24 Feb 14 | Burma, Index Reports, News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture
The Art of Transition Symposium took place in Yangon on March 30th – 31st 2013. It was the first public discussion of artist freedom of expression in Burma, looking in particular at the impact of the wave of political reforms, which started at the end of 2011, on artistic freedom of expression. Here is a short film directed by artist Htein Lin, who also was artistic advisor to the symposium with comedian and director Zarganar. The film reports briefly on the Symposium, and gives a snapshot of some of the performances and exhibitions that have taken place in Yangon during the year since the symposium. The Symposium was co-produced by HOME – Zarganar’s new company HOME (which stands for House of Media and Entertainment) and Index on Censorship. The Burmese team was led by journalist and former political prisoner Zaw Thet Htwe.
The Art of Transition Symposium[1] in Yangon was a significant event in the unfolding drive towards democracy in Burma, providing a public platform to discuss how changing political and social conditions are affecting artistic freedoms. It was the first symposium of its kind in Burmese[2] and another in the series of firsts as the space for expression opens up. While the abolition of pre-censorship of print media released all writers, including poets and novelists from censorship and ensured that debate around media freedom was centre stage, discussion about broader artistic freedoms was trailing and needed to be considered in depth.
The symposium featured an unprecedented gathering of artists from Yangon and Mandalay facilitating exchange between historical, traditional and contemporary art forms and between artists of all ages. Many of the most respected artists in the country across all art forms, in particular those traditionally most associated with political and social engagement – poets, cartoonists, comedians, performance artists and film-makers – came together with political leaders, journalists, academics and lawyers for two days of presentations and discussion of the status of artistic freedom of expression and artists was possible.
Political backdrop
The symposium took place against a background of political and social change, optimism, instability, and uncertainty of President Thein Sein’s commitment to reforms[3]. There were two key free speech issues in the headlines. On April 1st, the day after the symposium, four new independent daily newspapers were published in Burma, the first since 1962. This historic moment for free speech was to an extent undermined by the on-going uncertainty surrounding press laws, which were to go through parliament in June. The other key freedom of expression issue was the debate around hate-speech triggered by outbreaks of violence between Buddhists and Muslims.
Ko Htut, chairman of the government appointed Press Council and member of Association of Former Political Prisoners, addressed the uncertain future of the press laws and called for the Ministry of Information’s (MoI) draft Printing and Publishing Enterprise Law to be rejected[4] as he saw it risked endorsing the old censor board under a new name.
Violence between Buddhists and Muslims figured strongly; the role played by social media in fuelling the violence was a major topic of discussion in the media at the time and continues to be at the time of writing. Hate speech and songs with Islamophobic lyrics circulated on the internet were discussed at the symposium and one of the performance pieces explored online hate speech. Emergency talks took place over the same weekend as the symposium which meant that Zarganar, a member of the interfaith council that met to discuss the tensions and violence, was only able to play a relatively small role in the symposium.
Artistic context
The symposium partners – HOME, comedian, film-maker and former political prisoner Zarganar’s new company and Index on Censorship[5] – viewed the symposium as a follow up to the Art of Freedom Film Festival[6] which took place in Yangon in January 2012, screening uncensored films about freedom and the title of the symposium – Art of Transition – was chosen accordingly. The film festival had given a green flag to the public debate about free expression, in large part due to Zarganar’s call for short films about freedom which elicited nearly two hundred entries, many by first time film-makers. The film festival, co-produced by Aung San Suu Kyi, was a very high-profile event with thousands of people watching the films on huge screens in the streets and squares of Yangon. It had clearly had a massive impact on the relationship between artists and the government, especially as ‘Ban That Film’ a fierce satire on film censorship boards, was the winning entry of the short film competition. The timing was critical and the organisers agreed to move quickly, to capture the conversation at an early stage of transition, making sure debate about freedom of artistic expression is on the agenda alongside media freedoms at this time of rapid reform.
The abolition of pre-censorship in print media is having a knock-on effect across other art forms, with artists taking more risks in terms of their choice of subject matter and putting on unlicensed events, in the belief that there would be less consequence or repercussion. The symposium, which was a licenced event, was in fact monitored by government officials standing at the back of the hall, though this did not seem to limit the discussion. It could be seen as one of a series of artistic initiatives and projects that are testing and interrogating the new freedoms in Burma during this period of accelerated change. Other notable events that took place around the time of the symposium were Zarganar’s comedy performance March 27, 2013 was a six hour live broadcast marathon of unbridled satire; Thangyat performances for New Year Celebrations were openly critical of the government; and Padauk 7000 a temporary unlicensed arts space that showed a series of site specific installations from March – June 2013. See Annex for more information on these events.
Symposium Summary
Over the two days of the symposium the presentations and discussions moved from the experiences of surviving the most brutal treatment of political prisoners on Cocos Island, to President Thein Sein administration’s apparent openness to criticism and satire, from the opportunities opening as a result of greater access to the internet to the impact of new independent artist associations and unions.
Many speakers chose to use this public platform to relate past experience of living through years of oppression and working in an environment extremely hostile to artistic freedom. Many spoke openly, some for the first time, about how they continued to create work in spite of considerable personal danger and hardships and described their courageous, ingenuous and often humorous strategies for circumventing censorship. Another discussion centred around the emergence of public censorship which, as the role of the state censor diminishes appears to fill the void. Public censorship, made up of many voices and sensibilities, brings with it a new, some felt more complex debate around freedom and the responsibilities of the artist.
