[antiwar-van] Vicious Attack on Art Exhibit in Vancouver by JWB

[hanna kawas]

The local Zionists in Vancouver are attacking Carel Moiseiwitsch's art
exhibit for exposing the truth about Israeli brutality against the
Palestinian people. Carel is an ISM-Vancouver member who visited the
Palestinian occupied territories in March of this year and her paintings
reflect what she saw and what she experienced while she was there. They are
on exhibit at the Grunt Gallery, 116-350 E. 2nd Ave., Vancouver, Wed. to
Sat. 12 - 6 pm. The Zionists are desperately trying to muffle the truth. By
doing so they are complicit in these war crimes and Jews and non-Jews alike
have the responsibility to expose, condemn and isolate those who are
covering up for such Israeli practices.
Hanna
-----------------------------------------
http://www.jewishbulletin.ca/cover/index.html#one

Israeli violence in art
Exhibit depicts one side of Middle East conflict.
PAT JOHNSON SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
Ambulances are tied up in checkpoints, apparently delayed from their
destination by Israeli soldiers searching the vehicles. A bombed house is
depicted as blobs of brown mayhem. An "occupied house" is surrounded on
three sides by Israeli tanks. Seven people sleep together in one room, while
red gunfire flashes by their window. A bulldozed olive tree. Women penned in
by razor wire.

These are not random photographs culled from the front pages of recent
newspapers; they are images in the Life in Occupied Palestine exhibit by
local artist Carel Moiseiwitsch, continuing until Aug. 2 at the grunt
gallery, a gallery operated by a nonprofit society with funding from three
levels of government.
Moiseiwitsch employs stark earth tones to depict the geography of Israel and
the Palestinian territories, with deep red soil reminding the observer of
generations of blood spilled on the land. The region is the flashpoint in a
millennia-old struggle between competing claims, but Moiseiwitsch's
paintings, multifaceted and vivid as they are, depict only the view of an
observer who travelled to the region as a volunteer with the
Palestinian-allied International Solidarity Movement.

In one multi-panel piece, an Israeli military official is apparently
speaking with a Palestinian, saying "I only want your complete humiliation.
Then you will leave or be killed. I will destroy everything. Your land, your
house, your family, your mind, your body, your life. You are nothing to me,
a vile pest to be destroyed ... I have guns, tanks, bulldozers and bombs. I
will crush you, shoot you, shit on you, humiliate you, terrorize you, hate
you! Until you crawl away bleeding and babbling...."

Moiseiwitsch went to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in March to participate in
nonviolent acts of resistance, according to an essay accompanying the
exhibit. The essay, by Robin Laurence, explains that Moiseiwitsch's drawings
"compel our gaze, pitching us into a dilemma between curiosity and
complicity, between voyeurism and outrage." Moiseiwitsch herself had
originally agreed to an interview with the Bulletin about her work but
changed her mind.

The drawings are violent, reminiscent of Goya's "Guernica," and though they
could be considered in a long tradition of art against war, they exist in a
contemporary context that is deeply partisan. Moiseiwitsch's drawings depict
Israeli violence as though it is ever-present and ominous. Palestinian
people are depicted exclusively as victims. No suicide bombers or
rock-throwing children are inside the frames here. Training sessions for
grenade-throwing pre-teens, babies dressed with bomber belts or Palestinian
armed resistance have no place in this exhibit.

Laurence's essay states that "Moiseiwitsch also determined to produce a
visual record, through drawings, photographs, journals, and found images and
objects, of everyday life in occupied Palestine, and it is this record of
which her exhibition is composed."

Walking a fine line
The grunt gallery receives funding from the city of Vancouver's cultural
affairs department, and the department's director, Burke Taylor, said the
department walks a fine line in funding controversial materials. The city
makes no evaluative judgment on individual exhibits, he said, but funding
for each year is based on an overall evaluation of a gallery's combined
achievements in the previous year.

"We certainly do review the overall program over the course of the year,"
said Taylor, who has not seen the Life in Occupied Palestine exhibit. He
added that his department depends on the media and members of the public to
draw attention to potential "problematic decisions" by publicly funded
galleries. The grunt gallery received $12,000 from the city this year for
operational funding that is not tied to any specific exhibit. Concerns, he
said, are best expressed to members of a gallery's board.

The B.C. Arts Council has a similar strategy in funding galleries, providing
operating funds, but not tying money directly to exhibits. The council takes
a relatively hands-off approach to content, said Jeremy Long, associate
director of the provincial body. But he added that concerns can be directed
to the adjudicators in his branch, which will then be considered when future
applications for funding are considered. While the council encourages art
that might afflict the comfortable, there is also a need to consider the
interests of the general public, he said.

"They're expected to be a little more avant garde," said Long. "[But] if it
gets too far out there, they may leave the audience behind."

The Canada Council for the Arts, which also provides funding to the grunt
gallery, provides grants based on a peer review process, which remains
arms-length from both the government and the creative process, according to
an official of the federal body. The agency relies on the reports of
committees of artists to guide their financing decisions, then allows the
creative process to proceed without interference from the agency. Three-year
funding grants for organizations like galleries are based on overall merit
and not subject to critiques of individual exhibits.

Hillary Wood, the administrator of the grunt gallery, said her organization
does not usually deal in explicitly political material, but does seek
passionate works that illuminate alternative sexual or cultural communities.
Because it is a nonprofit gallery that does not depend on selling work to
survive, the material can be more controversial.

