Bay Area Artists Fight Over Framing of Mideast Conflict
By Josh Richman
Oakland, Calif. - Over the past few months, the City by the Bay has become the city in the fray. Driven by three separate incidents, a communitywide debate has emerged over the Middle East conflict — and, specifically, how it is expressed artistically, in both public and private spaces.
Last August, San Francisco State University approved a mural celebrating the late Palestinian scholar and activist Edward Said, but only after organizers agreed to remove elements identified by Jewish groups as advocating Israel’s destruction. A month later, the city’s arts commission signed off on changes to another public mural that had drawn similar complaints. And now, a Jewish artist is accusing a gallery owner of dropping his contract because of his proposed art catalog’s Zionist theme.
“The Bay Area is a hyper-political environment where community discussions can be very polarizing,” said Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council. “Anti-Israel activity and rhetoric is taking place in forums where it was previously denied a presence.”
Artist Alan Kaufman, in the dispute with the gallery owner, spoke more bluntly.
“In the art world in general and in the world of culture, it’s increasingly the case — not only in the Bay Area but everywhere — that Zionism is a pariah kind of philosophy, a shunned, despised kind of philosophy, and any kind of association with it brings immediate, negative repercussions,” he said in an interview with the Forward. “I think this is a case of that.”
In 2006, San Francisco State President Robert Corrigan nixed plans for the Said mural on the campus student center proposed by the campus’s General Union of Palestine Students. He approved a redesign in August of this year that removed the image of the Palestinian cartoon character Handala gripping a key — which Jewish groups said symbolized the Palestinian right of return and destruction of the Jewish state — and what some saw as a sword and others saw as a pen. The new mural is set to be unveiled November 2, and the Palestinian student group plans a daylong series of events in celebration.
Porth said that the Said mural flap wasn’t about “artistic expression or free speech” but rather “how permanent art on public land communicates a message to the population that surrounds that art. The university has long recognized that a university is a place for a free exchange of ideas and deliberation, but that cannot be at the expense of a people or their right to exist in this world.”
Porth and others raised similar objections to a mural in the city’s Mission District, designed by a local artist and painted last summer by more than 200 community members on city property using a neighborhood beautification grant. One section depicted Palestinians — one with a keffiyeh over her face — breaking through an Israel-shaped crack in an Israeli security barrier.
Porth said that the design looked hostile to the city’s Jewish residents. She set out to work with the muralists on tweaking it. Homies Organizing the Mission to Empower Youth, the mural’s sponsor, and artist Eric Norberg agreed to make changes — including altering the crack’s shape so that it didn’t resemble Israel’s silhouette, adding an olive tree to symbolize peace and removing the keffiyeh. A city arts commission panel approved the changes last month.
Porth said she had not heard about Kaufman’s situation until the Forward described it; she called it “very disheartening” but said there’s a big difference between publicly funded and displayed art — like the murals — and decisions made by private gallery owners.
Kaufman said that gallery owner David Himmelberger abruptly dropped plans to publish a catalog of his work after seeing Kaufman’s draft, titled “Visionary Expressionism: A Zionist Art.” Kaufman had solicited brief essays from friends such as David Twersky, a contributing editor for The New York Sun and senior adviser to the American Jewish Congress’s executive director; David Rosenberg, co-author of “The Book of J” and author of “Abraham: The First Historical Biography,” and Israeli author Etgar Keret. Kaufman, author of the memoir “Jew Boy” and the novel “Matches,” also penned an essay for the catalog.
“His reaction to that was immediate and profound. He pointed to the title of the catalog and said, ‘There’s no way I’ll do that, never,’” Kaufman said. He claimed that Himmelberger told him such a presentation was antithetical to the aims of the gallery, which include fostering international understanding by rejecting nationalism.
Kaufman said he considers Zionism “the civil rights movement of the Jewish people” and is offended when people express empathy or support for Jews and even Israel, yet shun the term “Zionism.”
