Funeral march of art
A 'funeral march of art' is being held by the Front Against Censorship in Valletta on July 24, starting from City Gate at 10.30 a.m.
In a statement, the front said that while Malta wassupposed to be celebrating culture through the The Malta Arts Festival, art was still being censored.
It said in a statement that some paintings by Aleksandar Stankovski have been banned from being exhibited at the Gozo Arts Festival.
Jasmina Kotevska, who arranged to have these paintings exhibited was told by the person organising the art exhibition that the paintings were banned after a report was filed to the Gozo Ministry. The paintings had already been exhibited in Macedonia without problems.
The front said that the censorship regime wasstill busy making a massacre out of art and in the process suffocating freedom of expression.
"We are hence inviting you to attend the funeral march of art.
"This funeral comes with a response to the court sentence which upheld the ban on 'Stitching'. The funeral will be held when the Arts Festival ends and art will be carried in a coffin by members of the FAC."
This march, the front said, would also be symbolising the dying state of the arts in Malta as a result of censorship. State censorship created a sense of fear, self-censorship and took away our civil liberties,it said.
Participants are being invited to wear black to mourn Maltese art.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
49 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
simon theuma
Jul 13th 2010, 10:00
I am in no way an art critic and personally am not to keen on Stankovski's work. But in my opinion it all boils down to the luck of the draw. One guy creates a cock and it gets turned into a monument, another guy does the same and it's classified as porn.
joe borg
Jul 13th 2010, 08:58
erotic art and pornography, haven't you all guys and dolls ever went into a church?
being sanctily or not they are full of bare breasted women naked men and little boys disguised as angels.
the guy who painted the sistine chapel had a quarell with the pope of the time becuase there were too many naked figures, but in the end the painter won............... wonder why? lol
maybe this was the origin of pedophilia for the catholic church.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 15th 2010, 08:55
"the guy who painted the sistine chapel" did not have "a quarell with the pope" of the time "becuase there were too many naked figures", The artist had a quarrel with a Cardinal who was making a pest of himself criticising the artist's masterpiece. The latter took his sweet revenge by painting the Cardinal among those in Hell. The Pope jokingly dismissed the irate Cardinal by explaining that he could have done something had the Cardinal been painted among the souls in purgatory but he could not be of any assistance to anyone in Hell!
Joe Xuereb
Jul 13th 2010, 00:19
Please, don't measure the validity of Pompeian, and Roman, and Egyptian and Greek wall paintings against the modern art form. Whatever we know today is built on those first attempts at representational art (including sculpture). With Pompeii's murals (forget the nudity - all over the Vatican in any case - and see the achievement. True study of perspective was still over a thousand years away still. Available colours were very limited. Anatomy? Well, four-thundred years before the eruption at Herculaneum, Greece had given me my Praxiteles and his Hermes with the infant Dionysus, a wonder of creativity to this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxiteles
http://www.apollonius.net/pompeii1.html Erotic art/mosaics was in brothels AND in patrician households.
How can anybody be so mean-spirited that they see evil in ANY art? Where would we be without those pioneers?
London, unlike Dougga and everywhere else doesn't need phalluses on street-corners. But it does have posters on buses 'warning' people that 'some people are gay'. And half a million people attended London Gay Pride two weeks ago. Malta has ancient stone phalluses - very arty - and its Pride is small but growing. Why this hatred, this obsession, this neurosis with a god-given modus operandi to increase his kids.
klennox
Jul 12th 2010, 08:24
@Alexander Matic - your comment is erroneous.
The fobidden fruits as you call them may be your forbidden fruits, but they are not everyone's. It is rather arrogant to presume that your values are everyones or that your taste should set the standard for everyone elses.
There can be no argument that censorship is a quality sieve. There is no can be no objective definition of quality, even views on technique vary amongst the art world, and i'll agree that these paintings are poorly painted. But even our worst idea of what art is or should be has the right to be created and exist. If you familiarise youself with the Turner prize it is given to modern works of art, personally I think many of them exist on the boarders of what 'I' call art, but I have never suggested that this should be a valid argument for their censorship.
cmicallef
Jul 12th 2010, 07:49
I've seen these paintings and I personally thought they were amateurish in technique and execution, but I have no objection to their erotic content. If people don't like erotica then no pressure to go see it, I don't care for early 13th and 14th century art with its gruesome catholic scenes hence why I never go to any exhibitions on it, but I don't let my personal enjoyment of art dictate other peoples taste levels, so I object when someone tells me a particular type of art (or literature) is not suitable for me purely on the basis of their own personal judgement and taste.