"We can have shows that are a little more edgy," she said. The priority, she
added, is that works have a "passionate position."

In selecting Moiseiwitsch's exhibition, the gallery set out to depict a
universal human condition that transcends the Palestinian experience, said
Wood.

"We didn't choose it because it was explicitly about Palestine," she said,
adding that her gallery would absolutely consider an exhibit depicting the
Israeli experience. "We consider everything that comes in here," she said.

In addition to the exhibit, the gallery is offering a cartoon chapbook by an
artist named Xero that claims to be a travel guide to occupied Palestine and
describes Israeli "teenage female border guards who all wear really tight
pants and pack guns like fashion accessories" and depicts an Israeli soldier
with a tourist, seeking guidance via walkie-talkie, asking "Hey captain can
I shoot her or do I have to let her through?" The "guide" warns visitors to
be careful of Jewish settlers because "they will shoot almost anything that
moves." Wood told the Bulletin that Moiseiwitsch brought in the chapbooks
herself and Wood was unaware of the contents.

Life in Occupied Palestine continues until Aug. 2 at the grunt gallery,
located at 116-350 East Second Ave., Vancouver.

Pat Johnson is a native Vancouverite, a journalist and commentator.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jewishbulletin.ca/archives/July03/archives03July25-06.html

July 25, 2003


Art show vilifies Israelis
Editorial
If there were ever a time that the Lower Mainland Jewish community should
rally together, it is now, with the focus being on a new show at the grunt
gallery in Vancouver.

The gallery is presenting Life in Occupied Palestine, an exhibit of the
works of Carel Moiseiwitsch, who travelled to the West Bank and Gaza with
the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement. She brought back with
her a visual "record" of life in the territories, along with a clear opinion
of who the aggressor is and who the victims are in the conflict.

The images in her exhibit portray Israel in a one-sided, repugnant light. In
one drawing, for example, Israel Defence Forces soldiers make offensive
comments to Palestinians, such as "You are nothing to me, a vile pest to be
destroyed." In another, a soldier says, "Get out of here or I'll blow your
head off." Moiseiwitsch portrays Israel as a tyrannical, ever-present,
monstrous oppressor.

Elsewhere in this issue, we ask the questions, If something is considered
art and yet presents hurtful and inciteful images or views, should it be
staged, published or displayed publicly? Are people knowledgable enough to
appreciate the historical background of a performance, artwork or book?

These questions were raised concerning a performance of Shylock, but they
can appropriately be directed at this exhibit, especially considering the
gallery is funded by public dollars.

As well, in addition to her artwork, the artist brought in a little chapbook
of abhorrent cartoons, which is supposed to be a "travel guide" to occupied
Palestine. But the cartoons border on anti-Semitism, depicting Jews in
stereotypical ways, with exaggerated features, reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

So what should be done?

The role of Israel advocacy is to reach the undecided. To explain to those
who might not otherwise know what role the Middle East conflict plays in
Israelis' lives.

In this case, an appropriate reaction would be to create and stage another
exhibit that shows life in terrorized Israel, if you will. Gallery
administrator Hillary Wood has said she would consider holding an exhibit
depicting the Israeli side of the conflict.

But there are other ways to express one's outrage that public funding is
going to present an entirely skewed view of the Middle East conflict and to
disseminate "literature" that borders on hate material.

Public protest right in front of the gallery is one solution. Members of
Israel advocacy groups could simply stand in front and hand out information
or take the time to explain both sides of the story.

Then there are government bodies to approach.

Burke Taylor, director of Vancouver's cultural affairs department, which
funds the grunt gallery, said annual funding is based on an evaluation of a
gallery's work. He added that his department depends on the media and
members of the public to draw attention to concerns that may arise out of a
gallery's decision-making.

The B.C. Arts Council also provides the gallery with funds but distances
itself from specific exhibits. Concerns about a particular show can be
addressed to adjudicators associated with the arts council. Associate
director Jeremy Long said they are interested in the general public's views.

The Canada Council for the Arts is another source of funding for the
gallery. It relies on reports from artists who assess the overall
entitlement of a gallery to funding.

These are but three organizations that can be used as targets for mailing,
e-mail or phone campaigns that will cause some government heads to turn and
take notice of an exhibit that would otherwise spew offence with impunity.

Finally, there is the artist herself, who refused an interview with the
Bulletin. While it is not incumbent upon her to illustrate what other people
think of the Middle East conflict, it is at least her responsibility to
discuss her work. To take advantage of a publicly funded space in order to
display her work and distribute offensive material, and then to refuse to
answer the questions of people who would challenge her on her choices, is
both cowardly and contemptuous. Ironically, in an essay that accompanies the
exhibit, it states that Moiseiwitsch is willing to "place herself in the
line of fire in support for her political beliefs." It seems that a Jewish
newspaper is a scarier prospect than Israeli tanks.

The essay also suggests that Moiseiwitsch's drawings pitch the viewer into a
dilemma between voyeurism and outrage. There is no dilemma, but there is
certainly reason to be outraged. The Jewish community must respond: hold a
protest or hand out informational flyers about Israel in front of the
gallery; and tell the artist, the gallery manager and all the funding bodies
that distributing such vile material in a publicly funded space is
unacceptable.