Riva Gambert, director of the Israel Center at the Jewish Federation of the Greater East Bay, said she met with both Kaufman and Himmelberger this past summer and can’t imagine how the catalog could have come as a surprise to the gallery owner.
“It was obvious the purpose of the paintings and the exhibition and any potential programming attached to it would be to bring to people’s attention the threats facing Israel,” Gambert said. “If Zionism is demonized, then the whole basis, the raison d’etre of having a Jewish state, is undermined.”
Himmelberger replied to the Forward’s inquiries only with an e-mail that said: “Himmelberger Gallery’s written and signed agreement with Alan Kaufman expired on September 13, 2007. Himmelberger Gallery no longer represents Mr. Alan Kaufman.”
But Kaufman contends that he and Himmelberger had discussed plans for well into 2008, and Himmelberger pulled the paintings from his Web site only after Kaufman went public with his complaints about the catalog being nixed. Kaufman said he believes Himmelberger’s sudden aversion to the art’s Zionist themes resulted at least in part from the Israel Center’s refusal to shell out the six-figure sum Himmelberger had sought for an installation of the work.
The gallery situation notwithstanding, Porth said the open, frank dialogue created as a result of the murals might leave a more lasting mark on the community than the murals themselves.
“These issues arise in the Bay Area on a daily basis,” said Porth, who added that the way in which the Jewish community responds is perhaps more important than the end result. After all, she said, “these are our neighbors.”
Advertisements
Advertisements
Grif is essentially correct, the comparison between Zionism and the American Civil Rights movement is a bit of a stretch. Both have to be seen within their own historical, social and political contexts. But analogies are a legitimate tool for creating a framework for understanding. At its core the Civil Rights movement was a movement of empowerment for African Americans. Zionism serves that function, too, but for Jews, who have historically been powerless. The dire consequences of that powerlessness were seen not only in the Holocaust, but in the centuries of pogroms, the Chmielnitzky massacres, the Inquuisition, Crusades, Damascus Blood Libel, massacres in Cairo, Morocco, etc. Another analogy could be that of Feminism, which aims to empower women, who have been historically powerless. Even this analogy is not perfect, I'll admit, but at least it gives a framework for better understanding. Another crucial difference between the two movements is the fact that Zionism is the target of a global campaign by the hard Left, the radical Right and radical Islamism. Israel's existence is called into question from Tony Judt to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Zionism is thus very much on the defensive; and when a polity's legitimacy is called into question then defensiveness by that polity's population and supporters is often an automatic and not surprising response. Finally, Zionism in its foundational writings speak in ways not foreign to M. L. K. Many Israeli leaders and thinkers do indeed call for more inclusivness to the Palestinian question, and are Zionists. It is legitimate to wonder how different Israeli society would be had Israel not had to fight for its very existence since Day One. Hopefully with a true peace, we may see the flowering of the long-repressed Zionist dream including its more inclusive stream.
