03 Jul 17 | Europe and Central Asia, Magazine, News and features, Russia, Volume 46.02 Summer 2017 Extras
The summer 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores how the 1917 Russian Revolution still affects freedom today, in Russia and throughout the world.
To mark the release of the issue, Index has compiled a reading list for people wishing to learn more about its legacy in the world today. This list includes works from Soviet Russia and post-Soviet Russia, including Russia under Putin today.
Soviet Russia
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, God keep me from going mad*
1972; vol 1, 2: pp.149-151
An excerpt of a longer poem written by Solzhenitsyn while in a labour camp in North Kazakhstan. The camp later became the inspiration for Solzhenitsyn’s novel A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
Alexander Glezer, Soviet “unofficial” art*
1975; vol 4, 4: pp. 35-40
Glezer was responsible for organising the now famous unofficial art exhibitions in Moscow in 1974. The first exhibition, on 15 September, was ‘”bulldozed” by police and KGB agents, and a number of artists who tried to exhibit their work were arrested. Two weeks later, however, an open-air exhibition did take place, after the authorities gave permission, and some 10,000 people turned up to see paintings and sculptures by modern Soviet artists who did not enjoy official favour.
Michael Glenny, Orwell’s 1984 through Soviet eyes*
1984; vol 13, 4: pp. 15-17
This article examines Soviet interpretations of 1984, including the assertion that George Orwell was actually critiquing capitalism, not the USSR, with his novel.
Natalya Rubinstein, A people’s artist: Vladimir Vysotsky
1986; vol 15, 7: pp. 20-23
This is an article about the musician Vladimir Vysotsky, once called “the most idolised figure in the Soviet Union”. His songs were circulated on homemade tapes, though never officially recorded until after his death.
Irena Maryniak, The sad and unheroic story of the Soviet soldier’s life
1989; vol 18, 10: pp. 10-13
An Estonian reporter’s exposé prompts a call from the army. Madis Jurgen, who brought to light the dark side of the Soviet armed forces, left Tallinn on Friday 13 October, bound for New York and Toronto, from where he decided to await events.
Post-Soviet Russia
Svetlana Aleksiyevich, A Prayer for Chernobyl
1998; vol 27, 1: pp. 120-128
Early on 26 April 1986, a series of explosions destroyed the nuclear reactor and building of the fourth power generator unit of Chernobyl atomic power station. These extracts are not about the Chernobyl disaster but about a world of Chernobyl of which we know almost nothing. They are the unwritten history.
Viktor Shenderovich, Tales from Hoffman*
2008; vol 37, 1: pp. 49-57
As they say, still waters run deep. On 8 February 2000, an announcement was made in the St Petersburg Gazette by members of the St Petersburg State University Initiative Group. Shortly beforehand they had, in competition with others, nominated Putin as a presidential candidate and now wished to demonstrate their enthusiasm for their former pupil. What they published was a denunciation.
Fatima Tlisova, Nothing personal
2008; vol 37, 1: pp. 36-46
Fatima Tlisova was brutally beaten for her uncompromising journalism on the North Caucasus. Here, she recounts the tactics used to intimidate her.
Anna Politkovskaya, The cadet affair: the disappeared
2010; vol. 39, 4: pp. 209-210.
An article on the disappeared in Chechnya, who officially number about 1,000, but unofficially are almost 2,000. They disappeared throughout the war. The author, Anna Politkovskaya, was murdered in her Moscow apartment in a contract killing in 2006.
Nick Sturdee, Russia’s Robin Hood*
2011; vol 40, 3: pp. 89-102
Widespread frustration with the establishment has fostered a brand of political street art that is taking the country by storm.
Ali Kamalov, Murder in Dagestan
2012; vol 41, 2: 31-37
Ali Kamalov, the head of Dagestan’s journalists’ union fears for the future of press freedom following the murder of the country’s most prominent editor. On 15 December 2011, Hadjimurad Kamalov was murdered in Makhachkala, the seaboard capital of Dagestan.
Maxim Efimov, Religion and power in Russia
2012; vol 41, 4
Although the Russian constitution enshrines freedom of expression, the authorities routinely clamp down on anybody who treasures this fundamental right. State officials, judges, deputies, prosecutors and police officers serve the ruling regime and control society, rather than defend the constitution or protect human rights.
Elena Vlasenko, From perestroika to persecution
2013; vol 42, 2: pp. 74-76
Elena Vlasenko covers wavering hopes for an open Russia, and the evolution of repressive legislation, state censorship and journalists under threat.
Helen Womack, Making waves
2014; vol 43, 3: pp. 39-41
Helen Womack interviews the founder of the last free radio station in Putin’s Russia. These men are not dissidents, just journalists dedicated to professional principles of objectivity and balance. But in Putin’s Russia, where almost all the media spout state propaganda, that position looks like radical nonconformity, and it seems a wonder that Echo survives.
Andrei Aliaksandrau, Brave new war*
2014; vol 43, 4: 56-60
In the winter 2014 issue of Index on Censorship magazine, Andrei Aliaksandrau investigates the new information war between Russia and Ukraine as he travels across the latter country.