There was a call to test limits and take risks to determine how far state imposed boundaries can be pushed, but at the same time there was concern that people need more time to learn how to exercise these new freedoms, especially in relation to the hate speech proliferating on the internet. The impact on artistic style and content was also discussed, as subjects that were previously banned can now be openly discussed. Whilst some felt liberated by these changes, others spoke about how they felt a paradoxical constraint generated by the new freedom and that they felt they had lost their bearings.
Artist Htein Lin played an important role in the symposium stimulating further thought and conversation with speakers and the audience about the core questions of the conference. He stressed that this is a new situation and there is a new reality which requires a new way of thinking and talking about freedom of expression. He posed questions about what artists should being doing to look after and increase the scope of the right to freedom of expression, pressing artists to think about the role of the police and how to work with new legislation.
Getting past the censors
Censorship is not about not writing a poem but about not being allowed to read it. Moe Saw
For many the symposium provided a very important opportunity to talk, sometimes for the first time in public, about the suffering and injustices leading up to and after 1988 and their work as artists and activists in underground movements. In the current climate of rapid change, it was clear that many felt that taking account of the past was an important step towards embracing reform. The ubiquitous presence of informers had made it impossible to talk about these things even amongst friends. Htet Myak, former political prisoner and survivor from the Cocos Islands one of the military junta’s most notorious prisons described the brutality of life for the 153 political prisoners who were incarcerated there and their efforts to continue to write using any available materials.
There were many accounts of how censorship boards operated before the recent reforms. Editor Chit Win Maung gave examples to illustrate the nature of censorship. One short story featuring a man who had to pluck out a white hair, using the word “tweezers” which is “zarganar” in Burmese was banned the comedian Zarganar was black-listed at the time. ‘Ye-nan-thit’ magazine was banned for six months after it published an essay about “democracy”. Even though the military government has always promised democracy the word could only be used in state-published materials.
Min Htin Ko Ko Gyi’s film ‘Uninterruptedness’ made after the cyclone Nargis, illustrated the lengths that artists would go to, to get work past censors. Itfeatured layers of text – the front layer being a series of words floating across the screen, over a layer of back to front text from Min Ko Naing’s book ‘Rear View Mirror’ (nauq-kyi-hman), only published in Thailand, banned in Burma, based on his experiences in 1988.
Public Censorship
Min Ko Naing talked about the changing nature of literary talks in villages. In the past, writers would tour talks about literary classics, often by westerners, which masked discussion of current affairs and political commentary. On recent tours he had encountered disbelief that it was now possible to talk openly about politics and he had to negotiate the use of microphones with the villagers, who finding the new openness shocking enough, were reluctant to amplify his presentation, fearing repercussions from the authorities.
Sharaad Kuttan, visiting speaker from Malaysia, spoke about the importance of controversy for generating public debate around challenging art, even if the public may call for the banning of the work in question. Controversy around art work often means that the artist has struck a nerve and is addressing an issue that is uncomfortable or divisive in society and he stressed the importance of art generating debate.
Expression online:
“Because we open the door, some dust comes in. We don’t need to be afraid of the dust.” Htun Win Nyein
Blogger Nay Phone Latt spoke of his sense that the country could fall apart at the touch of a key, because of the intensity of hate speech online especially about race and religion. He said “we are free but not safe”. He had investigated the online hate speech against Muslims and discovered that it was generated by a small group using a fake account. He suggested that “absolute freedom is not good for us”, we should take responsibility to speak up from the other side, those who want to live together in harmony with other faiths, but this voice is not coming across. Nay Phone Latt and journalist Zaw Thet Htwe both raised questions about how to counter misinformation, to be vigilant and stop circulation of hate speech.
Participants of the symposium were concerned that people did not know how to exercise these new freedoms, especially in relation to the hate speech proliferating on the internet. Htein Lin added that people need to take responsibility to oppose these voices and overcome intimidation. He said that we needed more speech, not less.
New Freedoms and new responsibilities:
“Now I am free but have to work within the constraints of society, of what is happening” San Saw Htwe – visual artist
Religious conflict was forefront in many people’s minds and it was pointed to as a reminder that freedom of speech is not without its problems. Many agreed that there need to be boundaries and there was some discussion about how to arrive a boundaries, but more focussed discussion on these and other related topics is needed. One artist who had created hundreds of artworks in prison, said that he felt his most free when he was behind bars. He explained that even though he was now free the constraints of society and pressure of what is happening are distractions that make him feel less free as an artist.
Poet and editor Maung Tin Thit saw it another way. He said that in the time of precensorship of print media, he would send in his work to the censorship board and the censor would decide what would be published. Now the decision about what to say in public lies with the author and the editor, bringing new responsibilities which he found liberating.
Impact on artistic style and content
“With the political situation changing, how will art change?” – Zarganar
One of the key questions the symposium asked was how had the reforms affected artists who had developed a nuanced and subtle vocabulary to circumvent censorship. For several it is difficult to find their bearings, the mind-set is so deep seated that a two poets I spoke to agreed it would take time, maybe two years, to make work under such different conditions.
A performance artist who has made deeply political work for many years, told Index he had decided not to perform at all until after the 2015 elections and would spend his time documenting his work and making short films.
Performance artist Moe Satt commented that in performance and conceptual art he has seen a change from an urgent, cathartic explosion of tension to more conceptual work. Artists have repeatedly performed images of breaking out from closed spaces and now they have more space, work is more about feelings generated by breaking out.
A speaker claimed that poets were being criticised for sounding more like journalists than poets and the subtlety of their voice was lost; critics claimed there is more depth and substance when the message was indirect and hidden. It was acknowledged there is a hunger for new subjects that were formally banned but that the public appetite will change soon and grow tired of works about prison experiences and political leaders.
Poet Eindra recited a work about the monks demonstrations in 2007. At the time it would not have been possible for her to recite her own work so she had given it to fellow poet Ma Ei to circulate. One poet said that he did not want to publish his poems that were banned in the past because they would no longer be of the moment.