"Kaufman said he considers Zionism “the civil rights movement of the Jewish people” and is offended when people express empathy or support for Jews and even Israel, yet shun the term 'Zionism.'" When I hear Likud and Kadima, to say nothing of most other Israeli parties, subscribe to the ideals of King's "I have a dream" speech for all the citizens of Israel and all those in the WB and Gaza, then Zionism will be on the road to a civil rights movement. At the moment, and historically, it is a movement of Jewish Nationalism only. Far more accurate to compare it to the singular nationalism of the Black Muslims than to the inclusive idealism of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Grif is essentially correct, the comparison between Zionism and the American Civil Rights movement is a bit of a stretch. Both have to be seen within their own historical, social and political contexts. But analogies are a legitimate tool for creating a framework for understanding. At its core the Civil Rights movement was a movement of empowerment for African Americans. Zionism serves that function, too, but for Jews, who have historically been powerless. The dire consequences of that powerlessness were seen not only in the Holocaust, but in the centuries of pogroms, the Chmielnitzky massacres, the Inquuisition, Crusades, Damascus Blood Libel, massacres in Cairo, Morocco, etc. Another analogy could be that of Feminism, which aims to empower women, who have been historically powerless. Even this analogy is not perfect, I'll admit, but at least it gives a framework for better understanding. Another crucial difference between the two movements is the fact that Zionism is the target of a global campaign by the hard Left, the radical Right and radical Islamism. Israel's existence is called into question from Tony Judt to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Zionism is thus very much on the defensive; and when a polity's legitimacy is called into question then defensiveness by that polity's population and supporters is often an automatic and not surprising response. Finally, Zionism in its foundational writings speak in ways not foreign to M. L. K. Many Israeli leaders and thinkers do indeed call for more inclusivness to the Palestinian question, and are Zionists. It is legitimate to wonder how different Israeli society would be had Israel not had to fight for its very existence since Day One. Hopefully with a true peace, we may see the flowering of the long-repressed Zionist dream including its more inclusive stream.
"Kaufman said he considers Zionism “the civil rights movement of the Jewish people” and is offended when people express empathy or support for Jews and even Israel, yet shun the term 'Zionism.'" When I hear Likud and Kadima, to say nothing of most other Israeli parties, subscribe to the ideals of King's "I have a dream" speech for all the citizens of Israel and all those in the WB and Gaza, then Zionism will be on the road to a civil rights movement. At the moment, and historically, it is a movement of Jewish Nationalism only. Far more accurate to compare it to the singular nationalism of the Black Muslims than to the inclusive idealism of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Artist Kaufman said, “In the art world in general and in the world of culture, it’s increasingly the case — not only in the Bay Area but everywhere — that Zionism is a pariah kind of philosophy, a shunned, despised kind of philosophy, and any kind of association with it brings immediate, negative repercussions.” Perhaps this is because people everywhere are now realizing that Zionism has resulted in Jewish exclusivism and Jewish surpremacy in Israel. And if the exclusive surpremacy of any ethnic or religious group over another isn't racism, what is?
Sarah says, "Perhaps this is because people everywhere are now realizing that Zionism has resulted in Jewish exclusivism and Jewish surpremacy in Israel." If supremacism and exclusivism make national movements eligible for pariah status, then this ought to be universally applied. So, why isn't Arab natinalism, which is in many ways supremacist and exclusivistic for Arabs, make "people everywhere realize that Arab natioalism is racist. Just ask any Kurd what Arab nationalism has done for them. The same could be said about Turkism (ask any Armenian about this). Where do we stop? So, what is it about Jewish nationalism (aka Zionism) that "people everywhere" are so upset about? Most likely it is the fact that it is a movement for the Jews. I think it goes something like this: racsim is bad, but nothing is as bad as Jewish racism. Greed is bad, but nothing is worse than Jewish greed. I think you get my point. It's all about double standards. One standard for Jews, another for the rest of humanity. I think that is called anti-Semitism.
"Civil rights movement" for the "chosen people" on the expense of basic rights (housing, water, movement, etc.) of the colony's natives is a lot of hogwash in my humble opinion. I'm sure united states of amnesia uses similar rationale in order to justify what they did to "their" natives. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of *banning* art for political reasons. Art is exposed to criticism, and this should be enough. Unfortunately, lots of art - e.g. the play about Rachel Corry's death - is barred from the public by the "civil rights for Jews only" movement. I don't know why my brother's name got mentioned in this context, but I'd advise anyone who tries to guess his opinion from reading his name in this article to simply *ask him* and not rely on the propaganda machine that uses anything it can - including his name - in order to justify itself. Disclaimer: I don't speak *on behalf* of Etgar (who's in Poland at the moment), that's why I advise you to contact him if his exact opinion on this matter is important to you.
All this back and forth political art is going to be forgotten over time. Ah for an artist to paint something half as good as the Mona Lisa, the Night Watch, or even Escher.
