Talk:Snow White and The Madness of Truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Snow White and The Madness of Truth is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] "cheap display glorifying violence"?

There have been some speculations why an experienced diplomat like Zvi Mazel would attack an art installation and according to some analysts it was done in an effort to discredit Sweden and the European Union by painting them as anti-semites to get the EU to back down from their peace efforts in the Middle East. Other speculate that it he may have done it to give Israel an excuse for not attend at the international anti-genocide conference to be held in Stockholm January 26-28.

I added But art critics felt that he was merely disgusted by such a cheap display glorifying violence. but the troll User:Lindarn who is producing this degrading insult to Wikipedia, reverted it, citing NPOV What do wikipedians think? Wetman 16:44, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why do you call the article a "degrading insult to Wikipedia"? Sounds like you've already made up your mind unless you are refering to the quality of the article itself (spelling, grammar, structure). Calling other users "troll" is hardly a civil behaviour either. You addition was clearly POV. Who are these art critics? have any sources? "a cheap display glorifying violence" is also very POV. // Liftarn
First, it is the contributor's POV that the display constituted "art". Second, it is mere rhetoric (and thus more POV) that "Why would an experienced diplomat attack art?"
To be neutral, this article must (a) distinguish fact from POV and (b) describe each POV neutrally.
Some advocates regard the exhibit more as art, others regard it more as a political statement. The Wikipedia should not take sides with either group but report what they SAID.
The phrase, "Why would he do that?" is standard English idiom for He should not have done that and clearly should not be unmarked article text. Rather, the assertion that the Israeli ambassador should not have meddled with the display should be attributed to its advocate. --Uncle Ed 19:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicting statements

Zvi Mazel has given contradicting statements about the attack. To the Swedish media, he said it was done in the heat of the moment, but to Israeli media he said the attack was planned before he even had seen the artwork.

Does anyone have newspaper or other citations for this claim? OneVoice 15:06, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sure! Compare what he said to TT where he states that he looked forward to seeing the artwork, but when he saw it he "could not be indifferent"[1] and compare it with "The envoy told Haaretz that his protest was not spontaneous; he had planned the act after learning about the exhibit in the local press." [2] // Liftarn

Liftarn It has been many years since I was in Stockholm and learned to speak/read a little Swedish, since them my Swedish skills have declined. Would you mind quoting the paragraph here? OneVoice 16:27, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 ;-) Ok, the passage in question is "Ambassadören upgger för TT att han verkligen hade sett framot att se vad konstnärerna åstadkommit." (The ambassador states to TT that he really ha dlooked forward to see what the artists had made.) and the quote "I stället möts jag av en bild av leende självmordsbombare" (Instead I'm confronted with a picture of a smiling suicide bomber). /../ "Som ambassadör för Israel kunde jag inte förhålla mig likgiltig" (As ambassador of Israel I could not keep indifferent). // Liftarn


Liftarn, thank you very much for providing the translation. At my advanced age, I have learned that when there is more than one view, both often contain some amount of truth, and that explanations that reconcile differing views of events are often closer to the truth than either one alone. OneVoice 02:44, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[edit] annoy.com link

Should this page contain a link to the annoy.com webpage due that page's presentation of what purports to be a label from a container of Zyklon B, the chemical agent most clearly associated with the extermination of Jews by the Nazis? Seems to be similar in taste to the 30 second television advertizements submitted to, and rejected by, moveon.org, that compared George Bush to Adolf Hitler. OneVoice 13:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it could be removed on the basis that it doesn't actually give the reader any useful information, which is what we/our readers want in external links. --snoyes 15:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Walker

The links to John Walker and Jerusalem regarding the song and the album seen to confuse rather than illuminate the material. Based on the lyrics, John Walker is John Walker Lindh and Jerusalem is a place where Muslims seek martyrdom via suicide bombing (?). Can some text be added here to illuminate these matters? OneVoice 16:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The first rule of war is to dehumanise the enemy. Both Steve Earle who wrote and performed the song and the artists behind "Snow White..." show these people as persons and that idea if obviously very offensive to some people. I don't quite know how to work this into the article. // Liftarn