Testing the limits
“Every step is a test because we don’t know if it is allowed or not” Aw Pe Kyel (APK) – cartoonist
As seasoned activists, the symposium participants had experienced the pattern in contemporary Burma where space opens up for greater public participation only for this to be shut down again. While there is a strong feeling that this opening up is different and will be more lasting, there was a wariness about how long people will be able to enjoy this period of more free expression, how much daily life had really been affected and whether there would be some form of retribution in the future. Min Ko Naing encouraged artists to test the authorities by going ahead with different works without permission.
Self-censorship: Several speakers referred to self-censorship as the most crippling form of censorship. APK put it succinctly – “We have these freedoms but we still censor ourselves”. Old habits of self-censorship are hard to overcome; artists had to keep a censor in their heads for so many years that they were having difficulty escaping those unconscious boundaries. American anthropologist Jenny Leehey who wrote her PhD on censorship in Burma, talked about ‘public secrets’ that underpin all societies and how the symposium was an opportunity to openly share and so maybe finally dispel these public secrets from the old administration. Her rhetorical question to the symposium was to ask what the new public secrets are and how they were changing.
Artist Associations and Unions
“We are in a boat – trying to row forward. Some people may want to paddle sideways or backward. That’s your right, but please don’t try to sink the boat” – Thitsar Ni – poet
Independent artist unions and associations have flourished since becoming legal early in 2012. Previously they had been run by government elected officials and toed the party line except for a brief period in 1988 when they joined the protests. Musician Myint Moe Aung reported that younger musicians and hip-hop artists have been accepted into the association and there is greater cooperation across generations, though it is not without tensions. They have successfully campaigned for copyright and now, for the first time, radio stations have to pay musicians for broadcasting their music. Poet Thitsar Ni spoke about the new poets union which was the first of the new wave of independent groups to come together. He also spoke positively about the possibilities of collaboration, though noted difficulty of artists acting collectively.
Performance art
Throughout the symposium, as well as recitation of previously banned poetry, there were four performances that took the current state of the arts as their subject.
- Ma Ei – she sat motionless in lotus position looking straight ahead, her eyes hardly blinking would occasionally fill with tears. She threaded flowers which had already been discarded onto a long piece of thread. When the thread was full her performance ended. After the performance she described that the woman was threading together old flowers thinking about when the time when there would be fresh flowers.
- Saw Wai –Central to his performance was a torn map of Burma, referencing recent social conflicts, the savagery of hate speech and particularly songs with hate speech lyrics, a guitar and blooded paper also featured. He read a poem of his called Aungban where nonagenarian poet Dagon Tar Yar friend of General Aung San lives.
- Suu Myint Thein In his own performance the day before ‘We live in Myanmar’ he asked people in the audience what they wished for and collected these on pieces of paper, almost choking as he ate them. He then tried to reach a bag of water, dyed blue to symbolise peace, hampered by ropes tied to his ankles.
- Thet Swe Win is a poet who works on interfaith programmes. He burned a computer keyboard, reference to Muslim-Buddhist conflict and the inflammatory role of social media in fuelling anti-Muslim feeling. He sang ‘Imagine’ by John Lennon and quoted Buddhist texts and texts from the Koran and the Bible.
- Sow Thaw Dar – wore a t-shirt that depicted three phases of censorship. The censors went from using black ink and then switched to silver, because people discovered they could rub off black ink and reveal the censored text underneath. Censorship became more invisible when computers were introduced and censors simply cut out words and phrases or whole pieces they did not like.
Translation
Zeyar Lin dedicated his presentation to the discussion of poetry in translation. He featured two books of poems – one ‘Bones Will Crow’ which he edited with James Byrne editor of Wolf Magazine and an anthology of Burmese poetry translated into French without knowledge or permissions from the poets. Despite the unprincipled way the French editors had appropriated the poems, the fact is that there are now two anthologies of contemporary Burmese poetry out there in the world. This is a sign of art in transition and opening up of opportunities and possibilities for poets and new audiences around the world. He finished his presentation by reading poems by a North Korean poet Jang Jin-Sung.
Conclusion
That independent newspapers hit the newsstands for the first time in over half a century the day after the first ever symposium on artistic freedom of expression illustrates clearly that political reforms are delivering concrete change in Burma. At the same time violence between Buddhists and Muslims triggered debate about people’s readiness to handle new freedoms and uncertainty about the future of the press laws fuelled cynicism about the government’s commitment to reform. This mixed picture of opportunity, cynicism and anxiety was mirrored in the range of perspectives aired by the artists, activists and journalists at the symposium.
The premise of the symposium was clearly that artists are enjoying considerably more freedom and that the abolition of pre-censorship in print media had had a knock on effect across all the arts. However, the emerging role of public censorship, the changing nature of self-censorship and concerns about free speech online, were all cited as constraints on new freedoms.
Many of the presentations focussed on experiences of censorship that took place in the 80s, 90s and the last decade which reflected a preoccupation not to lose sight of the past in this period of transition. These stories still need to be told; they have been insufficiently heard and acknowledged and the contributing artists have experienced dramatic reversals by the government in the past. A relatively small number of presentations focused on what is changing now, what is possible now and what needs to change in the future. Younger artists were more able to talk about the present than the older artists who had lived through 88 but they also expressed their concern that their work is only valued as much as it comments on the social and political situation of Burma.
