islam remains a totalitarian, backward and redundant belief system. Muslims, as Ayan Hirsi Ali stated post the Charlie Hebdo attacks in an ABC 7:30 interview, need to better imagine or hope for "an ideology or ideas of life, love, peace, tolerance”. (She will astoundingly be labelled racist and right wing for doing so.) Should Muslims dare to view such a future of course they ultimately will need to abandon Islam in order to achieve it.

Freedom Series - Exhibited as part of One Law for All exhibition London, 2010

Monsters emerge with the “sleep of reason”.

* "jihadist" is a term considered "anti-Arab or anti-Islam" by Apple and its third party dictionary vendor New Oxford American Dictionary. Best inform all the mainstream media outlets including France24, CNN, ABC, BBC etc, etc.

Art and thought in Australia is as dead as dead due to a fear of critical thinking

"Freedom of expression in Australia is not just governed by the laws of defamation, obscenity and blasphemy that vary from state to state but by hidden disciplinary forces, systems of control that seek to create a reality of their own making." Dr Marcus Bunyan, Sept 2013 

Lee-Anne Raymond near text panel describing the aims and origins of Surrealism -
National Gallery of Victoria 27/12/2014 - Modern art section 

Australia is governed by a deeply protective, institutionalised, conservative moral philosophy that is reinforced by a self-interested cultural sector, legal authority and legislature. Rather than acting to resist in the erosion of freedom of expression these authorities and cultural bodies keenly maintain the status-quo preferring the entitlement this brings above overthrow, evolution, revolution and therefore change. The art of Surrealism has at is core the nature of transgression. As an art-form, as a way of life (as many of the original Surrealists experienced it), the genre observed the world in which they lived through a critical lens reflecting reality and truth to demonstrate what was the real illusion or delusion - the perception of the accepted reality as being all that was good and beneficial. Now in more enlightened times, we see the Surrealists as cause célèbre fighting against evil and oppression, yet they remain marginalised fringe dwellers in our public art institutions. In their time the Surrealists were roundly rejected and marginalised for their unflinching criticisms of authority and of the political and societal institutions in which they lived. They were labelled “offensive”, “immoral” and “negative” and their art “degenerate". They had many enemies but fortunately a few influential allies in addition.

Metamorphosis with Nicab (detail) 

In Australia 3/4 of a century later judicial institutions protect themselves by enacting religious like decrees, edicts, to prevent criticism and will and do punish their critics for transgressions, artistic or not. Individuals within or who are outside beneficiaries reinforce their own position and tenure by ensuring no steps are taken to question either their own or the institution's role. No mirror may be held up to liberate the truth, let alone allow for the kind of truthful self-reflection that might allow for illuminating change. In Australia there is a distinct and entrenched perception that to question authority is simply wrong, to challenge it or expose truth “negative”, “intemperate”, "racist", "immoral", “offensive” and perhaps “degenerate". To be critical is to be “aggressive", to be transgressive, “intemperate” and “immoral" and therefore repugnant to society. 

It has become so very Australian to be squeamish about speaking out against anything, be it an idea, an organisation or a person for fear of causing offence. This is in no small part due to the fact there exist written and unwritten laws to deter and prevent criticism. The unwritten laws will have you socially and professionally shunned. The written laws have the critic fearful of attracting financial repercussion and legalised persecution. 

Additionally there is an Australian characteristic, perhaps transposed with force by colonial, antique (European), magisterial beginnings, that is now a self-sustaining conservative moral. So, although born from more imperious beginnings (lèse-majesté), keeping silent for fear of experiencing physical harm, has transformed into a distinct Antipodean fear of expressing critical thinking because it can and does attract financial penalty and social ostracism. In my case criticism of how a Director of a now defunct gallery behaved toward us during an exhibition by myself and fellow artist has resulted in record penalty and complete ostracism from commentators in the arts or political communities. Presumably this is because they might agree with what is a truly bizarre judgement in the face of the actual trial evidence, and, or are too fearful of receiving the same treatment, to object or question it. Logic and reason are the enemy of our judiciary if as it transpires the evidence regardless of the facts are what the judge says they are. 