Nothing should be objectionable to the public - only the way in which it is displayed and viewed and here I agree with many that if the exhibition is a public one it should convey information on the adult content so that people can make the choice for themselves.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 12th 2010, 00:22
Wait a minute! There is extremely erotic art as wall-paintings in Pompeii. Some of it very crude indeed. Should it be destroyed?
Pornographic art was very popular in late 19th century Britain and flourished even more with the advent of photography. It had limited, select circulation. Such are now museum pieces reflecting one aspect of an affluent society. Should these be burned? I could go on and on and on.
I suspect to many, art is the altar pieces in dark churchy recesses, blackened with age and candle smoke. Very religious and very narrow view of what constitutes art. Such an individual as he who reported the outrage, is, of course, going to see simple nudity as pornography. In which case at least half the Vatican exhibits need to be burned or smashed. Malta does censorship big time because sex and anything to do with it engenders so much fear and guilt. Hence one solitary individual going by stealth to the authorities to report demonic goings-on on some god-forsaken set of walls in Gozo.
We owe an apology to Macedonia. Do we really need more enemies? and for what?
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 12th 2010, 11:19
Your "erotic art as wall-paintings in Pompeii" are only interior decorations inside a brothel. Apart from the delectation of the patrons of brothels their interest would be restricted to archeology rather than "art".
Within the same archeological site street indicators are figured as male genitalia. I hope that you will not be recommending that the same street signs be adopted in London and Malta next!
Aleksandar Matic
Jul 11th 2010, 21:32
Censorship and Art cannot live without one another, at times censorship has helped us by placing the light of forbidden fruits on certain artworks and the artists, other times it served as a selection of quality that kept certain galleries to gain the name as a patrons of fine arts. Censorship exists in every better known gallery in the world, you can't just come from nowhere and hang your junk on the wall. Im not talking about this particular case simply because i did not see the paintings in question. What interests me is this funeral march of art is:
who r those superstars of Art that will dare to carry her coffin? Who r those worthy enough to carry the dead Art on their shoulders?
ms g hoare
Jul 11th 2010, 19:40
@ Andre Schembri(3 hours, 53 minutes ago)
so what? I like what you call 'Pornography' then, do you think that you have the right to impose your morality on me than? get off you high horse
If you are not really bothered to read properly what I wrote then you will not understand what i am talking about , i have no objection for these paintings to be viewed by adults ,
and yes some of these paintings are classed as ( pornography) not just by me but by the whole world now wether you like it or not the law is there to be obeyed
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 12th 2010, 07:00
@Ande Schembri.
De gustibus .....
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 11th 2010, 18:16
@Dr Albert Bezzina
Aren’t you mixing things up?
I do not see the connection between pornography in “art” and the legal Blue Tuna Fishing as controlled by international regulations. I do not need tuition from you about the need to conserve species and to protect those in danger of extinction. What I am against is Sea Shepherd taking the law into its own hands, behaving like modern pirates and endangering lives and livelihood. That is what is "obscene" not the praiseworthy international attempt to protect the Blue Tuna by legal means. I believe in the rule of law.
Marius Zulgis
Jul 11th 2010, 18:09
Sad to hear that there are people in this administration that are so full of themselves that they think they can decide what you and I can or can not see. Talk about megalomania...
ms g hoare
Jul 11th 2010, 14:30
@ like you said almost naked , but non of the crosses are naked and yes if they have to a cross with Jesus naked it would not be display .
We are talking about painting , by Aleksandar Stankovski which most that i have viewed are not just naked but in full bloom to put it mildly. let me explain it properly Micelangelo ( David)
is naked in the natual way ,
but when it comes to Aleksandar Stankovski paintings a naked body with erected penis that is classed as pornography and suitable for Adults
Andre Schembri
Jul 11th 2010, 15:25
so what? I like what you call 'Pornography' then, do you think that you have the right to impose your morality on me than?
s.koludrovic
Jul 11th 2010, 14:11
Could anyone advise if this exhibition will be held in Malta,as I,m interested to see what all this fuss is about.
BTW I,m old enough not to be too shocked with any so called pornographic pictures I might see.
Cheers to all.
