Government urged to stop 'criminalisation of art'
A group which represents 90 authors, artists and other people involved in culture, has written to the Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary for Culture urging them to stop the 'absurd criminal proceedings' being taken against editor Mark Camilleri and author Alex Vella Gera for their article in Ir-Realta.
Grupp 29 said the two government members "are politically responsible for the persecution of the author and editor, and for the direct assault on freedom of expression and artistic freedom".
“Such actions place our country in the same league as anti-democratic and intolerant regimes, which over the years have garnered a reputation for repressing freedom of thought and expression, whether they use violent means to do so or rely on legal arguments to justify their actions.”
The group also appealed to the justice minister and the parliamentary secretary, in their respective remits, to abolish censorship of the arts, to update laws defining obscenity and to stop the 'criminalisation of art'.
40 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Evarist Saliba
Mar 20th 2010, 12:07
"Art is anything you can get away with."
Andy Warhol, quoted in "The Observer" and reproduced in "The Week" of 20 March 2010.
Reader, draw your own conclusion.
Christian Sciberras
Mar 20th 2010, 23:17
That settles it.
Let's all grab pitchfork and torches, shall we?
(just kidding, couldn't refrain myself, sorry)
Chris Fenech
Mar 20th 2010, 09:58
Why are people still calling it an article? Li Tkisser Sewwi is a fictional short story.
Franco Rizzo
Mar 20th 2010, 12:05
Well, what do you expect?
If the newspaper say it's an article, both pro- and anti-censorship commentators - some of them, not all, mind you! - will call it as such, even if those anti-censorship know full well it's fiction. To those who believe censorship is passe: BE AWARE! Calling it an article just gives further leeway to those favouring censorship! They want you to keep on calling it an article!
I believe you know mighty well it's fictitious enough that it does not qualify as an article such as the one you're commenting to! Where is the reportage in 'Li Tkisser Sewwi'? Who is being quoted? Is it the awareness of only one type of person thinking like the story's character or the awareness of many people?
On the whole, keep on the arguments you bring against censorship!
It's also about time newspapers and certain politicians start calling it a story, or at least say that some call it a story while others an article. It should bring the debate to a whole new level!
paul mizzi
Mar 18th 2010, 23:53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70T5bIoefm4
A Chircop
Mar 18th 2010, 18:51
Part 2
@J Debono
I think you misunderstood the whole point. That story was not meant as a depiction of sex. It was a portrayal of a particular mind set - of someone with a crude, animalistic, totally self centred and destructive view of sexuality. The language used is meant precisely to convey the mind set and value system of such a character, just as on film actors must think, act and talk like the characters they are portraying, to be credible. Also, a portrayal is not an endorsement. Graphic portrayals are often meant to show how ugly or cruel certain things can be, not to promote them - the opposite, in fact.
When the movie 'The Devil's Advocate' was released, I knew a few people who had their little "innocent" souls shocked by the scene where the Devil is revealed and starts mocking and criticising God. Well, hello, it's the devil talking. Do you expect him to praise God? I consider that scene one of the greatest ever interpretations done by the great Al Pacino. What a loss to the world if that scene had not been included, just because someone may have felt offended!
J. Debono
Mar 18th 2010, 18:32
@ Chris Frendo
I respect your opinion when you said, that you consider "Li Tkisser Sewwi" a form of art.
However I beg to differ.
If this article was put on sale in a designed shop (of which unluckily in Malta there aren't any available), and whoever buys it knows what he/she is buying, I would say nothing against this article.
BUT this aricle was distributed free!! and that is what I am against - the free distribution!!
I am not against pornography, but if they show pornographic content on a local station at 8pm, I would be the first to protest.
FYI I'm 28 years old. I'm not that old that I'm scandalised easily, but I would never dream of showing this article to a 14 year old! or to my future children, if any!
Franco Rizzo
Mar 20th 2010, 12:31
Whether you show the story or not to a 14-year-old is ultimately your own responsibility and decision. Parents know best what's good for their child until the latter reaches a certain age where the parents deem that decisions, and the responsibility of their ensuing consequences, fall squarely in the hands of the grown child. That is basic upbringing.
I invite you to share with us your opinion about parents leaving magazines (like Men's Health, Chat, Real People, Now, Cosmopolitan etc) lying around, with young children unattended. Some of these magazines bet their profits in their "Shocking" stories about rape and murder (speaking with knowledge of Chat magazine).
Children are inherently curious, that's how they learn, but have no concept of rape and abuse as adults do, so isn't the adult's responsibility to safeguard their innocence? These magazines rarely have warnings as well.