There was a strong debate about the relationship between art and politics that will go on and the infrastructure is there to support it, in the form of new independent artist associations and unions, including The Motion Picture association. There are other key agencies, many of which were represented at the symposium: HOME, New Zero, MCAC Beyond Pressure and education programmes like Loka Ahlin; the Burma Lawyer Council (led by NLD U Aung Thein), the Former Political Prisoner Association, Generation 88 Association. There was interest in activating these networks to develop the debate, though it was also acknowledged that collective action by the conference participants would be very difficult given the number of different artist alliances and unions. It was felt that there was need for a specialist organisation like Index to get help these groups to engage at higher level of decision making, how to campaign and influence law making.
Annex – examples of projects and programmes that illustrate the artistic context for the symposium
Zarganar’s comedy event March 27 2013 – People’s Park
Without doubt the most significant and boundary pushing example of this was Zarganar’s comedy show, the biggest ever Anyeint performance[7], produced, written by and starring Zarganar which took place three days before the symposium. Featuring comedians who had recently returned from exile, the six hour marathon performance was broadcast live by Sky Net, a new pay-to-view independent TV channel and reinstated Zarganar as the most outspoken comedian in the country with an explosion of bare fisted satire. It was said that President Thein Sein watched the show on TV, and it would be interesting to know if he was surprised to find himself a target for satire alongside many other reformers and democrats including Aung San Suu Kyi, Min Ko Naing, Zarganar himself as well as democracy and freedom.
Freedom was portrayed in an unglamorous light “we are free to do anything now – sell our shit, piss on the streets” and even political activists were held up for ridicule as one scene saw protesters with empty placards went round in circles chanting join our cause – when asked what their cause was they said they didn’t know. He had had to submit the scripts to SkyNet before the show, but he departed from the script during the live broadcast performance and some of his riskiest gags were improvised, including a ruthless portrayal of the very unpopular but still powerful grandson of former premier, General Than Shwe.
Thangyat performance – April 2013
At the same time, celebrations for Thingyen – the Burmese new year four day water festival, were being prepared, in particular Thangyat troupes. Traditionally an outspoken form of entertainment for the Burmese New Year, where teams of performers, competing for cash prizes, satirise mistakes made during the year so as to avoid repeating them in the coming year. Last year the ban, which had been in place since 1988 was lifted and there was a low key revival of the form. Now with more media attention than ever before, Sky Net was broadcasting the competition in Yangon and the first ever women’s troupe was performing in Mandalay it was interesting to see how new freedoms were being exercised and constrained.
Sky Net required all participating teams to submit their scripts or videos in advance and subsequently banned one troupe from the competition. The performers from the banned troupe thought that Sky Net was more sensitive to political satire than the current government and they were shocked and angry at being excluded. The troupe went ahead anyway and performed during the festival. In Mandalay pre-censorship of Than Gyat remains in the hands of city authorities and the all women Thangyat ensemble, like all the other troupes had to submit their scripts to the censors, though the group was determined to perform their script whatever the censors said.
Padauk 7000
Another art project Padauk 7000 was launched the weekend of the symposium. A temporary art space in the docks of Yangon, based in a fragile two storey wooden house due to be demolished in June to make way for a new apartment building. The space is run by an artist and an American journalist who crowd-sourced money to fund a series of weeklong site-specific exhibitions over a period of two months. They didn’t apply for a licence. Public exhibitions should, in theory, be licensed by the ministry of culture but they decided to test these requirements. 2 years ago running a squatted art space without alerting authorities would have risked arrest for the artist and deportation for the American. There is still a slight possibility of those things happening (a transitional government is an unpredictable one) but not enough to deter them.
[1] The symposium was a co-production between Index on Censorship and House of Media and Entertainment (HOME)
[2] The Irrawaddy literature festival, organised by the wife of the British Ambassador and conducted in English took place in February
[3] See a detailed assessment of the broader picture in Index’s report ‘Burma: freedom of expression in transition’.
[4] The MOI ‘Printers and Publishers Regulation Bill’ was passed by the Lower House of Parliament in July taking on very few of the changes pressed by the Press Council
[5] www.indexoncensorship.org
[6] Art of Freedom Film Festival co-produced with Min Htin Ko Ko Gyi and Aung San Suu Kyi took place within three months of Zarganar’s release from prison in October 2011.
[7] Anyeint is a traditional form of comic entertainment featuring an ensemble of comedians, with singers, dancers and musicians
This article was posted on February 24, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
13 Feb 14 | Religion and Culture, Turkey
A companion report: Freedom of expression in the arts and censorship in Kurdish Region, Diyarbakir, Batman
In the course of its research Siyah Bant has conceptualized censorship not just as the banning of artistic expression through legal means but included process of delegitimization, threats, pressure, targeting and hate speech directed at artists and arts institutions that foreclose or delimit the presentation and circulation of artworks. Among the actors that Siyah Bant has identified through site visits throughout Turkey are state institutions, political groups and parties, individuals who act as proxies of the state, neighborhood organizations, as well as actors more closely related to the art world in its narrower sense, such as arts and cultural organizations, curators, funding agencies and sponsors.