I read something about Dreiler's opinion on the supposed anti-Semitic connotations of this work. He asks if, had he simply switched the picture for one of Ariel Sharon -- with the same boat in the same pool of red liquid, with a text speaking of the murder of innocents and the same background music -- then would it be construed as anti-Arab, or thought to glorify violence? Unfortunately, the source (a comment on some blog) isn't really reliable enough to quote here, and I can't find Dreiler's words anywhere in the English or French media; has anyone else heard of this? Was it in the Swedish news? — No-One Jones (talk) 16:46, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In the Nyhetsmorgon interview he asked the rhetorical question if he instead had used Arial Sharon's picture if it artwork then would have been considered pro-Israel. He seems to have said simmilar things in several interviews so it shouldn't really be that hard to track down. // Liftarn

In one interview he said "And I would like to ask Mr. Mazel, if I would make an installation with a boat and on its sail a picture of Ariel Sharon sailing on blood, if he will find it as a glorification of Ariel Sharon or as a critique of Ariel Sharon deeds against the Palestinian people."[3] // Liftarn

[edit] Meaning of the exhibit

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the exhibit to express the view that the Israelis are guilty of shedding innocent blood in their "occupation" of "Arab lands" (i.e., West Bank & Gaza) and that the suicide bombings are thus a justifiable way of evening the score or fighting back?

In other words, doesn't the exhibit make a political statement? --Uncle Ed 19:14, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The text states (and I have read in numerous newspaper articles):

"According to the artists, the installation was made to "call attention to how weak people left alone can be capable of horrible things.""

That seems a pretty far cry from expressing something about the actions of Israelis. I don't see what you base your interpretation on. - snoyes 19:37, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that interpretation misses something -- this artwork doesn't really attempt to justify, or even explain, Jaradat's actions. Even if it were political in intent, it hardly seems sympathetic to portray someone floating in a (symbolic) pool of blood, with an accompanying text speaking of the murder of 19 innocents, and a musical background with words like "The multitude of my sins, in God's holy eyes, makes me into a monster" -- does it?
I think a lot of the flap surrounding this work stems from the choice of Jaradat as the focal point of the piece: she's A) not the typical poor, young, male Palestinian suicide bomber and B) she doesn't look at all like the stereotype of a Arab terrorist. Had Feiler used a photo of an ugly customer like, say, Mohammed Atta, I very much doubt that anyone would have seen it as a glorification of violence.
So what was its intent? My interpretation is this: There's a long and effective artistic tradition of mixing the beautiful and the terrible (for contemporary examples, listen toWhere the Wild Roses Grow or almost anything by A Silver Mt. Zion), to great effect, and I think this piece fits well into that practice. — No-One Jones (talk) 19:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  1. So the Israeli ambassador just went nuts? No connection, implied or intended, to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
  2. I heard the female human bomb had been accused of adultery and was performing some sort of penance.
This is true of the mother of two young children that was caught and detonated herself at a Gaza fence checkpoint. The suicide released the woman's male relatives and husband from having to murder her. Have not heard the same regarding Jaradat. Jaradat was most likely selected by Feiler due to the availability of a comparatively atractive photograph of her. OneVoice 20:35, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  1. A reference to "murder of innocents" does not necessarily mean the artist or writer was condemning that murder. Ah, the ambiguity of art! Might not the intent have been to say that what you evil folks call the murder of innocents is the only way weak people can fight back against powerful tyrants, fighting one horror ("genocide") with another. --Uncle Ed 20:06, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There are dozens of ways one could interpret any piece of art. The fact that the author has given his intended meaning renders all of the other interpretations mere speculation. And without any evidence they don't belong in the article. #1: It could be that he misunderstood the work, and thought the intent was to glorify suicide bombers. Then his vandalism would be understandable, but doesn't speak highly of his understanding of three important constituent parts of most democracies: tolerance, freedom of expression, and private property. - snoyes 20:36, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  1. Of course there's a connection to the conflict. Some people, the ambassador included, saw it as anti-Israel; others didn't see it as political at all. Just look at the various points of view on this talk page.
  2. Who told you that? The way I heard it, she was motivated largely by seeing her brother gunned down in cold blood (perhaps justifiably, as he was a member of PIJ if I remember rightly -- but that's another issue). This article has a bit more background.
  3. Possibly; or it could be to expose the brutal hideousness of a violent blood feud that's gone on so long, and become so vicious (nobody did this in the first intifada, or in the battles of the 1930s), that young mothers will abandon their children to carry out indiscrimate slaughter.
All this is quite beside the point. Artistic interpretation is a highly subjective endeavour at best, and we can argue back and forth endlessly without improving the article one whit. You think it was political in intent; I think it was artistic; both of us are convinced that we're right; neither of our interpretations matters to the article. — No-One Jones (talk) 20:41, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I won't argue with you about whether my opinion is relevant to the article; I'm not a published author or anything. But just to be clear, my conclusion is that SWTMT is a work of art which was made chiefly to make a political point. And I daresay the ambassador was making a political point by messing it up.