Australians and the institutions that are intended to operate for their benefit are intolerant of anyone who would seriously challenge such institutionalised authority, effectively shunning those who speak for freedom of expression and thought. Unwittingly (one would hope) by their acquiescent silence Australians who could or might normally speak up are merely reinforcing their own censored existence, and the persecution of those who do attempt to resist it. 

When we legally constrain our artists and thinkers who might criticise us, deter criticism through the actual application, or threat, of law and punishing legal fines we are assisting in the creation of our own end of times. When we enact laws to limit critical analysis and thought of a subject, an idea, an uncomfortable history, an authority, a religion in order to protect these concepts from harm (defamation) we are limiting our own freedom of thought and expression.
In a liberal, secular democracy, where dogma (religious, political, cultural) and its protection above all is allowed over a flexible application of logic and reason it is the beginning of the end of that social framework.

To be an atheist, an artist, a thinker in Australia is to court trouble and rejection particularly in the court system which is heavily peopled by the practicing faithful. Atheism, art critical of religion and political contradiction, art which provokes thoughts and ideas that challenge the status-quo are by their mere mention controversial. Australia's squeamish conservatism would have us believe that to criticise culture, policy, politic is to be subversive and “negative” if not seditious. It is considered better, more acceptable and more safe to reject the critic and then their criticism and protect authority even when logic and reason suffer. When this is most evident it is where any criticism of the Islamic religion and doctrine is shut down instantly with cries of “Islamophopia” or “racism”. Atheists long critical of Judaism, Christianity and the gods of antiquity are now automatically labelled “racist" and “Islamophobic" when Islam is critiqued. All atheism is viewed with some contempt and suspicion by the general religious majority but the Islamophobia slur has been so effective that even some self-described atheists consider other atheists critiquing Islam to be somehow phobic and suspect.

Add to this the insidious creep towards official censorship within elements of our own human rights institutions supportive of oppressive blasphemy laws that utilise defamation law to further a cause that claims critical debate regarding faith systems is "defamation of religions”. It is a peculiar and malignant marriage of convenience representing the biggest self-made threat to the universality of our human rights in recent history. They propose laws that would legislate religions and doctrines deserving of special protection from harmful criticism as they are an attack on the human rights of the faithful who are defamed as a consequence of any criticism. The result if successful (several attempts have been made at the UN) would be catastrophic as it will criminalise blasphemy on a wide scale. As Dr Bunyan notes above ultimately they would succeed in shutting out all "dissent" by creating a "reality of their own making".

To depict in my art real criticism of religious doctrine i.e. Islam is a transgression too far, one that goes against conservative, institutionally reinforced Australian moral sensitivities. Critical art is considered “offensive” art because Australians fear critical thinking and its consequences. We must work hard to protect our rights, many are unwilling, or too uninterested to do so. 

So the NEW-Moralist declares an artist “racist" in public and receive judicial sympathy and support for it. Thus an unbalanced legal system further punishes the artist for communicating truth, and, to object to what is categorically unjust and a persecution becomes further evidence of malice. The artist is labelled the “liar” and the bully is rewritten as victim. The evidence becomes what the judge says it is.

Fed and endorsed by its colonial parent legislature Australian courts, the Victorian Supreme Court as a case in point, are leading the way onwards and downwards towards censorship and protection from criticism any idea particularly those held by the religious. It is an implementation by stealth of "defamation of religions" law. 

To critique religious doctrine is, simply put, as valid a form of social questioning as to critique a judicial system. Both are off limits in Australia. It is credulous to believe that in this country we have support for real forms of artistic expression or critical thinking under such conditions. 

If you are a critical thinking artist, an atheist and a free thinker in Australia then you are considered offensive and racist and you will have no supporters come to your aid to argue otherwise.

Note: Top: Quote extracted from the research paper 
Transgressive Topographies, Subversive Photographies, Cultural Policies
Dr Marcus Bunyan - posted online here http://artblart.com/tag/defamation/

The Art of a Secular Atheist - "defamation of religion"

In 1999 I held my first solo exhibition "The Mysteries" and amongst paintings mostly celebrating a surreal and symbolic vision of mythology some were subtly, or not so subtly depending upon your perspective, critical of religion.