As censorship in the arts has been rarely reported in depth, we wanted to contribute to broader public knowledge of the different mechanisms with which freedom of the arts is undermined. We have also aimed to show that censorship in the arts violates both the guaranteed freedom of expression and the arts in the Turkish constitution as well as the international human rights agreements signed by Turkey where freedom of expressions is defined as an indispensable pillar of democracy. At the same time we found that stipulations with regard to ‘national security,’ Turkey’s anti-terror legislation as well as provisions concerning the public order are frequently employed to legitimize censorship and limitations of the freedom in the arts. These interventions are – for the most part – arbitrary and employed for political and ideological reasons, and often for seemingly contradictory ends. Especially the notion of societal sensitivities (toplumsal hassasiyetler) has been increasingly used to delimit freedom of arts by non-state and state actors alike. This line of reasoning has been mirrored by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism as vague conceptions of societal sensitivities along with that of “public morals” (genel ahlak) have been elevated above the state’s mandate and legally stipulated duty of supporting and protecting the arts as well as the artist.[1]
Apart from trying to raise awareness on censorship in the arts and artists’ rights, Siyah Bant has aimed to provide a platform to discuss different strategies in the fight against censorship. While legal activism has emerged as a possible field of mobilizing and organizing,[2] Siyah Bant has also pursued interviews with cultural policy officials as a way of holding the state accountable with regard to its mandate. This has also included following developments in official cultural policy over the past few years, especially as members of the ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) have taken an increasingly adversarial stance towards the arts. Prime Minister Erdoğan’s scathing speech about theater workers in Kahramanmaraş in May 2012[3] as elitists who mock ‘the people,’ and former Minister of the Interior, İdris Naim Şahin’s declaration of art as “the backyard of terrorism” in December 2011[4] are but two examples that have left their mark on the art world. Far from signifying mere political discourse, these interventions have paved the way for the current changes in theater funding and have drawn attention to the fact that artists who are engaged in the Kurdish rights struggle have long been charged under anti-terror legislation.
As part of our ongoing research on cultural policy practices that play a vital part in the formation of freedom of the arts and its limitations we conducted a research visit to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in late October 2013. During this visit we had an opportunity to meet with representatives from the Department of Fine Arts, the Directorate for Cinema, the Directorate of Opera and Ballet as well as with the Directorate of Strategy Development. A meeting with the Minister of Culture and Tourism was requested but could not be scheduled, all questions that we addressed to his office with regard to new policy developments were delegated to the Directorate of Strategic Development. Overall Ministry representatives seemed hesitant to speak with us, yet agreed to our request when we stated that little to none information about the official policies of the Ministry is publicly available at the moment.
The new Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ömer Çelik, took his post on 24 January 2013. His first few months in office were marked by a striking silence on three issues in particular: the redevelopment of Taksim Square, the draft of the Turkish Arts Council law (Türkiye Sanat Kurumu, TÜSAK) that was leaked in the spring of 2013, and the discourses around funding projects that promote family values and public decency, especially in the discipline of cinema. This silence has contributed to the rumor mill running high in the art world, so much so that in November 2013 Ersin Antep asked in the daily Radikal “Will we have a Minister of Culture? (Bizim bir kültür bakanımız olacak mı?).” Antep suggested that many of the programs initiated under Çelik’s predecessor, Ertuğul Günay, had been terminated, including most of the restitution efforts for cultural artifacts that the former Minister of Culture and Tourism had pursued. Çelik has been rumored to mainly work out of the Prime Minister’s Office rather than tending to institution he is heading. The fact that no comprehensive overview over the programs carried out by the current administration has been made public has resulted in rumors running all the more rampant. Günay, had become increasingly vocal with regard to the redevelopment of Taksim (also known as the Taksim Pedestrianization Project, Taksim Yayalaştırma Projesi) – stating that the city was not in need of another shopping mall. Günay also argued that the plans for a mosque to be added on Taksim Square were ill conceived as was the reconstruction of the Ottoman Army Barracks (Topçu Kışlası) that was part of the original redevelopment plan. Being at the heart of Beyoğlu, Taksim Square encompasses the Monument to the Republic and the Atatürk Cultural Center (Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, AKM), which are both under the purview of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
Çelik maintained his silence for much of the debate, broken ever so briefly in his response to a parliamentary inquiry by Sezgin Tanrıkulu in June 2013 when he confirmed that during the construction in and around Taksim 16 Armenian tombstones had been found along with remnants of an 18th century wall and parts of a drainage system dating to the same time period. Çelik also noted that archeological artifacts had been found in the larger area surrounding Sıraserviler, Kazancı Yokuşu and on the Tarlabaşı side. During the Gezi protests of May-June 2013 Çelik neither took position on the plans for the redevelopment of Taksim, nor did he announce any further plans for the Atatürk Cultural Center although Prime Minister Erdoğan suggested a complete demolition of the AKM. Since mid-June of 2013 the AKM has been used by the riot police – permanently stationed upfront and using the building as a logistical center. The renovation which has left the Istanbul State Theater, Ballet and Opera without a permanent home was supposed to be concluded by 29 October 2013, but it seems that no work has been done for at least the past seven months. During our visit at the Ministry we were unable to attain any official statement about the future of the AKM. In July the First Administrative Court had already cancelled the Topçu Kışlası Project and the master plan for the redevelopment of Beyoğlu has been voided in December 2013 with the courts decision explicitly stating that the non-participatory manner with which the project was designed makes it untenable. From a cultural policy perspective the court’s decision is notable in a second respect: it explicitly diagnoses a tension between touristic commodification of urban areas and the needs and rights of the inhabitants of these areas. What these two court decisions mean for the fate of the AKM as well as the already conducted construction in and around Taksim Square remains unclear as of the writing of this report.
When in the spring of 2013 a draft of the TÜSAK (Turkish Arts Council) legislation was leaked, it further aggravated concerns that had already been raised in the previous year with the government signaling its intension to privatize the state theater system. The draft as it stands at the moment aims to restructure the entire arts funding system in Turkey by granting support on a project basis and by shifting decision-making powers to state appointed officials rather candidates representing artists’ associations from respective disciplines.
Rengim Gökmen, Director of the Department of State Opera and Ballet, like other officials we meet, was unable to relay any news about the fate of the AKM, despite the organic connection that his department has with its Istanbul counterpart. Gökmen underlined that despite recent additions to concert halls in Istanbul, such as in the Zorlu Center (a shopping mall, residence and entertainment complex), Istanbul is in dire need of a large, central opera, ballet and theater stage. Gökmen stressed that the programming of the Directorate had stayed independent since its inception and that no signs to a contrary development exist at the moment.