Another perspective on the blood thing and the floating thing is that the work manages to transmit (or reflect) the idea that:

  • shedding innocent blood is bad; but
  • if one's motives are pure enough, one need not "sink" in this pool of blood but "float" on top of it, i.e., the end justifies the means

It raises the issue of the classic conflict between Western ethics and Oriental ethics.

Good art elicits a passionate and thoughtful response.

Maybe I'll write something on the theory of art, since I seem to think I know so much about it... --Uncle Ed 21:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like a pretty crackpot idea to me. But that's just my interpretation. :) - snoyes 22:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Performance award to the former Israeli ambassador in Sweden Zvi Mazel.

The Museum of Conceptual Art (Konceptkonstmuseum), Sweden.

2004

Prize of the year for best performance within the conceptual art has been awarded to the former Israeli ambassador in Sweden

ZVI MAZEL

The Museum of Conceptual Art (Konceptkonstmuseum) in Boras, Sweden, has decided to issue the award for best performance within the conceptual arts for 2004.

The prize has been awarded to the former Israeli ambassador for his performance “From light to darkness” carried out with artistic brilliance January 16, 2004 at The Historical Museum (“Historiska Museet”) in Stockholm.

Motivation:

Mr. Zvi Mazel carried out the Performance ”From light to darkness” with a great artistic talent. His interpretation of the despot not tolerating artistic expression not corresponding to his own opinions, his arrogant conquering of the stage where he, with determined steps, approaches the artwork “Snow-white and the madness of truth” to pull the plugs for the spotlights reminds us with frightening accuracy about the dictators tramp of boots against the free art. Without a doubt the most significant work of performance art in Sweden during the year that has passed. It has been a great pleasure for us to notice how an ambassador chose to join with more established artists with the goal of giving performance art even more and undreamt of dimensions. Diplomats taking the step into the public art room in this way grant the diplomacy a new lustre.

We salute this development with enthusiasm.

Sebastian Paananen Director for the Museum of Conceptual Art

Mikael Varela Curator

Channa Bankier Artist

The Museum of Conceptual Art (Konceptkonstmuseum) Sven Eriksons vag 12 515 70 Rydboholm Sweden

konceptkonstmuseum@bornet.net

[edit] Needs updating

Part of this article is written in present tense, and needs to be updated, since this is now a historic event. /81.170.235.234 23:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

It is POV to include this article in the category "Freedom of expression". Yes, it could be stated in the article that some who supports the installation do it as what they see as a support for this freedom, but opponents certainly don't believe that this installation and the controversy that it caused has anything to do with it. If it should be included in one category to support this view, then it should also be included in the category Antisemitism as the critics of this artwork sees this as one prime example of such, to give a fair view and present both sides. But from my point, to include any of those categories would be a violation of WP:NPOV. /Slarre 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)