NEWSgrist - where spin is art

Under Fire: a cross-disciplinary exhibition

via News Bureau, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (8/25/06):

Art exhibition examines political violence, war
Melissa Mitchell, U. of I. News Bureau arts writer
217-333-5491
Mary Antonakos, I space coordinator 312-587-9976
8/25/06

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Political violence and war are among the themes that will be explored in an exhibition on view Sept. 8 through Oct. 7 at I space, the Chicago gallery of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"Under Fire," which brings together the contributions of an international roster of artists working in cross-disciplinary and multimedia forms, is a continuation of global discussions and publications initiated by artist and writer Jordan Crandall. According to organizer Ryan Griffis, a professor of art and design at the U. of I., the exhibition serves as a "discursive engagement with global militarization and political violence, incorporating perspectives from multiple disciplines to explore the contemporary organization, representation and materialization of war."

L: Screen capture from "Media Blackout," computer game, 2006, by Michael Wilson.
C: "Kill Box" oil painting, 2001, by Joy Garnett
R: Video still from "Kabul: Constitutions," 2003-4 by Mariam Ghani
 
Featured artists are Annie Abrahams/Clément Charmet, An Architektur, de Geuzen, Joy Garnett, Mariam Ghani, Dara Greenwald, Tsila Hassine, Ricardo Miranda-Zuñiga, Hillary Mushkin, Trevor Paglen, Joel  Ross, Michael Wilson and xurban_collective.
         
A series of events planned in conjunction with the exhibition will take place on the U. of I.'s Urbana-Champaign campus this fall. They include a talk by Israeli architect, activist and scholar Eyal Weizman (TBA); the exhibition "In War/At War: The Practice of Everyday," Oct. 5 through 29 at OPENSOURCE Art, 12 E. Washington St., Champaign; and a screening of "The Marching Plague," a film about biological warfare produced by the Critical Art Ensemble, at 5:30 p.m. Oct. 9 at the Krannert Art Museum.

A reception is scheduled to take place from 5-8 p.m. on Sept. 8 at the gallery, 230 W. Superior St., Chicago. I space gallery hours are Tuesday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m

LINKS

Essay by Dan S. Wang
Under Fire ReBlog
Jordan Crandall
Under Fire Discussion Archive at the Witte de With

The World Isn't a Stage

Photo: Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times

"We had thought that artwork could shock and make change. But no, artwork, even if it is critical, is entertainment." DURAID LAHHA

via NYTimes:
An Arab Artist Says All the World Really Isn't a Stage
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: August 19, 2006

DAMASCUS, Syria

THERE was a time, when he was a young man, Duraid Lahham said, that he thought he might help change the world with his movies. Not anymore. Now, he says over and over, art is useless as a tool for political change.

Art cannot change anyone's mind, he says. It never caused a terrorist to have second thoughts, never transformed a dictator into a democrat. In fact, he says, it never did much but entertain.

Mr. Lahham is a Syrian actor, one of the Arab world's best-known performers. He was also a comic, writer and director, whose biting critique of Arab regimes was sugar-coated with sarcasm and humor. While he still likes to make people laugh, at 72, he has become the personal embodiment of Irving Kristol's famous remark that a neoconservative is a "liberal who has been mugged by reality."

For a good portion of his career, Mr. Lahham appeared on Arab-language television, in plays and movies, challenging the region’s leaders. He mocked their ideologies and railed against corruption and incompetence.

But one day, he said, he realized it was all a big mistake, that his critiques did nothing but play into the hands of men in power. Dictators liked to point to "freedom of criticism," he said, as a way to defend against charges that they suppress freedom of expression.

"One time," Mr. Lahham recalled between continuous puffs on an extra-long cigarette, "in a conversation with an Arab official we were criticizing a lot, he said to me: 'Talk all you want. We will do all we want.'"

Those words seared Mr. Lahham's heart, and from that moment forward, it seemed a part of him dried up. He said he stopped making politically challenging shows, stopped thinking of his work as making a difference in the world and decided instead there was no shame in simply entertaining people. The war in Lebanon, he says, has served only to validate all his feelings.