Gökmen noted that he had not received any official communication about the TÜSAK draft that has generated heated discussions in the art world over the past few months. However, he also pointed out that funding on a project-basis would be inappropriate for institutions that have performance seasons as well as year-round rehearsal schedules such as theater, opera and ballet. While Gökmen, like many of his colleagues from the field of theater, supports a reform of the state theater-system, he emphatically argued that any such reform needs to take into account the artistic production practices of each discipline in order to be equitable and artistically viable. Gökmen remarked that he sees great danger in delegating opera and ballet to the private sector, as a mere reliance on market rationales is detrimental to artistic autonomy and hence adversarial to the inner workings of art. Instead he suggested regular performance evaluations that would enable a “career system” within the state’s performing arts institutions, i.e. opening a path for professional advancement based on performance rather than the application of civil servants’ promotion criteria.
Gökmen expressed that within the current peace process art plays an exponent role with its capacity to create encounters and empathy. This topic came up repeatedly during our interviews with other officials as well, for instance by Directorate for the Fine Arts. Yet, these assertions tend to be rather general, although it is notable that cultural diversity and especially past cultural production by minorities is mentioned far more frequently and directly than during our visit in 2012. Asked for concrete examples, interfaith encounters and musical events are often referenced as well as a range of CDs that the Ministry of Culture and Tourism has produced focusing on the oeuvre of minority composers and lyricists. But as will be outlined in more detail in the second part of this report, these advances by the Ministry for Culture and Tourism are in stark contrast to the daily experiences of Kurdish artists and their working conditions, for instance.
Like Gökmen, Nihat Değirmenci, deputy director of the Department for Fine Arts responded that he “followed the TÜSAK debate from the press, as everyone else” and hence did not see himself able to give an assessment on the possible course of the draft and the impact it might have on the make-up of Turkey’s arts sector.
One of the most pressing issues over the past few decades has been the – to a large extent – ongoing exclusion of contemporary art from the funding and other activities from state support. While the Ministry still holds yearly competitions in painting and photography, there are no programs for visual arts in the boarder sense, no funding categories for individual artists or structural support for contemporary art institutions. Grievances over this omission have been voiced repeatedly over the past two decades, especially as contemporary art from Turkey has gained increasing international recognition. This lack is even more pronounced in the city of Ankara itself, where there is a remarkable shortage of non-commercial contemporary art spaces. Opened in 2010 the Cer Modern was to amend this lack, however, hopes tied to this space never really materialized (as was previously the case with the Çankaya Belediyesi Çağdaş Sanatlar Merkezi established in 1998[5]) as the space is managed as an event hall rented out for large-scale functions like weddings, for example, rather than a contemporary arts center. Independent arts initiatives, such as CAVA (Cinema Audio and Visual Arts) that have conducted workshops on the premises have voiced their discontent about the direction of Cer Modern or terminated their relationship to the space altogether. The Ministry, however, does not seem to share these concerns. Quite to the contrary, Cer Modern seems to be regarded as a successful model. At the same time there is an awareness that contemporary art should be included within the purview of the Ministry, but our inquiries over the past two years have been met with the reasoning that there are no legal precepts to do so at the moment. It could be argued, however, that rather than a missing legal framework it is missing practice that produces this asymmetry with regard to contemporary art.
Within the field of cinema two issues have especially come to the fore over the past two years. Firstly, the rating system that has been increasingly employed to effectively limit the circulation of certain films by enforcing harsh age limits. There is, of course, an important and valid basis to age-limit provisions in Turkey as well as internationally in order to protect minors from potentially disturbing and harmful images. Yet debates have erupted about the ways in which these provision have been used to legitimize broader infringements on the freedom of expression that surpass the protection of minors,[6] especially since this rating is tied to the eser işletme belgesi, a certificate necessary for commercial distribution. Until recently this certificate was not required when films were intended for festival use, i.e. noncommercial screenings. While legal scholar Ulaş Karan argues that this procedure is indeed in accord with official regulations, the Ministry has decided to reinterpret the distribution provisions and make them requirements for festival films as well. Cases such as the film “Berivan” or “Dersim 38” that were deemed ineligible for distribution certificates have raised concerns that political preferences rather than the protection of minors are at stake. As during our last visit our inquiries with regard to the eser işletme belgesi have been consistently deflected by insisting on framing the issue in terms of technicalities and of the protection of minors rather than political sensitivities and preferences or pluralism. In addition, the Directorate of Cinema has consistently argued that its rating procedures present a harmonization measure with European Union standards and hence a necessity arising from European co-production agreements signed by the Turkish government in the early 2000s.
Secondly, in January 2012 Cem Erkul, director of the Cinema Department, announced that funding priorities would shift to “family films,”[7] leaving question marks as to what kind of movies would qualify as such and how the respective selection criteria employed by the award committees would be formulated. During our last visit these questions were once again deflected by noting that the composition of selection committees had not changed and that along with a representative from the Directorate those of the filmmakers’ associations were still present in the selection process. Yet, it was also made clear to us that “as a social welfare state” the cultural needs of society overall, rather than ‘niche interests,’ needed to be taken into consideration. It was emphasized that the Ministry does not aim to ‘just’ fund arthouse movies but sees it as part of its duty to fund potential blockbusters as well. This understanding notably diverges from the rationale of art funding in democratic settings, where state support is intended to help exactly the kind cultural production that would otherwise not be viable. Surely much of the discussions around cutting arts funding throughout the EU has been conducted with the same rationale, i.e. that under tightening economic conditions, market viability is increasingly conceptualized as fulfilling both cultural needs and evidencing worthiness of government support. It is likewise notable that the much-mentioned increase in international interest in cinema from Turkey has centered largely on small, independent films that have garnered awards at international festivals, rather than being box office hits. Yet the Directorate seems vindicated in its general practice by pointing to the rapid increase in national film production (e.g. while there were only nine local films in the 2002 screening cycle, this number went up to 62 in 2013). The Directorate has also indicated that it wants to extent incentives for foreign film productions in Turkey, not least by co-financing such productions.