If we're thinking that neither parent nor the grown-up child are capable of such decisions, then there is a serious lack of trust amongst us Maltese and our own cognitive capabilities. Although some blame can be attributed to ourselves, I firmly believe that it is only our level of education that should be held accountable.
Franco Rizzo
Mar 20th 2010, 12:36
I'm also 23 years old.
A Chircop
Mar 18th 2010, 18:27
This topic sparks the inevitable debate about what exactly constitutes 'art'. Some seem to define art as that which is aesthetically pleasing to them. This is of course highly subjective. Others seem to be of the view that anything which is against their value system, their idea of morality, or simply outside of what is comfortable and proper to them, must be suppressed. Again, this depends on the value system of the observer.
If we accept that the basic premise of art is about exploration and self-expression, then some of it is bound to explore certain areas in certain ways that some will find distasteful. It's value, however, may actually lie in its ability to 'shock' and force someone to think about things differently, and probably there are many people who need to have their little, narrow minded, sheltered souls shocked way more often. Something may be ugly as all hell, but still be of value precisely because it can force someone to confront an unknown reality, so something could well be 'beautifully ugly'. An important reason for art to exist is to cause emotions, and these can be comfortable or uncomfortable.
(Continued)
Chris Frendo
Mar 18th 2010, 17:36
@ J. Debono
"1. Did you read Li Tkisser Sewwi?
2. If yes, do you consider this article as art? as its author is claiming it is?"
"There are many ways to describe the sexual act, without the need to resolve to the most vulgar, crude and disgusting words used in this article."
Yes I have read the article. And yes, i consider that a form of art. Not all art is meant to be nice or for entertaining. The whole point of this article was to raise awareness and to show the low level that people who fit the description of the man in the story can reach. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that there are many people who fit this description very easily... and that is the real concern. I suggest you hang around with some teenage groups to verify
my statement.
Frans Attard
Mar 18th 2010, 17:24
Sinjuri Ministru u Segretarju Parlamentari, ahjar ghalissa thallu li kollox jimxi skond il-ligi ezistenti ghaliex wara kollox din il-kwistjoni ma kienetx fil-program elettorali taghkom. Fil-kaz qisu li tikkluduwha fil-program ta' qabel l-elezzjoni li jmiss.
Maria D.Sacco
Mar 18th 2010, 17:09
Yes, stop criminalisation of ART. The emphasis is on art. "Li tkisser sewwi" is not art.
Clive Gerada
Mar 18th 2010, 16:24
I am absolutley against criminalization of Art, but in this case such a report should not have been exhibited infront of minors. It should have been put on an exhibition with other similar writings instead of being published. Then leave it to anyone's choice if they would like to visit the exhibition or not. This already happened with a local visual artist, who had the wise idea of letting the public uncensor his art, without the risk of being prosecuted :)
J. Debono
Mar 18th 2010, 15:42
@ Chris Frendo
"The argument should not be whether such articles are artistic material or not... the whole point of freedom of expression is to allow those who wish to write an obscene article filled with 'foul language' the right to do so. They have a right to shock"
actually yes, the whole argument is "criminalisation of art" - let me ask you a question, actually 2
1. Did you read Li Tkisser Sewwi?
2. If yes, do you consider this article as art? as its author is claiming it is?
In my opinion this is not art, and to defend it as art is ridiculous.
Regarding freedom of expression, I will repeat, the words used in the article, should not even said aloud, let alone written, published and distributed free.
It is not the idea or the content I am against, but the way it was written.
There are many ways to describe the sexual act, without the need to resolve to the most vulgar, crude and disgusting words used in this article.
Ramon Casha
Mar 19th 2010, 07:21
1. Yes I did read it.
2. Yes, I consider it art.
The whole point of this short story is to present to us this unpleasant character through his words and actions. Can you really imagine that this type of person would use kind, gentle and polite language? Would the image of this person be the same if he did?
Joe Azzopardi
Mar 18th 2010, 15:03
At least these arts people signed for something that makes sense as opposed to those arts people who voted against Piano's plaza / performing space.
The answer to all those who don't like the story in ir-Realta is very simple. DONT READ IT !! But NEVER think you, or any body for that meter, have the right to tell me I should not read it.