The Mysteries series of paintings were so titled to encapsulate the main interest and inspiration for their development, formed from ideas that had emerged through the study and ongoing interest in ancient Greek myth and mythology. It was from this relatively personal exploration that another strong theme has emerged into a broad criticism of religion. Then and since I continue to give as the prefacing title of such paintings Baleful Worship and with them I point to concerns about what a religious world would bring using canvas and oil paint.

Baleful Worship - Submission (detail)  © L. Raymond

Within The Mysteries began the first germination of the Baleful Worship theme where I assert the worship of a religion whether of a deity or a nothingness is a fatally flawed concept for humanity to adopt. History and recent events teach us religion provides a useful model and platform from which to develop and utilise negative aspirations for a nation state, race or a people. The negative aspects that manifest can include that a religion will have as an ultimate aim the purpose of achieving dominion over opposing religions and social if not socio-political systems. As such it is inherently a platform that does not tolerate criticism or dissent. It becomes Totalitarian in dominance and emerges a Theocracy, a political-religious State and system that enforces as rule of law a religion upon a country and a people and one that at its core is sensitive to any criticism of the doctrine which underpins it.

Islam today demonstrates it is particularly sensitive to any criticism claiming its critics instead must suffer from Islamophobia (sic) and have a racist intent toward Muslims (who are multi-race). It is effective propaganda, the more simplistic the argument the better for such a purpose, and is utilised like pepper spray to shut down argument by declaring it racism and intolerance when any critical examination of Islam's religious texts and practices are raised. Making it all the more important to investigate the doctrine as a consequence. All religions do not tolerate criticism well or unquestioningly (even though return argument is expected and welcome) but it is rare to claim the blanket accusation that all critics of a religion are racist and intolerant. The worst backlash from the Christian and Judaic sector currently has been to counter Atheist criticism for the most part with the label of "militant" or that they are representative of a "new" and unreasoned "radical" atheism. There exists racism and intolerance but it cannot be claimed to exist in all critics or opponents or uncomfortable arguments. The blanket declaration equates to a blanket ban, a censorship, a chilling of criticism of Islam at all, because it is a religion and somehow exempt. Hopefully that by doing so, in such uncritical blanket terms and so frequently, it is also becoming more obvious for the propaganda that it is.

Intolerance is the characteristic critics of Islam are branded with...that the critic is intolerant of Islam and not the matter raised referencing Islamic intolerance. Islam conversely is claimed by its followers and defenders to be very tolerant and peaceful so anyone claiming different is doing so because they, the critic, are intolerant. Simple propagandist argument that works to good effect as with the racism charge. And, in the face of violence performed on behalf of and in defence of Islam, the victims directly or other entities, Israel, the USA, military invasion of Islamic lands e.g.: Afghanistan, are instead blamed not the perpetrators of violence or the doctrine they use to support their violence and disgruntlement. Certain Islamic Clerics re-confirm followers of Islam are justified in conducting violent retribution against an opposition (infidel) who harm, dishonour, "insult" the peaceful and tranquil religion of Islam. Omar Bakri compliments a follower of Islam who hacked a UK soldier to death after first running him down with a car in a British street states:

 "The prophet (Mohammad) said an infidel and his killer will not meet in Hell. That's a beautiful saying," he said. "May God reward (Adebolajo) for his actions." reuters 

Baleful Worship and this recurrent theme questions the psychology and legitimacy of religion's to demand unquestioning and uncritical worship by its devotees and of course to demand retribution on its behalf.

A more recent Baleful Worship - Submission focuses on Islam for these main reasons:

1. The cheap and persuasive propaganda argument that if you criticise Islam, as the popular claim goes, you do so because you are racist and intolerant; works like riot police with pepper spray, indiscriminate but effective.

2. Islam via doctrine manifests a means by which to practice and defend misogynistic and other human rights abuse behaviours under a veil of protected legitimacy whilst of course claiming it represents the exact opposite and only lashes out in defence.