J. Schembri
Jul 11th 2010, 17:58
s.koludrovic you are old enough , but it happens that the Gozo Arts Festival must be enjoyed by the general public.
If an adult is found showing these 'works of art' to a twelve year old girl, there would be enough evidence against him to be accused as a pedophiliac corrupting a minor.
J Farrugia
Jul 11th 2010, 14:07
I will be celebrating FAC's funeral very soon. Good deeds remain forever. Wrong ideas die as soon as they are born. That's my guarantee.
ms g hoare
Jul 11th 2010, 12:59
AHH so here we go everybody have a right of speech ,good as i have my opinon and you have yours ,and yes am i for real ofcource i am, i have a right to go to an ART FESTIVAL with my children and know that is suitable to view ,,like i allready said she can have open house and those persons wish to view paintings by Aleksandar Stankovski they can .and that inclueds me as im an adult but not when it 's orgonized by The Malta / Gozo Arts Festival, as this involve the whole family . This is the same as when buy ing pornografic material from a shop it's on the upper shelf and only sold to adults ,Now if sombody doesnt agree with me that is fine ,,but if you have the right for your own opinion i have mine . What i think every body have the right to know what they are going to view ,One person believe and morals are not like everybody else,so why should I and my children miss out on the rest of the ART FESTIVAL , Have a good day all
Peter Green
Jul 11th 2010, 12:37
Our churches, schools are public places are full of crosses with Jesus almost naked dying in the most horrible way. I bet that if the same was displayed as art it will be banned.
So Explain This!!!!
L Bonnici
Jul 11th 2010, 12:22
John Bundy and Joe Demicoli were right .... Pajjiz tal-Mickey Mouse and Banana Republic!!!
J. Schembri
Jul 11th 2010, 12:15
"The paintings had already been exhibited in Macedonia without problems." My question is : was this exhibition in Macedonia for adults only?
The Gozo Arts Festival should be open for the general public.
I would call these paintings , pornographic art.
The organisers had two choices : either let adults only in to view the exhibition or remove the adult material so that everyone can appreciate all the works of art.
Francis Buhagiar
Jul 11th 2010, 11:07
When is this government going to grow up and stop humiliating us?
At times I feel I am living during the medieval times.
Raymond Bezzina
Jul 11th 2010, 10:49
It is a real tragedy that many people, even with tertiary education, do not
understand ( or do not want to admit ) that our human nature is extremely
weak in everything, especially towards immorality, greedness and other
evil practices.
The immoral mess that we are in is terrifying, and if we don't repent, human
suffering will increase - sooner or later.
Where there is no order, there is disorder. It's either one or the other.
Now, it all depends on us at which direction we move.
Stephen Florian
Jul 11th 2010, 10:29
Censorship will remain necessary until there are directors who over indulge themselves in shocking the audience for kicks. Shock tactics are a thing of the past. I would prefer learning to walk properly prior to jumping the stairs at one go. Shocking the audience for kicks as a means of self indulgence can become a fetish. I would like to see the ... See Moreday when directors truely take full responsibility for their decisions and actions. That will be the day when theatre art in Malta really grows up and benchmarks remain constant.Only then can theatre people be called professionals. How consistant and reliable is the Maltese stage in relation to values of today, I would like to know.
The base truth amounts to someone's ego trip. This issue is now in the hands of puerile idiots and more harm will be done than good.All we need now is for the matter to become fodder for party politics and Maltese theatre will once again be in limbo for a very long while.
J.Tonna
Jul 11th 2010, 11:23
Very well said Mr Florian, I agree with you 100%.
But I would like to add that no one should hide behind ART to offend public morals, thus offending his neighbour. Doing so the, so called, artist will be harming himself and his own art (if it can be called so).
Christian Sciberras
Jul 11th 2010, 11:55
I agree. I have no idea what arts are being talked about, but there are misconceptions on both ends of censorship.
The full absence of censorship can never be tolerated, but on the other hand, art should not be hindered for the sake of censorship.
For instance, in my opinion, subjects like the article in "ir-realta" should be banned meanwhile nudist art (etc) should be allowed; where one describes dirty behavior in the most obscene manner possible, the other illustrates the beauty of the human body.