Andrei Aliaksandrau, We lost journalism in Russia
2015; vol 44, 3: pp. 32-35
Andrei Aliaksandrau examines the evolution of censorship in Russia, from Soviet institutions to today’s blend of influence and pressure, including the assassination of journalists.
Andrey Arkhangelsky, Murder in Moscow: Anna’s legacy*
2016; vol. 45, 3: pp. 69-74.
Andrey Arkhangelsky explores Russian journalism a decade on from Anna Politkovskaya’s murder and argues that the press still struggles to offer readers the full picture.
*Articles which are free to read on Sage. All other articles are available via Sage in most university libraries. To find out more about subscribing to the magazine in print or digitally, click here.
12 Jun 17 | Artistic Freedom, Artistic Freedom Statements, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
As a coalition of national and international organisations devoted to promoting creative freedom, we strongly oppose the Walker Art Center’s decision to dismantle and destroy a controversial public sculpture. Scaffold, a 2012 work by Sam Durant, was intended to comment on capital punishment and its disproportionate effect on people of colour.
Scaffold is based on designs for gallows used for seven historical U.S. state-sanctioned executions, including that of 38 Dakota men hung in Mankato, Minnesota in 1862. Over a month after its installation in the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden the sculpture was met with a protest, threats of violence, verbal attacks on the artist and the center’s administration, and demands that the work be dismantled and removed.
Days after the protest erupted, in a May 31st meeting, Dakota tribal elders, the artist, the Walker Art Center administration, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, and city government officials, reached a decision to dismantle the work and burn it in a ceremony overseen by Dakota elders. As part of the agreement, Durant has pledged to never recreate the piece and to transfer to the Dakota tribe his intellectual property rights to the work.
The hasty decision did not allow for time to obtain meaningful feedback from the broader community or consider various options to respond to the concerns raised by Dakota leaders.
Artists and art institutions have always played a role in socio-political discourse, including raising awareness about historical and present-day violence, injustice and oppression. There have been vigorous debates in recent years over who can appropriately represent historical trauma, the meaning of cultural appropriation and white privilege.
Cultural institutions and artists urgently need to develop creative ways to respond to such critique and controversy and productively engage diverse communities while taking seriously their responsibility for the artworks that are in their care. Without active institutional support for their work, artists – who can face extreme pressure on social media, ad hominem attacks and even physical threats – may feel they have little choice but to consent to their work’s destruction, to commit to avoiding certain subjects in their art (self-censorship), and or even to sign away their intellectual property rights.
The Walker’s decision to destroy Scaffold as a way to respond to protests sets an ominous precedent: not only does it weaken the institution’s position in future programming but sends a chill over artists’—and other cultural institutions’—commitment to creating and exhibiting political, socially relevant work. Even ostensibly voluntary decisions to destroy artwork have ominous implications for creative expression and the need for public debate over contentious social issues.
National Coalition Against Censorship
PEN America
International Association of Art Critics
Observatoire de la liberté de création (France)
International Art Rights Advisors
Freemuse – defending artistic freedom
Index on Censorship
Stichting In den Vreemde
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” el_class=”text_white” css=”.vc_custom_1497255088053{background-color: #dd3333 !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1497255065609{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/art-and-the-law-1460×490-2.jpg?id=80212) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Guides to the law on free expression and the arts in England and Wales[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1497944459704-76bf1aea-ad61-5″ taxonomies=”7516, 8964″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” content_placement=”middle”][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”91122″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/05/stand-up-for-satire/”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
24 May 17 | Art and the Law, Artistic Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Earlier this month Index on Censorship reported on the Glasgow School of Art’s censoring of master of fine arts student James Oberhelm’s work, which the school deemed to contain “inappropriate content”. This was the first and only time a work of art has been censored in the history of the MFA course.
The work, “Effects” [The Enthronement], is an installation dealing with the geopolitics of the Middle East, specifically the centenary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
Duncan Campbell, the Irish Turner Prize winner and former student of the Glasgow School of Art, told Index: “In appropriating such demanding representations there is a difficult discussion about responsibility, accountability, and answerability to be had. If an MFA interim show isn’t the place for this, I don’t know where is.”
The school disagrees. In response to a Freedom of Information request by Scottish Pen for “all correspondence, information or documents held by the GSA regarding the decision to remove the piece… as well as the grounds for its removal”, the school said: “The [senior management team] decided that this particular film should not be shown and that the student be supported in moving forward in terms of professional practice and understanding the implications of their work including the presentation of online sources.”
The film in question was a showreel of two videos issued by Al Hayat, Isis’ media branch, in 2014, showing the dismantling of the border between Iraq and Syria as well as an execution sequence, which Oberhelm sourced from the public domain and included in the artwork.
Oberhelm maintains that the response to the FOI request represents a lack of transparency and told Index that his repeated requests to have the reasons for the decision to censor his work in writing, although promised, have been repeatedly denied.
The flyer for masters student James Oberhelm’s banned artwork “Effects” [The Enthronement]
On 11 April Oberhelm was informed via email that his work “is now going to be reviewed by the ‘Prevent Concerns Group’”.