J Farrugia
Mar 18th 2010, 14:35
Chris frendo - no one has a right to shock. Your rights stop where others' right begin. These are not human rights. This is not freedom of expression. the man in the street blasphemes as much as he likes since no one stops him unless it is a man in uniform who has the power of the law behind him. No one has this right to shock. A human being , a civil one I mean, shocks himself when he is enjoying a football match with his family and suddenly out of the blues, a naked man or woman runs out on the pitch, naked as a jaybird. That truly shocks one and all. Is this right? The police have the right to arraign such a mad-dog in court and given the deserved punishment, either in a lunatic asylum or in prison. No one has a right like that. Otherwise we would be living in the jungle. At least I dont live in the jungle.
Peter Camilleri
Mar 18th 2010, 16:05
I'm sorry, but the assertion that nobody has the right to shock is completely mistaken.
If you feel shocked, then simply turn your face (and ears or eyes) in the opposite direction. I find some of your comments appalling, and show scant understanding of the nature of human rights, yet I tolerate them because that is what broad-mindedness and free expression demand of me.
To quote the European Court of Human Rights (which knows a thing or two about human rights more than you and I), free expression "is applicable not only to ‘information and ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’".
I reiterate that even though I find your ideas appalling I am not in any way clamouring to have you gagged. You, on the other hand, seem unwilling to afford everyone else this basic courtesy.
Ramon Casha
Mar 19th 2010, 07:17
Nobody can force you to be shocked - because YOU are the only one who can decide whether to be shocked or not. What shocks you might not shock me and vice versa. Since this is such a subjective matter, why should the state decide that your version is the correct one?
"Li Tkisser Sewwi" is art - not all art has to be pretty and fluffy and cuddly. It describes an unpleasant character - but then so do many literary works. If we are to prosecute everyone who does so - or describes their actions and words accurately - then nobody can write a murder novel - or at least would have to make the characters use language totally out of their character.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what to read, watch or listen to - as I'm sure you are. So... if you find anything unpleasant, don't read it. That way you won't be shocked.
MBorg
Mar 18th 2010, 13:30
Art celebrates beauty in various forms. Nobody should be allowed to use vulgar coarse language and blasphemy and cite freedom of expression and artistic freedom. If this is "art " we will all be better off without it. Nobody should be allowed to offend in the name of " art ".
Ramon Casha
Mar 19th 2010, 07:08
"Art celebrates beauty in various forms."
Wrong. It MAY celebrate beauty, but not all art has to be pretty. Some art depicts anguish (eg. Michelangelo's "Pietà"), others depict killing (eg. Paul Delaroche's "The Execution of Lady Jane Grey")
Edward Vella
Mar 18th 2010, 13:25
A group which represents 90 authors, artists and other people involved in culture, has written to the Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary for Culture urging them to stop the 'absurd criminal proceedings' being taken against editor Mark Camilleri and author Alex Vella Gera for their article in Ir-Realta.
Can anyone of these 90 people point out the artistic and literary value of the article "Li tkisser sewwi ..."
Not everything that is written is considered art.
laurence schembri
Mar 18th 2010, 13:24
While you`re at it might as well censor Chaucer and Boccaccio.
laurence schembri
Mar 18th 2010, 13:14
@ P Attard
What do you want exactly? Make up your mind, please.
paul mizzi
Mar 18th 2010, 13:08
oh my god! how low can we get having you people not understanding the difference between a rude or obscene attitude (pornography) and a literature ABOUT a rude or obscene mentality. I keep praising Alex Vella Gera for really managing to switch on this argument about the real values of man! who can disagree with the fact that he SUCCEEDED in doing so? I would say, hail to AVG for daring to cross boundaries to spark some thought in some otherwise alienated minds!
Well done also to Grupp 29 for the initiative.
E.Muscat
Mar 18th 2010, 13:02
@P.Schembri:lady chatterley's lover is not a classic : it was a 'cause celebre' which was read because of the first use of four letter words and graphic sex descriptions which has now developed into fully blown use of swear words and other obscenities which can no longer be disguised as 'art'.
Chris Frendo
Mar 18th 2010, 12:46
@ J. Debono
The argument should not be whether such articles are artistic material or not... the whole point of freedom of expression is to allow those who wish to write an obscene article filled with 'foul language' the right to do so. They have a right to shock,
If the article offends a specific person, then you may have a point... and I insist on 'may'. On the other hand if the target is society at large, then it's too bad if people are offended. Otherwise we would be bordering on the insane and may start arraigning people for swearing in football grounds, in kazini etc etc... ohh and most of the young boys at school who speak/boast just as the man in the said article.
K. Pullicino
Mar 18th 2010, 12:42
Why should we legalize the act of insulting our society? Artists should be encouraged to be constructive and offer reasonable proposals not be allowed to get famous by causing useless controversies.