Recent news that the Ministry will retract funding from films rated suitable for age 18 and above have increased concerns in the film sector about how age restrictions might be further instrumentalized for political purposes.[8] It is very likely that this new guideline will further the precarious economic standing of independent filmmakers and engender self-censorship due to the fear of loosing much sought after public funding. This regulation will also allow the Directorate to intervene into decisions of final cuts, in order to meet age restrictions eligible for this funding, rather than making decisions based on the artistic integrity of a given work.
The Cinema Directorate stresses that they are concerned with the art of the moving image overall. However, they do not advocate on behalf of filmmakers who regularly face onslaughts on the integrity of their work through unauthorized edits of their film when sold to TV stations, be it to make room for commercials or to make movies eligible for certain time slots. At times this practice serves to circumvent age restrictions, at others to adhere to real or imagined notions of public decency, especially when it comes to content that diverges from hetero-normative presets. The Directorate relegates such responsibilities to the TV channels themselves as well as to RTÜK (Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu, the Radio and Television Supreme Council that monitors and regulates radio and television broadcasts), with the exception of age restrictions that need to be heeded by the channels.
The Office for Strategic Development (Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı) has recently completed the National Cultural Policy Review and has been responsible for developing new policy objectives and visions. We had a chance to meet with Mahmut Evkuran, the Director for Strategic Development. While Evkuran admitted that cultural policy objectives have not been communicated clearly by the Ministry to the general public as well as the arts community, he seemed at a loss why the TÜSAK draft has induced this amount of panic and rumors, especially since discussions about these kinds of reforms stretch back to the early 1990s. He repeatedly stated that all artists’ association will be informed and consulted and that the draft is still at an early stage. It remains unclear, however, when further amendments to the draft will be made and how such consultations, if at all, will be conducted. As in the area of cinema Evkuran stressed that examples from the EU were being evaluated in the assemblage of the TÜSAK proposal.
Asked about the striking lack of support for contemporary art which garnering increased international attention over the past 20 years has by default served as a vehicle for cultural diplomacy, Evkuran conceded that this part of the arts sector indeed was “incredibly dynamic” and that “one has to think about how to embrace this dynamism” both institutionally and legally. Rehabilitation and restoration of cultural heritage were identified as the primary goals of the Ministry. He himself seemed to define cultural diplomacy in terms of restitution of cultural artifacts to Turkey however, and was more concerned with integrating the ‘traditional arts’ within the purview of official cultural policy. While Evkuran is correct in that traditional arts have been largely left out of art history curricula in Turkey and tended to mainly by civil society and nonprofit organizations, this does not necessarily mean that this inclusion has to be conducted in lieu of funding contemporary artistic production.
When asked about the state of freedom of expression and censorship in Turkey, Evkuran emphasized many of the aspects that were part of the recent “democracy package” announced by the government in October 2013, such as restitution of the estate surrounding Mor Gabriel and the freedom to were a headscarf in public service and public institutions. He noted that other minority properties would also be returned, although he conceded that decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis. Evkuran gave much emphasis to the appropriation of certain works of Kurdish literature such as Mem û Zîn, an edition of which was printed by the Ministry in 2012, and the oeuvre of film director Yilmaz Güney. The Ministry has prepared a disk set of all his films, many of which were banned in Turkey during his lifetime. Evkuran also highlighted the Presidential Honor posthumously accorded to Ahmet Kaya; although as he himself noted this initiative was taken by President Abdullah Gül rather than the Ministry itself. Much emphasis was given to the entire protocol of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism as well as other government officials attending the Kurdish language performance of Hamlet in Ankara in November 2012. Yet Evkuran failed to point out that this production was actually performed by the Diyabakir Municipal Theater, which has staged plays in Kurdish throughout the past decade and often under threats and continual harassment by Turkish security forces. While his examples surely present steps towards acknowledging minority cultural production and heritage, a vast asymmetry between these showcases and daily practices remains (see Part II of this report). This also became clear when Evkuran pointed to the ‘legalization of the Kurdish language’ and the freedom to take on Kurdish names both on an individual basis and in the case of place names. Given the fact that education in Kurdish is still not available within the public school system, this assessment seems overly positive. This became even clearer when we asked Evkuran about the governors who banned Kurdish language events or film screenings with political content. According to Evkuran these instances mark reflexes of the “old order” of Turkey and that these kinds of asymmetries are to be expected. He also added that at times security concerns voiced by authorities might be valid.
It has become somewhat commonplace to argue amongst cultural policy officials in Turkey that the Ministry of Culture and Tourism does not actually follow changing political trends but has been on more or less the same path since its inception. Yet, the above shows that changing political discourses have actual implications for cultural policy formations. However, this is not to argue that all in the Ministry present homogeneous takes on different issues. Asked about the increasing discourses about “conservative art” (muhafazakar sanat), for example, some noted that the combination of “conservative” and “art” presents a misnomer as art per definition is progressive and thus responsible for pushing existing boundaries and exploring new grounds. Many admitted that these kinds of questions may very well be an issue of politics, but less for artistic practice and production; although it was also noted that these and other topics should be open to discussion. The same holds true for the much-used notion of ‘societal sensitivities.’ Some acknowledged that such possible sensitivities needed taken into account, but emphasized that they did not feel restricted in the programming of their departments and stressed the pioneering character of art as opening up new, hitherto unexplored spaces.