When the Levees Broke: a Must See

Monday and last night I watched Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" on HBO (to be screened again on the anniversary of Katrina, 8/29/06, all four acts, 8:00 p.m.-midnight). Brilliant. Pasted below is a sufficiently agreeable but unremarkable NYTimes review -- NEWSgrist takes issue with it in at least one instance: the scene where the ER doctor (who is blocked from driving his salvage van to his destroyed house because of a Dick Cheney photo-op) finally parks his van and walks up to Cheney and his TV crew to exclaim on national television "FUCK YOU Mr. Cheney," referencing Cheney's own infamous "fuck you" remark in Congress. For those of us who watched that scene in awe last year, live and in subsequent TV commentaries, I think including it here is not, as Holden quips, a "cheap shot," but rather an essential (and  high) point; it stands, as does the entire interview with that particularly ballsy individual, as one of the most emblematic if not cathartic moments for our collective rage and disgust with the ongoing travesty of this administration; not to mention, it provided some much needed (though dark) comic relief. Resonant indeed.
- JG

via NYTimes:
TV Review
'When the Levees Broke': Spike Lee's Tales From a Broken City
By STEPHEN HOLDEN
Published: August 21, 2006

It isn't the painful recapitulation of the incompetence, indifference and confusion in high places  that makes Spike Lee's epic documentary "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts" a wrenching experience. What breaks your heart is the film's accumulated firsthand stories of New Orleans residents who lost everything in the flood after Hurricane Katrina, and the dismaying conclusion that a year after the disaster, the broken city has been largely abandoned to fend for itself.

A powerful chorus of witnesses and talking heads that cuts across racial and class lines was assembled for the four-hour film, to be shown tonight and tomorrow on HBO in two-hour blocks. Although seeds of hope are woven into this tapestry of rage, sorrow and disbelief, the inability of government at almost every level to act quickly and decisively leaves you aghast at what amounts to a collective failure of will.

Irshad Manji on 'Muslim Myopia'

Image source

via NYTimes:
Op-Ed Contributor
Muslim Myopia
By IRSHAD MANJI
Published: August 16, 2006

New Haven
LAST week, the luminaries of the British Muslim mainstream — lobbyists, lords and members of Parliament — published an open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, telling him that the "debacle" of both Iraq and Lebanon provides "ammunition to extremists who threaten us all." In increasingly antiwar America, a similar argument is gaining traction: The United States brutalizes Muslims, which in turn foments Islamist terror.

But violent jihadists have rarely needed foreign policy grievances to justify their hot heads. There was no equivalent to the Iraq debacle in 1993, when Islamists first tried to blow up the World Trade Center, or in 2000, when they attacked the American destroyer Cole. Indeed, that assault took place after United States-led military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.

If Islamists cared about changing Iraq policy, they would not have bothered to abduct two journalists from France — probably the most antiwar, anti-Bush nation in the West. Even overt solidarity with Iraqi suffering did not prevent Margaret Hassan, who ran a world-renowned relief agency in Baghdad, from being executed by insurgents.

Meanwhile, at least as many Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims as under the boots of any foreign imperial power. In Sudan, black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, with the consent of an Islamic government. Where is the "official" Muslim fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims? If not, then here is an idea for Muslim representatives in the West: Go ahead and lecture the politicians that their foreign policies give succor to radicals. At the same time, however, challenge the educated and angry young Muslims to hold their own accountable, too.

This means reminding them that in Pakistan, Sunnis hunt down Shiites every day; that in northern Israel, Katuysha rockets launched by Hezbollah have ripped through the homes of Arab Muslims as well as Jews; that in Egypt, the riot police of President Hosni Mubarak routinely club, rape, torture and murder Muslim activists promoting democracy; and, above all, that civil wars have become hallmarks of the Islamic world.

Muslim figureheads will not dare be so honest. They would sooner replicate the very sins for which they castigate the Bush and Blair governments — namely, switching rationales and pretending integrity.

In the wake of the London bombings on July 7, 2005, Iqbal Sacranie, then the head of the influential Muslim Council of Britain, insisted that economic discrimination lay at the root of Islamist radicalism in his country. When it came to light that some of the suspects enjoyed middle-class upbringings, university educations, jobs and cars, Mr. Sacranie found a new culprit: foreign policy. In so doing, he boarded the groupthink express steered by Muslim elites.

The good news is that ordinary people of faith are capable of self-criticism. Two months ago, 65 percent of British Muslims polled believed that their communities should increase efforts to integrate. The same poll also produced troubling results: 13 percent lionized the July 7 terrorists, and 16 percent sympathized. Still, these figures total 29 percent — less than half the number who sought to belong more fully to British society.

Whether in Britain or America, those who claim to speak for Muslims have a responsibility to the majority, which wants to reconcile Islam with pluralism. Whatever their imperial urges, it is not for Tony Blair or George W. Bush to restore Islam's better angels. That duty — and glory — goes to Muslims.
...