Andre Schembri
Jul 11th 2010, 15:34
Censorship is surely not necessary ... necessary means we cannot live without it (i.e.food) I believe that censorship is more a necessity for the man with power , as I believe art can explain inner feelings that no word can explain. apart that censorship doesn't effect only art but also politics (for example in Malta you cannot criticize the religion of the state)
Chris Fenech
Jul 11th 2010, 16:01
@ Christian Sciberras - Art is not something which must be necessarily beautiful. Art is not only about the aesthetics.
@ Stephen Florian - Since you are claiming that shock tactics are a thing of the past, would you suggest that Sarah Kane's Blasted is banned and not allowed to be seen by people over 18? Would you ban Kane's work without studying what she intended to convey? Who are you to say whether a work of art is simply trying to use shock tactics just to impress or whether shocking scenes are necessary for a work of art to be complete? When Kane's Blasted came out, it received severe negative criticism from newspaper critics: it was denounced by the Daily Mail as a 'disgusting feast of filth', the Sunday Telegraph criticized heavily its 'gratuitous welter of carnage' and the Spectator called it 'a sordid little travesty of a play'. Later on, some critics, re-evaluated the play, admitting that they “got it wrong” (Michael Billington), and that the noise and panic raised because of the play in 1995 seemed “shrill and silly” (Evening Standard 1995).
Chris Fenech
Jul 11th 2010, 16:09
I'm mentioning Sarah Kane's work as an example. I think we cannot feel so confident in banning what we think is not art and allowing the rest, because art cannot be restrained by people's opinions: to put it more clearly, what people think is obscene during a given period in time is thought of not being obscene in an other period of time.
So I wouldn't feel confident at all banning works presented by artists. You could be banning the next Sarah Kane or a budding Michelangelo.... you never know.
Also, I think people's decisions and personal responsibility should be respected and therefore people over 18 should be allowed to watch any type of art which they desire to view; given that they are not infringing other people's rights.
ms g hoare
Jul 11th 2010, 10:13
I find this very arrogant Jasmina Kotevska, ,if you wish to display ART and the country which in this case is MALTA you have to obey by the Law and cencorship if Macedonia have no Morals then it's their problem not ours ,so if they want to jump off the highest mountain we should follow Jasmina Kotevska, your worry is only MONEY as you will be losing out ,I am all for ART but there is a limit where Art goes there are some sick people that think they can do what they like with art ,i do suggest that maybe Jasmina Kotevska, need to open her own house for these paintings to be viewed by Adults if this ART is not suitable to be viewed by all. good day all
Toni Bonello
Jul 11th 2010, 10:24
Are you serious, so what you call art the statues for the feasts
Joe Cassar
Jul 11th 2010, 10:26
What an attitude.
What you are saying is that art is all right - as long as it it what YOU think is art.
Toni Bonello
Jul 11th 2010, 10:47
The person who reported the painting hadn't the decency to speak up and say I reported to the Ministry of Gozo, he went behind the organisation, reported to the Ministry, the last reported to the Censorship board. The last dictating that you either remove the paintings or the exhibition to be closed. That is the freedom one has in Malta
Jasmina Kotevska
Jul 11th 2010, 11:00
Dear, ms g hoare
In this case when we are speaking for art, is not ok to put morality in question. We speak about CONTEMPORARY ART, if you understand me what I am saying. Morality and ethics are not going with the art hand by hand. They exist only in our mind. Who is that person who can judge what is moral and what is not, when we are all moral and not moral in same time.
Macedonia people are very dissent and open minded people, and this what you speak in public for one nation that are unmoral is Big offence.
When I was asked by the organisation of Gozo Contemporary Art Festival to get a Macedonian artist , which to my knowledge, he is one of the recognize artists with long artistic career, I decide to bring him here.
Art is freedom of expression, and no one can take that freedom from the artists.
I fully support the Front Against Censorship and their fight for Human Rights.
Jane Galea
Jul 11th 2010, 13:29
Jasmina Kotevska do you include pornography as an artistic expression? You are only defending pornography because you stand to lose money. You can take your pornography to Macedonia since according to you they do not object and since they must be yearning for it.
Francis Buhagiar
Jul 11th 2010, 16:38
Dear Jane Galea,
Pornography in art exists only in your mind. I have never seen any artist painting pornographic paintings. Grow up dear.
Jane Galea
Jul 11th 2010, 17:32
Dear Francis Buhagiar, if you haven't seen one doesn't mean that they do not do so. Good day.