In my Baleful Worship paintings the female form is a generic representative of a prostrate or standing follower posed typically so as to appease a deity/doctrine. The alter or object/focal point for devotion has variously been, industrial machinery, a pile of debris, an organic phonic-boiler, an alien nursery, and lately a veiled tentacled monster. The underlying symbolism has become menacing. Is Islam menacing detractors/critics by declaring them enemies of Islam and valid targets for attack? Is the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam the fault of the religion's follower's interpretation of its doctrine or of its inadequately evolved doctrine? Can Islam under the Koran and Sharia be deemed tolerant? An if so tolerant under what definition. Does Islam indeed understand tolerance or does it have the interpretation that tolerance equates only with one's submission to it?

Under Anti-defamation of religion laws my questions would be declared intolerant. Which makes such a law a declaration of censorship of thought and idea and a nod to a return to a dark ages Inquisition style persecution of religion's detractors as a heresy. That one must not criticise religion, in thought or deed, based upon its doctrine (Koran, Bible, Torah) spells the resurrection of blasphemy law. Such law would make it illegal to critique, "insult" religion and if deployed any critic of religion would be a heretic and a blasphemer for doing so. With past and recent proposals to the UN human rights commission to protect religion from defamation 'aka' introduce world wide blasphemy law with the sole aim of protecting Islam from criticism represents a serious intention to limit the human right to freedom of expression of thought, and the transmission/receipt of ideas. It was found to contravene Article 19 of the  UN's Declaration on Human Rights and has been rightly voted down...again as recently as 2010. To criminalise criticism deemed to have harmed the reputation of religion as it in turn has harmed or vilified its followers is an extreme and dangerous step. Just ask Indonesian atheist Alexander Aan and unfortunately there are countless others.

The architects attempting to frame such a restriction on "the right to freedom of opinion and expression" consist mainly though not exclusively of nations where for the main the state recognised religion is Islam or where there exists a state Theocracy. The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission submission in 2008 treads a tight-rope balancing act, complimenting the "good intentions" behind it, though declining to endorse the proposal. HREOC's authors agree throughout the document that there is such a thing as "defamation of religion" that much needs to happen to "combat the defamation of religion" (though their preamble and introduction caution against use of the verb "combat" in the original proposal but then unabashedly use it themselves anyway). It was difficult to recognise HREOC's actual stance and, safe "fence sitting" appears to be the overall aim. The submission's authors revealed too that HREOC would like to have a more firm understanding in place at Commonwealth level of the condition they describe as "ethno-religious" (sec. 2.2) and that though aspects of some Australian State legislature have recognised it this is only under certain narrow conditions, that a person of a religion can have "ethno-religious" qualities and a claim to racial vilification. Leaving the door clearly ajar for all manner of subjective agenda to be applied in the future it will result in a distortion of human rights and equal opportunity more than an advancing of them arguably.

Defamation law already chills speech to a disturbing truth obscuring level in order to protect individual's or company's reputation as being only "good" - truth is not material in Australian law without proof and proof of accepted justification. Defamation law aims to obscure opinion which does not uncritically support that a reputation is good. Were defamation of religion to be its extension world wide then the same would apply for when ever anyone critiqued actions carried out in the name of a religious doctrine upon which a religion is founded or of the religious doctrine itself. To know a religion one must examine its doctrine. This would prevent critical examination and would enable a  return of blasphemy laws on a world wide scale. Imagine the level of inquisition that would emerge. Many critics against this push to implement a defamation of religion law have pointed correctly to how this would cause a damaging limitation on freedom of expression and thought and could lead the way for malicious litigation by the aggrieved claiming personal harm from criticism of their religion - because defamation law allows for this already. In doing so they are pointing out in part the flaws in defamation law that make it a playground of options for the aggrieved to take out their grievance on and to punish a critic with under the full gaze and assistance of the law and by extension the State.

So, why baleful?

bale·ful  

/ˈbālfəl/

Adjective Threatening harm; menacing: "Bill shot a baleful glance in her direction". Having a harmful or destructive effect.

