Tate defends itself
In today’s Guardian director of the Tate, Stephen Deuchar defends his decision not to show Latham’s God is Great.
We received unequivocal advice that there was a very high risk that a work of art of this kind, shown at this time, would invite some form of attack or physical intervention likely to endanger visitors, staff and, of course, the work itself. It would have been impossible to prevent this without providing a security cordon that would itself have suggested a charged political dimension which was not intended.
But he still doesn’t say who gave them this “unequivocal advice”. Or why the option of exhibiting the work without fuss or fanfare was not considered preferable to handing a victory to the repressive forces of artistic censorship before even a metaphorical shot was fired.
(Tipped from Harry’s Place)
Ironic really. If they had been attacked it would have only gone some way to proving that we should stand up to religious bullies.If memory serves, being controversial has never been something that’s stopped the Tate before.
First it was the Birmingham Rep. Then some theatres pulled out of showing Springer. Now the Tate. And these are only the ones we know about. How much of this insidious censorship is happening in our newspapers and on our screens, in our theatres, on the Internet, on radio? It certainly won’t be by lying on our backs waiting for our bellies to be tickled that we’ll put an end to this: it will be only by the willingness of people like the Tate, the Rep and the rest to stand up to religion and say, ‘Hang on a mo, we have a large degree of freedom of speech and expression here, which we’ve fought for. If you don’t like it, there are places where your ideas will be more readily accepted.’