I'm not sure what Nimrod is advocating. For myself, if the choice is between the innocence of powerlessness over the complexitiy of engaging in hard debate on how we Jews can best morally exercise the power we've gained, I prefer the latter. I'd rather not be in the pre-Shoah position of complete powerlessness which left us with few options to defend ourselves. So, let's have a healthy debate on how a Jewish polity should best relate to its non-Jewish citizens and to its neighbors. But, let's have that debate from a position of empowerment, and not as a powerless minority in all places dependent on the good will of the majority. Been there, done that, it didn't work.
Question: Do Picasso's "Guernica" and Celan's "Death Fugue," two masterpieces of art with an ethical purpose, establish one-to-one correspondences between the elements of their artistry and straightforward words? Answer: Of course not, if that were the case the Spanish painter and the Jewish poet would have written letters to the editor and not put forth the energy towards elaborate prose-to-paint or prose-to-poetry mappings. In other words, there is great political art, for goals I admire, and incidentally also great political art for goals I abhor (e.g. Paradise Lost), and everything in between (e.g. Diego Rivera), but it says what cannot be said in ordinary prose vernacular. Contrastingly, art like these murals screams "I look like a painting but I am really a giant slogan," and consequently violates the most basic premise of public communication of which art is a specie: "say" it in the most elegant and universally and timelessly comprehensible fashion possible. Without going into the political philosophy of why I find this to be the case, I wish to state that the issue here is bigger than Israel/Palestine. Were there a perfect and permanent peace tomorrow, and were the hard left grudgingly forced by such inconvenient circumstances to espouse the Tibetan and East Timorian causes instead, both the mentality behind this Rivera-wanna-be muralism and the paint on the wall would have done damage in unexpected ways.
Listen, Nimrod, you can identify with the oppressed of the earth as much as you want; until you get a life and start recognizing that people of all kinds, all backgrounds and races and creeds, are capable of being scoundrels and ultimately do what they want anyway, be it right or wrong, you are going to be fixated on this anti-Jewish stuff for a long time. I know, the evil Jewish supremacist won't let you speak. I'm sorry you made the mistake of publishing your comment on a Jewish website, where we expect our right to exist to be respected. I am confident that you will not rethink your views about Jewish dominance and oppression in light of your having been able to get a hearing for your remarks.
My Prayers are with you in your stuggle with antisemitism. We as Apostolics also share a history of negative endeavours through the ages, G-D(GOD) Has not forsaken his wife (Jerusalem) nor has he ignored jews. We are a people out of every tribe,tounge,nation.Once Salvation was only for the jews,but now is available to all. Jesus Loves you .SHALOM
Question: Do Picasso's "Guernica" and Celan's "Death Fugue," two masterpieces of art with an ethical purpose, establish one-to-one correspondences between the elements of their artistry and straightforward words? Answer: Of course not, if that were the case the Spanish painter and the Jewish poet would have written letters to the editor and not put forth the energy towards elaborate prose-to-paint or prose-to-poetry mappings. In other words, there is great political art, for goals I admire, and incidentally also great political art for goals I abhor (e.g. Paradise Lost), and everything in between (e.g. Diego Rivera), but it says what cannot be said in ordinary prose vernacular. Contrastingly, art like these murals screams "I look like a painting but I am really a giant slogan," and consequently violates the most basic premise of public communication of which art is a specie: "say" it in the most elegant and universally and timelessly comprehensible fashion possible. Without going into the political philosophy of why I find this to be the case, I wish to state that the issue here is bigger than Israel/Palestine. Were there a perfect and permanent peace tomorrow, and were the hard left grudgingly forced by such inconvenient circumstances to espouse the Tibetan and East Timorian causes instead, both the mentality behind this Rivera-wanna-be muralism and the paint on the wall would have done damage in unexpected ways.
"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism" - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth...Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so...And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism....Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it." From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.