Synonyms evil - sinister - bad - baneful - harmful - pernicious

and, worship?
Religion requires unquestioning devotion (faith) to doctrine in the name of an entity (God, Jehovah, Allah). The worshiper is informed they submit to, believe in, follow and if necessary defend the one true god delivered doctrine in the name of the faith and the faithful. It is because of this and other claims by religion that religious doctrine is therefore open for examination and criticism and those who would argue to defend their religious doctrine will have their arguments open to equal examination and criticism. However, the religious and clearly Islam, claim exemption from such examination because it is not permitted by their doctrine in the first place. Reason holds that one is not vilified by argument and examination one is educated by it and through their use. But religion claims exemption and with defamation law at its side and the concept that a religion can be classified as "ethno-religious" along with the concomitant support of a racial vilification and tolerance act in toe you can pull a trifecta of legal barriers to shut down all nasty criticism of religion.

Is this the world in which we want to live and leave for our descendants?

I believe in no religion and I know through reason that the separation of religion and the state must be upheld with the transparent exclusion of any religious interference within legislature and governance to have a truly independent government, democratic and free society. The opening of Australian Parliament with "The Lord's Prayer" for example must go. It does not belong in any part of our government procedures even as a nod to an earlier ritualism. If it is not already the case it can be taken to have more meaning than a ritual alone.
That I suppose now makes me a "militant secularist" too.

Paintings - oil on canvas ranging from 1999 - 2010 © Lee-Anne Raymond
 

Humanity can live without religion. The question is can we survive despite religion?

Attempting the Destruction of the Secular Muse

"Attempting the Destruction of the Secular Muse" is the large painting shown on the left as displayed in Vakras and Raymond's Humanist Transhumanist Exhibition at the now defunct Guildford Lane Gallery in Melbourne, 2009

The subject matter of the large painting on the left was claimed by gallery owner Robert Cripps to be "racist". On this basis Cripps determined the entire exhibition racist. But it was this work in particular that had him agitated to loudly proclaim his determination of racism. So much so that Disclaimers of Liability were posted by him through out the exhibit. The painting depicts a secular "muse" in a land assailed by and caught up in a devastating destruction wrought by religious violence. In the case of this work the religion assailing the "secular muse" is Islam. Verses quoted from the Koran support and underpin the argument that this religion seeks to justify and exhort followers into committing violent acts in its name. Quotes from the Bible were used to show how that religion's text exhorts violent acts in its name. To emphasise the point, other works in the same exhibition were similarly critical of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism for their use of doctrine to support destructive violence to achieve religious conformity and override freedom of individuality and equality of human rights. The symbolism was lost on this Gallery manager who's reaction remained vitriolic and aggressive no matter how reasoned the arguments proffered to explain what should have been unnecessary. It isn't racist to criticise Islam.

In explaining his work Vakras states:  

"The premise behind many of my works in this exhibition was the condemnation of religion-incited violence, and religion-incited racism. My works specifically condemn the 4 'montheisms': Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, whose religious doctrines demand that their followers commit murder as an act of piety on behalf of their respective faiths." 

So is it hypocritical then that this newspaper article was posted on the FaceBook page of Robert Cripps' new venture Ruby's Music Room?

Full article: Mali and me | The Australian

From this article: 

"ethnic Tuareg rebels in the north of the country ...hijacked by radical Islamists with links to al-Qa'ida.. [means that] within months hotels and bars will close, livelihoods will be taken away, and the application of a strict form of sharia law in northern Mali will almost silence the music."

To put it bluntly: Islamic Sharia law is antithetic to and destructive of cultural pursuits such as music, and will persecute those who perform the art form. Mali's musicians had to hastily flee Mali to escape persecution if not certain death.

Oh the irony.
To begin, the word music, is the Greek μουσική, which itself is derived from the μούσες: muses.

What is lost on this gallery director is that the very verses from the Koran, which he said it was racist to quote, are law, each and every one of them. In addition, these laws are augmented with the sayings and deeds of Mohammed. These deeds were recorded from 150-200 years after Mohammed died and are the "Hadith".

The Hadith - which were not quoted in the exhibition - are frightening. A Hadith on music proclaims:

"From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful...Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection."

(Abu Dawud Book 036, Hadith Number 4909)

And in Mali pious observers of Islam set out to destroy people and culture following the law of Islam, what is written in the Koran and in the Hadith. In this instance Islam is to be condemned?