Irshad Manji, a fellow at Yale University, is the author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith.

from Wikipedia:

Manji has been a critic of orthodox Islam, especially the treatment of women by some Muslims. She does not wear a headscarf or chador whereas many traditional Muslim women do observe the hijab. She has criticized the Palestinian leadership and the opinions of some Muslims about Israel.

In March 2006 a letter she co-signed entitled MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism with eleven other individuals (most notably Salman Rushdie) was published in response to violent protests in the Islamic world surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

She questions historical interpretations of the Qur'an and advocates the concept of ijtihad, "the Muslim tradition of independent thinking".

War & Peace

Here are excerpts and links to calls for peace and an end to the current Mideast conflict as well as analyses from different corners of the world:

via Jewish Voice for Peace : 

Opposed to Bombing Civilians? Sign Jewish Call to Action Petition 
Saw the "What is Israel Doing?" ad we are running in The Nation? (Download a PDF of the ad here, and help pay for the ad here.) Or did you read about our work in the paper, see us on television or hear about us from a friend? Whatever got you here, we're glad you've come to learn more and make your voice heard. Please sign the Jewish Voice for Peace Call to Action Petition, read the JVP In-Depth primer below, and don't forget to start here with a primer about the occupation.

 

via Tikkun:

Pro-Israel And Pro-Lebanon
By Mitchell Plitnick
July 31, 2006
Reprinted Courtesy of TomPaine.com

As Israel loses more soldiers in actions that increasingly resemble the catastrophic 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the question for Jews in Israel, America and the rest of the world becomes not just whether Israeli actions are morally justified, but whether or not they are strategically sound. The answer to both is no.

Sadly, the actions of the U.S. government have contributed to a destabilization of the region that can only harm Israel. It has vetoed two U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire and immediate negotiations. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying she did not see what purpose a cease-fire would serve. Such comments leave the impression that halting the deaths of innocents doesn't even factor into Rice's thinking.

This diplomatic failure by the U.S. has defined the Bush administration's "strategy" in the region. The U.S. completely supported Israel’s actions in closing off the Gaza Strip's land, sea and air access shortly after a democratically elected Hamas government took power at the beginning of 2006. This devastated an already crippled economy in Gaza and weakened a Hamas government that had held a shaky truce with Israel for more than a year and was moving toward negotiations on implicitly recognizing Israel along its 1967 borders.

Meanwhile, ongoing skirmishes between Hezbollah and Israel over Israel's continuing presence in the Sheba'a Farms region—which Israel claims is Syrian territory, while Lebanon claims it as its own—were simply ignored by the rest of the world. Instead of pushing for a solution to these problems, the Bush administration preferred to let them simmer. It boiled over when Palestinian groups and Hezbollah attacked Israeli army posts inside Israel, taking Israeli soldiers hostage.

All sides rightly condemned Hezbollah for those attacks and for the deadly rocket attacks on Israeli towns. But those rocket attacks only started after Israel started bombing Lebanese civilians. The Israeli government is responsible for escalating the conflict, and it showed total disregard for its own citizens, let alone the Lebanese, by doing so. That doesn't excuse Hezbollah's actions, but Israel knew very well that it was opening the door to civilian casualties of its own when it hit Lebanon.

Now, more than two weeks after Israel invaded Lebanon and almost a month since Israel began its assault on the Gaza Strip, Israeli leaders have admitted that these operations have little to do with freeing their captive soldiers. Instead, we hear daily of the "new Middle East" which this war will create. This was attempted before, when in 1982 Israel attempted to install by force a government favorable to it in South Lebanon. The results then, as now, were only an intensification of the "old" Middle East violence. [read on...]

via Tikkun:

Advertisement to END THE SLAUGHTER IN ISRAEL, LEBANON and GAZA
READ the ad that is running in the NY Times 7/31/06. With your help, we can reprint the ad in the Washington Post and several newspapers in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon, but it can only happen if you donate now.

Explanatory Note: We at Tikkun and the Network of Spiritual Progressives ask you to join our effort to place ads in national and international newspapers calling for an end to the slaughter in Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Territories—and to use this moment not only to create a temporary cease fire, but to resolve all outstanding issues between the various parties in the Middle East. We are calling upon the international community to foster a new approach to resolving conflicts. We approach these issues from our commitment to a "Progressive Middle Path," recognizing that in the context of the past 120 years, both sides have legitimate grievances and both sides have acted with insensitivity and cruelty toward the other. We do not accept that one side is the "righteous victim" and the other side the "evil aggressor." But we do recognize that at this moment Israel has far greater military power, and so we ask for Israel to take the first steps toward ending the cycle of hatred and violence, even as we condemn Hezbollah for initiating the current escalation of violence. [read on...]

via Salon.com:

The Mideast death dance
Hamas and Hezbollah, Lebanon and Palestine, Syria and Iran, the U.S. and Israel: Unless these four pairs of actors turn away from their failed policies, the Middle East will sink further into violence and despair.
By Rami G. Khouri

July 15, 2006
You need to understand the relationship among four pairs of actors to grasp the meaning of the escalating attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel in recent days. The four pairs are Hamas and Hezbollah; the Palestinian and Lebanese governments; Syria and Iran; and Israel and the United States.