Jasmina Kotevska
Jul 11th 2010, 21:34
@ Jane Galea I as graduated Art Historian I believe I know how to distinguish between erotic art and pornography. Pornography is the most degrading towards human beings, pornography have totally different medium of expression, whilst erotic art is mystic, subtle and doesn't offend morals. Artists are not there to give people what is moral and not moral.We are speaking about Contemporary Art and not for Religious Art which you have in the Churches around the World, which frescos are an illustration of the Holy Books, with purpose to teach the people in the old times . Dear Jane I invite you to see the paintings before judging what is moral and what is not moral. I don't have neither one intention to make money from the Art. Please stop offending a whole nation, if you don't understand some things , doesn't mean that those things are wrong, non-moral and non ethics. Look little in your country around and see what is happening, then speak for shame and indecent things. Have nice evening
Andre Schembri
Jul 11th 2010, 09:59
further info can be found on ir-realta` website http://www.realtamadwarek.org/realta/chatterbox.php?ID=534 or facebook event page http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136217683065775&ref=ts
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 11th 2010, 09:23
No flowers by request. Donations would be appreciated - to charitable organizations, please, not to the "artistic" purveyors of anything that is obscene and blashemous.
C.Sammut
Jul 11th 2010, 09:34
how do you know they are blasphemous and obscene?
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 11th 2010, 11:13
For one thing, because the censors and the law courts said so! With all due respect to those unfortunates who seem inacapable of enjoying themselves and of appreciating true art unless it makes them drool with lascivousness!
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Jul 11th 2010, 11:46
Obscene and blashemous? Have you been to the vatican and Europe?
C.Sammut
Jul 11th 2010, 12:01
Now Dr Saliba how do I know that the censor or the person at the law courts is not some pervert with a secret whim towards what is blasphemous and obscene? I can judge for myself what is relatively blasphemous and obscene, because for each one of us, there is a different relativity. I won't discuss my sex life with my father but I wouldn't hesitate to with my doctor. No State can impose it. It is me who chooses.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 11th 2010, 13:13
@JosephZammit and C.Sammut
I have been to public places of entertainment, the Vatican museum pinacotheca and uncounted art galleries all over Europe, the Americas and the Far East. What would you like to know? I can make a distinction between legitimate wotks of art and the money-spinning porno industry. I would not dream of imposing my own line of separation between those two on anybody else but I do not fly to the other extreme of throwing censorship and the rule of law to the dogs just to pander to those who seem unable to earn a living in any other way than shocking society by selling blasphemy and pornography.
Raphael Vassallo
Jul 11th 2010, 14:26
Dr Saliba, there were no censors or law courts involved in the decision. It was the Gozo Ministry. And for your information there was no blasphemy, either. The word isn't alluded to anywhere in connection with the art exhibition - you simply added it yourself without even bothering to verify if it was true. In future, suggest you get to know the facts before commenting, not afterwards.
Dr Albert Bezzina
Jul 11th 2010, 14:29
@ Dr Fracis Saliba. Said "I can make a distinction between legitimate wotks of art and the money-spinning porno industry" Just to demonstrate that art is in the eye of the beholder. Dr Saliba can make a distinction between legitimate works of art and the money-spinning porno industry. Dr Saliba did not make a distinction between sustainable Blue Fin Tuna Fishing and the current money-spinning Blue Fin Tuna industry. To Dr Saliba there is black and white, pornography and art. Dr Saliba decides what is pornography and Dr Saliba decides whether Blu Fin Tuna as a species can becomes extinct (Dr Saliba's comments on line during the BFT/Sea Shepard confrontation). Sending a species to extinction is for me hundreds of times more obscene and blasphemous than what Dr Saliba may consider obscene and blasphemous in the arts. What has BFT got to do with this topic? It has! When it can be shown that the righteousness in the mind of one person may be the obscene and the blasphemous of the mind of another.
The biggest obscene work of art by man can be seen all around. It is called "Rape of Mother Earth"
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 11th 2010, 17:45
@Raphael Vassallo
My comment is not restricted to the Gozo incident. It is aimed at the entire nauseating campaign by the Front Against Censorship and others to make blasphemy and pornography look fashionable and digestible. This campaign is intended to brainwash and to shame the public into believing that it is somehow artistically deficient not to show enthusiasm for pornographic shows being advertised for pecuniary gain. I know the facts much better than you give me credit for!