From maltastar.com:
The Malta Council for Culture and the Arts decided to exclude a Maltese artists’ exhibition of 16 photographs which put together images of politicians, including ministers, and “representations of strangely erotic acts”, claiming that the artworks were “libelous”.
Thankfully, what the Council did was not described as “censorship” — which it is not. Censorship is a categorical ban states do (which, after all, is the only institution which can impose a categorical ban). Thus, Stitching was censored and it cannot, unless the decision is reversed, be staged anywhere in Malta. This exhibition can still be held in the curator’s garage while he waits for sixteen court summons to come in.
But the fact that no mention was made of the “c” word does not mean that it was not implied:
When contacted by maltastar.com, the artist, Raphael Vella, 42, said that foreign artists are comparing the situation of the arts in Malta with that of the Soviet Union and Germany before the war.
They could have compared us to France 2008 when French magazines felt they had to airbrush Sarkozy’s love handles in a real photograph not a photo montage as is in this case. Or Germany in 2002 when then-Chancellor Schröder sued a German news agency over allegations that he dyes his hair.
On matters of freedom of expression Malta gets more punishment that it’s due. The Stitching ban was unfortunate. While it reminded us that the Board of Film and Stage Classification has powers it shouldn’t have it gave the wrong impression that in recent years they have deprived Maltese audiences of much. Some of the criticism on the prohibition to insult religion, a legal provision applied earlier this year at the Nadur carnival, may have been justified. But let us not forget that, for the sake of not insulting Islam quite a few European governments have been mulling the idea.
Which leaves us with libel. Yes, Malta’s libel laws may be somewhat punitive (and they have been relaxed in recent years) but even there, I get the impression there’s much freedom of interpretation for the presiding Magistrate. What is certainly not unique is having libel laws.
Which brings us to this case in question. Is it grounds for libel? Here’s more:
The excluded artwork was to be part of a collective exhibition, “The Life Model,” curated by Patrick Fenech, which opened this week, as part of the Malta Arts Festival. Yet, the Council argued that the images are “potentially libellious” because some Maltese individuals in the images were still recognisable, despite the artist having “blurred them partially.”
Partially, understandably. Or how would viewers have realised that they were politicians “including ministers”?
But why politicians? Is it just because they happen to be the category of people we love to hate, a bit like Americans and their lawyers. There is a bit of explanation from the artist:
Dr Vella made it clear that the content of his work is not pornographic. “I am not interested in cheap pornography as an ‘art form’, but I am very much interested in the fact that politics has become a bit like pornography.”
“Cheap” pornography as opposed to what? Pity the description cuts off there. I would have been equally interested to hear how politics has become “a bit” like pornography. Hmm, sitting through budget speeches might be more interesting than I thought.
Update: It turns out that Raphael Vella, the artist in question, is more level-headed that one would have initially imagined. Here’s his reaction to the original maltastar.com article:
Maltese art is often excessively ‘heavy’ with metaphysical ideas about life and death, the ‘sacred’, and so on, and I felt that a piece that could invert the seriousness with which we still approach subjects like the nude in art by linking it, teasingly, to an even more taboo subject – politics – was necessary in this exhibition.
The curator of ‘The Life Model’ liked this perspective too, and I will venture to add that I think he appreciated it because he is an important Maltese contemporary artist with international experiences, with whom I have had the pleasure to work on other occasions.
This was also the attitude of the ‘foreign artist’ quoted in the article, who jokingly reminisced about the ex-Soviet Union. My reference to this artist’s opinion was not meant as a factual statement about Malta – artists and writers here do not end up in gulags, of course – but it was a way of saying that my work might have been taken too seriously.
There is one point which I note with sadness, however: it’s no longer a case of similarity between “cheap pornography” and politics as we we told in the first article. It’s merely a link between the seriousness — presumably undeserved — of artworks and politicians and their nudity.
But if that’s the case then the link could have been established with just about anyone, the nudity taboo being pretty strong in Malta.
Why politicians then? I get the impression it’s really a question of someone drawing in a moustache and an Elvis forelock on the photo of someone important and feeling happy he can get away with it. Or maybe even get away with plaudits like this (complete with a feeble attempt at sarcasm):
Dear Raphael, how dare you try and criticise the political class? Don’t you know that our lives depend on these kind and hard-working persons who dedicate their lives to us, to give us jobs, food, shelter, entertainment, I would say, even spice up the air we breathe to make it healthier (sometimes with their small cars, sometimes with the effects of their bigger Delimara decisions)? You definitely cannot be allowed to criticise the political class.
Criticise? Hint: the target, remember, is “seriousness”. How about mockery? Not that our politicians are above it but, then, should anyone?