Also, by the way, taking a piece of canvas and filling it in with one colour does NOT make you an artist. In my opinion, art in Malta leaves much to be desired before these artists can claim that their art is being repressed.
At this rate, we're going to reach a point where someone can insult someone else and no one can do anything about it.
Finally, Alex Gera should face the consequences of breaking the law, not foment chaos in hope of getting away with it.
C.Borg
Mar 18th 2010, 12:34
I just listened to Dr Dre album 2001 and ohhhh I am so offended I can't even look in my partner's eyes!
Cmon.....Get a life!
Shall we ban all music cds being sold because they contain the word F*CK or B*TCH? Those are rude words too!
Censorship is something which is intollerable in a democratic country. What might be offensive to you may not be to me so who are you to tell me what to read, listen and watch?
Re the story by Mr Gera, I read it and feel it is the whole truth because I met people who have that mentality and yes they are disgusting. In fact these people are disgusting and not the story written about them!
Our country really needs to grow up....we have more important issue to tackle in the interest of the whole population!
K. Pullicino
Mar 18th 2010, 14:16
I don't know why you all insist on bring all these "shall we?" scenarios such as "Shall we ban all music cds being sold". Do we ban CDs that contain such words? No. So stop mentioning hypothetical situations because they don't help anyone's arguments.
What happened is that someone indiscriminately attacked a large group of people without being constructive at all. In a democratic society, that cannot happen!
P Attard
Mar 18th 2010, 12:34
Do the 90 authors actually consider "Li tkisser sewwi ..." literature or art? Just like "Stitching"? Free speech and free expression in whatever form and style, yes. But I do not wish to have an open mind wide open to rubbish.
Having said this, I don't want to see the "criminalisation of art", either!
Christian Sciberras
Mar 18th 2010, 12:49
Can't agree less.
The author in Ir-Realta didn't act to standards, personally, and that's what the prosecution is all about.
C. Borg, you don't get that kind of music playing on parochial radios, do you? It's not that they should be removed, but rather distributed accordingly.
The author is responsible for distribution, and when said author is also the editor, there's even more responsibility.
I'm sorry, but the way the article was not distributed responsibly. Period.
Peter Camilleri
Mar 18th 2010, 14:34
Mr/Ms Attard: have you even read the script of Stitching before coming to your conclusion? I'm assuming you haven't, in which case your comment is a bit like saying you don't like the works of a Painter X, or Musician Y, without ever having seen a painting of theirs or listened to a piece of music by them.
That is precisely the point of free expression. You are perfectly entitled to like or not like the works of Painter X and Musician Y; but you don't have the right to stop me from making the same decision for myself. I might actually end up disliking the stuff too, but at least let me have the right to reach that decision without anyone foisting it on me.
Charles Sammut
Mar 18th 2010, 12:29
By all means fight against censorship of thought, speech and opinion. But not by using art as an excuse. This is not art, this is the sign of a sick mind.
P. Schembri
Mar 18th 2010, 12:28
To all those against. Read D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and "The Virgin and the Gypsy". These are classic literature. At their time they were deemed pornographic!
J. Debono
Mar 18th 2010, 12:11
Oh come on!!
Li Tkisser Sewwi is not art, and stop defending an article which has no artistic value, no literature value, and contains only swear and other inappropriate words, which should never be said aloud, let alone written, published and distributed free!!!
The article is only about depicted men as pigs, and women as sexual toys, whilst using the most vulgar and obscene words that are available in the Maltese language!!
I am all in favour of freedom of expression and artistic freedom, but without using foul language.
E.Muscat
Mar 18th 2010, 12:11
How many of these so-called artists also signed the 128signature protest against the proposed Piano plan for the opera house site?
J Farrugia
Mar 18th 2010, 12:09
art does not mean pronography, art does not mean blasphemy, art does not mean vulgarities. If THIS IS ART, Then let's fight this type of 'art' wwith all our might and spirit. No one will have a licence to insult by 'art'. We will not have the word art corrupted as someone already has corrupted the word 'gay'.
Julian Maddalo
Mar 18th 2010, 13:33
Have you ever read, or heard of, D.H. Lawrence, Arthur Miller, Irvine Welsh and the several hundreds of artists whose works directly or indirectly include explicit sexual references or descriptions?
No, you evidently haven't. Have you ever even visited a bookshop or an art gallery? No, you evidently haven't.
Hurrah for the rise of the proletariat!