Simplistically, President George W. Bush has depicted this latest round of war as a clash between good and evil, while the Israeli government has tried to blame Palestinians and Lebanese who only want to make war against a peace-loving Israel. The more nuanced and complex reality is that, collectively, these four pairs of actors play roles in the ongoing fighting, as we witness the culmination of four decades of failed policies that have kept the Middle East tense, angry and violent. [read on...]

via The Independent:

Oren Ben-Dor: Who are the real terrorists in the Middle East?
What exactly is being defended? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state?
Published: 26 July 2006

As its citizens are being killed, Israel is, yet again, inflicting death and destruction on Lebanon. It tries to portray this horror as necessary for its self-defence. Indeed, the casual observer might regard the rocket attacks on Israeli cities such as Haifa and my own home town, Nahariya, as justifying this claim.

While states should defend their citizens, states which fail this duty should be questioned and, if necessary, reconfigured. Israel is a state which, instead of defending its citizens, puts all of them, Jews as well as non-Jews, in danger.

What exactly is being defended by the violence in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state? I suggest the latter.
[read on...]

via Shalom Center:

SAVING LIVES IS OUR HIGHEST DUTY: So Send Peacekeepers NOW!

Dear Friends,
We are taught: "pekuakh nefesh, saving lives" is our highest duty.

This war is killing people now. And the rage it creates will kill more people later.

As Akiba and the sages taught: Learn for the sake of acting. The action site will come toward the end of this letter.

This war marks not only a crisis in the future of Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine, but also a crisis in the moral universe of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

There is a teaching in the Talmud: "If someone comes to kill you, kill him first." Then the Talmud continues: "But if you can prevent his killing you by wounding him rather than killing him, and nevertheless you kill him, you become a murderer."

Violence in self-defense, the rabbis are teaching, is legitimate - perhaps even required. But only self-defense that uses the smallest degree of force that would stop an attack.

This is wisdom for Jews and for the Jewish state, but not only for Jews. Something like it arises in all religious traditions that do not prohibit the use of violence altogether, even in self-defense.

So we all face today the question whether the present government of Israel and the present leadership of Hezbollah are following this precept.

I think not. I think the attacks on Lebanese infrastructure far from the Israeli-Lebanese border, like those on the civilian infrastructure of Gaza just a few weeks ago, are going far over the line of legitimate self-defense.

And I think the rocket attacks by Hezbollah against Haifa and many other Israeli towns, as well as the original attack across the international frontier, also go far over the line of any conceivable "self-defense." [read on...]

via NYTimes:

Op-Ed Columnist

   Shock and Awe

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 31, 2006

For Americans who care deeply about Israel, one of the truly nightmarish things about the war in Lebanon has been watching Israel repeat the same mistakes the United States made in Iraq. It's as if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been possessed by the deranged spirit of Donald Rumsfeld.

Yes, I know that there are big differences in the origins of the two wars. There's no question of this war having been sold on false pretenses; unlike America in Iraq, Israel is clearly acting in self-defense.

But both Clausewitz and Sherman were right: war is both a continuation of policy by other means, and all hell. It's a terrible mistake to start a major military operation, regardless of the moral justification, unless you have very good reason to believe that the action will improve matters.

The most compelling argument against an invasion of Iraq wasn't the suspicion many of us had, which turned out to be correct, that the administration's case for war was fraudulent. It was the fact that the real reason government officials and many pundits wanted a war — their belief that if the United States used its military might to "hit someone" in the Arab world, never mind exactly who, it would shock and awe Islamic radicals into giving up terrorism — was, all too obviously, a childish fantasy.

And the results of going to war on the basis of that fantasy were predictably disastrous: the fiasco in Iraq has ended up demonstrating the limits of U.S. power, strengthening radical Islam — especially radical Shiites allied with Iran, a group that includes Hezbollah — and losing America the moral high ground.

What I never expected was that Israel — a nation that has unfortunately had plenty of experience with both war and insurgency — would be susceptible to similar fantasies. Yet that's what seems to have happened.