The school’s Prevent Concerns Group consists of 17 executive and non-executive members, made up of senior staff members including the director, the deputy director and the head of the school of fine art. It is “responsible for the strategic development and implementation of measures to meet the Prevent Duty”.
The UK government’s Prevent strategy for safeguarding communities against the threat of terrorism has been criticised by, among others, Index over concerns it undermines the value of freedom by feeding “the very commodity that the terrorists thrive on: fear.”
During a chance encounter on the street with MFA course director Henry Rogers on 26 April, Oberhelm was given insufficient information on the reasons for the artwork’s removal from the course’s interim show. The encounter followed immediately after Rogers’ meeting with Alistair Payne, the head of the school of fine art at the Glasgow School of Art, during which Rogers was informed of the decision about the installation’s viability for exhibition. Rogers then informing Oberhelm that “the decision is no”
In the moments it took for the pair to walk to the JD Kelly building, a number of points were raised, including Prevent. No great amount of detail was given, but it was hinted that Prevent could be, although wasn’t definitely, the basis for the decision.
Rogers also mentioned that an “ethics form” may have been necessary for the work to be shown, but he seemed unsure. “I informed him that I had not been told that an ethics form was required and that I had completed a risk assessment form,” Oberhelm told Index.
The conversation ended with Oberhelm’s request for a written statement explaining the terms under which the work had been censored, which Rogers said would have to be submitted in writing. Oberhelm’s written request was then forwarded to Alistair Payne the following day. During another meeting between the two on 27 April, Oberhelm was told he would receive the minutes of the meeting during which the decision was made. As of yet, the school has not obliged with either any written explanation or the minutes, negating a basic requirement for institutional transparency.
Since Index published the news of the censoring of Oberhelm’s work, the school hasn’t provided us with any further information, despite our requests, and has not granted us an interview.
“[T]he initial FOI has been answered as have follow up questions and that the GSA has nothing to add to this,” a spokesperson for the school told us.
Campbell told Index: “Given the highly consequential decision they have made, I find GSA’s explanation for the removal of James Oberhelm’s artwork inadequate. An honest statement of the committee’s opinions and objections would have at least given everyone affected something to respond to. By being so wilfully non-committal they might as well have offered no explanation at all.”
Campbell is one of many leading contemporary artists who has studied at the Glasgow School of Art and was the fifth artist who studied at the school, and the fourth artist to take part in the school’s MFA programme, to win the prestigious Turner Prize.
When Campbell won in 2014, the director of the school, Tom Inns, said: “This is a great accolade both for Duncan and for The Glasgow School of Art … Duncan and all the previous GSA winners and shortlisted artists are a great inspiration to the current generation of students and the wider visual art community here in Glasgow.”
But given that Campbell’s Turner Prize-winning work, It For Others, contains an image of IRA volunteer Joe McCann, one has to wonder whether the work Inns offered “warm congratulations” for in 2014 would be censored by the school under Prevent if the artist was an MFA student today. After all, Northern Irish dissident republicans do still pose a threat of terrorism, including in Glasgow.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1495703925212-684dd380-cb38-4″ taxonomies=”8964, 7516″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
12 May 17 | Art and the Law, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The flyer for master’s student James Oberhelm’s banned artwork “Effects” [The Enthronement]
The work by fine art student James Oberhelm is not being shown in full, but visitors to the exhibition in the art college are told by a flier that the rest of the exhibit has been censored.
The college, whose famous alumni include Peter Capaldi, Liz Lochhead and Charles Rennie Mackintosh, says the ban was in place because of concerns about its “inappropriate content”.
“Effects” [The Enthronement], which was scheduled for exhibition during the first day of Glasgow School of Art’s Interim Show this month, deals with the geopolitics of the Middle East, specifically the century between the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, in which between Britain and France redrew the map of the Middle East, and now.
It was to include a video monitor playing two propaganda videos issues by Isis in 2014: one, entitled The End of Sykes-Picot, shows the destruction of part of the border between Iraq and Syria following the organisation’s capture of territories; the other, Kaser al Hudud, depicts bulldozers destroying the earthen wall along the same border.
A spokesperson for The Glasgow School of Art said: “We deemed the filmic material to be inappropriate for public display as we were concerned that the student’s use and distribution of that material could present an unacceptable risk for the student and the GSA.”
Oberhelm believes that this is the first time in the history of the Glasgow School of Art’s master’s course that such an instance of censorship has occurred, although a representative from the course was unavailable to confirm this. In another instance, a work was deemed too pornographic was granted a separate exhibition space with a disclaimer, Oberhelm said.
“The decision to censor appears to prioritise narrow political considerations over Glasgow School of Art’s own duties and interests: supporting artists in their responsibility to engage with the visual culture of our times, and to participate in meaningful dialogue with the society they are part of,” Oberhelm said in a press release.
A freedom of information request was made to the Glasgow School of Art, requesting: “all correspondence, information or documents held by the GSA regarding the decision to remove the piece…as well as the grounds for its removal.” The school has guaranteed a response no later than 6 June.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1499266681383-29c4ff48-ceee-4″ taxonomies=”8321, 9050, 8401, 9052, 6839, 8964″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