How is this different to what Vakras wrote criticising Koranic-based law, Sharia? Why is one racist and the other human rights approved?

Such hypocrisy deserves exposure. 

This blog post is brought to you by the "Sued": Lee-Anne Raymond and Demetrios Vakras

An Islamo-Phobia for criticism

Just read this post from Ophelia Bensen "there are other critics of the word islamophobia" and it prompted me to follow it up with some personal reflection and reiteration of the message therein.

Firstly I'd point out it is my position that those who declare all who critique Islam with a blanket accusation of "Islamophobia" are themselves phobic of criticism and guilty of a declaration of false racism, diminishing the suffering of those experiencing very real racism.

What is a declaration of false racism?

I recount the following experience as one example. Others will possibly have had more significant reportages than my slightly banal event but it illustrates my point never-the-less and it is my experience to recount.

When driving some years back my partner and I were very lucky not to be shunted into a rail-hoarding at a level crossing by the erratic overtaking of another driver. Unfortunately a little further ahead this mad man did smash into another car which was making a legal turn. We stopped to offer our assistance as witnesses and to make sure no one was hurt.

The erratic driver launched on a short tirade accusing us of being "friends, you are his relatives" of the driver he'd smashed into. He was of course referring to our race as we and the other driver must have all "looked" to be from the same race perhaps. My partner is from Greek and I from Anglo-Germanic heritage, the other innocent driver perhaps anglo? We didn't know the nationality of the erratic driver before or even following stopping, he could have been Chinese, it wasn't the issue. He drove like a maniac and caused an accident and damage. The other driver deserved witness support and we were in the position to offer it. We reiterated he'd nearly driven us into a rail-hoading and he was clearly in the wrong with the subsequent accident. Though this was obvious he was adamant he was being targeted by a racist agenda. Though he could have encountered much real racism prior our encounter, on this occasion his was a declaration of false racism.

When is racism, real racism?

Though born in Australia my partner has suffered direct racism most of his life. At school he was astonishingly informed by the then Principle that "his kind deserve what they get" when bullied by older boys for being "a wog". The experience of being treated as an inferior would emerge later at work, occur socially (then and still now!) and from strangers in the street "go home wog" as the most popular of the "enlightened" racist directives.

Real racism by example is therefore to be called or treated as a "wog", a term which, in Australia, is intended as a derogatory reference (there is some claim this is largely defused now and intended as a term of endearment between buddies - I'd like to see the survey data backing this claim up). If it is yelled out in the street by a stranger, or used in an argument to put down the opposition by declaring their inferiority based upon their race and origin, what does it mean then..."buddy"? Second and third generation migrants still suffer gibes and outright hate in public or private from other second and third generation migrants, as they presumably are from better European origins? Ultimately anyone not Aboriginal is a new-comer or born from migrant stock but how long before an Australian is an Australian? This is without covering, though not with the intention to ignore, the racism and abuse suffered by Australia's  first nation peoples, Aborigines.

Australia at a basic level struggles to acknowledge that racism remains as a distinct under current within its "nationalist" character. It is more than unacceptable to be yelled at to "go home wog" at all let alone on a street in your country of birth, though this happens still and it means this country has a long way to go.

All things considered though does this mean due to the obvious sensitivities surrounding certain sections of the community I cannot robustly critique German, English, Greek, Italian, Aboriginal or Chinese, etc., on grounds of politics, religion or social/cultural/political concerns where warranted, because it would be "racist" for me to do so?

One of the problems for anyone daring to be a critic of Islam is they are lumped in amongst those declaring unveiled intolerance and ignorance. Critics of Islam are very successfully dismissed as being "racist" because this message, though frequently intelligently challenged, this isn't as successful a message as the accusation of racism.

A primarily leftist social and political position supports and perpetuates the myth that the critic and the comment is "racist" first and due to a racism born of the critics' fear of Islam. Though effective, because no one wants to be considered "racist" or "islamophobic", this is is just a blunt object not any sort of valid counter argument and is one used to chill speech and stifle real debate.