When asked about the critique of the elitism of the artistic establishment and especially the state theater system that has been launched by the governing AKP over the past few years, it was often noted that politicians were free to express admiration or discontent with the state of the arts or certain artworks. A common argument was that these kinds of reactions should be read as a sign that art is noticed and noticeable, and hence a positive sign in itself.
Apart from the structural issues that arise from subsuming culture and tourism, and hence two policy areas that have quite different goal orientations, as many in the Ministry too admit, under the same administrative unit, the Ministry till fails to exhibit an active advocacy for artists as is required by Articles 27 and 64 of the Constitution. Together these articles not only guarantee freedom of expression in the arts but also hold the state responsible in supporting the arts and artists. There also remains a disconnect between the ideals of cultural policy in liberal democracies and practices in the Turkish context emerged in officials’ disconcertedness about artists who are in the state theater system, but vocal about criticizing the government, as for instance, during the recent Gezi protests. While this is surely a contentious issue everywhere, receiving government fund should not foreclose the possibility of critiquing government policies.
[1] See Banu Karaca, “When Duty Calls…: Questions of Sensitivity and Responsibility in Light of the Tophane Events,” Red Thread e-journal (November 2011); Siyahbant (Istanbul, 2012) and Siyahbant, Sanatta İfade Özgürlüğü, Sansür ve Hukuk (Istanbul, 2013)
[2] Siyahbant, Sanatta İfade Özgürlüğü, Sansür ve Hukuk (Istanbul, 2013).
[3] Siyahbant, “Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın Kahramanmaraş Mitingi konusması” (Istanbul, 2012), 52-53.
[4] Siyahbant, “Sevgili İçişleri Bakanımız, ne diyorsak tersinden anlayınız!” (Istanbul, 2012), 50-51.
[5] Beral Madra, “Ankara çağdaş sanata çok uzak,” Radikal Online, 23 May 2009; Ferhat Özgür, “Anakara’da tarihi bir firsat,” Radikal Online, 30 May 2009
[6] Majorie Heins, Not in Front of the Children: “Indecency,” Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001).
[7] See “‘Malkoçoğlu desteğine’ sinemacı kazan kaldırdı”, Radikal Online, 22 January 2012
[8] “Tiyatrodan sonra sinemaya da ahlak kriteri geldi,” Radikal Online, 25 December 2013
This report on the effects of cultural policy and its effects on freedom of the arts was conducted by Siyah Bant with the support of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. It is reproduced here with permission.
This article was posted on February 13, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
30 Jan 14 | India, News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture
(Image: YRF/YouTube)
It an interesting introduction to his modus operandi, the new CEO of India’s censor board has described his objection to some of India’s recent blockbusters is based on the reactions of his wife and five year old daughter.
In an interview to the Mumbai Mirror, Rakesh Kumar, was quoted as saying: “After watching Shudh Desi Romance, my five-year-old daughter asked me, ‘Dad, isn’t there too much love in this movie?’ More recently, I went to see Yaariyan with her and came out visibly embarrassed. Now, I have decided not to see even a UA film with my kid.”
Predictably, reactions were fierce. Movies with a UA rating in India are tagged for parental guidance, as they might be inappropriate for young children. These movies have mild sex scenes, gory images of violence and crude language. Kumar, a former employee of the Indian Railways, might feel “inappropriate content” is making it to the big screens, however, it only serves to highlight that the censorship of movies cannot be viewed from the perspective of a five year old girl.
Aside from the many jokes being made at Kumar’s expense, a deeper issue has been brought to the surface yet again. A constitutionally mandated body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) regulates any films that are to be publicly exhibited. In India, there are a number of certificates a film could be given: A for Adult, UA, unrestricted public exhibition with parental guidance, S, restricted to a special class of persons, and the coveted U, which is unrestricted public exhibition, and is also the class of movies that can be shown on Indian television at prime time.
The first question many might ask is, does India need a censor board? With all kinds of content available on television and the internet, is censoring film for “inappropriate” content still valid? However, given that India does have a censor board, the next question is who it is made up of. There are about 500 members of CBFC, who preview around 13,500 films a year. The current chair is a famous dancer, Leela Samson, who controversially commented that almost 90% of her fellow board members were “uneducated political workers who did not understand their responsibility,” for which she later had to apologise. The current, and past, CEO of the board have been serving bureaucrats, on loan for this role. The final and biggest questions of the censor board faces, is how and why films are given the certifications they are.
In a very telling essay after his stint on the CBFC, journalist Mayank Shekhar wrote about the kinds of arguments that would take place at the meetings he attended: “Over the years, the focus of the Censor Board appears to have shifted from sex and violence to people’s “hurt sentiments” – some of it possibly real, but much of it imagined.”
The truth is that there are three broad problems in the certification of Indian films. First, the film board censors movies based on their moral outrage to sex or violence (as exhibited by the new CEO’s reaction), fear of minority groups getting upset (as witnessed by Shekhar), and the attempt to keep films with controversial subjects like the politics of Kashmir away from the mainstream audience, often by giving them A certification (as experienced by filmmaker Ashvin Kumar and reported by Index).
The second is the approach of filmmakers. Some, in order to get their films on TV by getting a U certificate, are only too happy to oblige any cuts the board might suggest, betraying any artist integrity. The other extreme is filmmakers who put in scenes with the intention of crossing swords with the board, thereby garnering some press attention for the movie. Shekhar writes in his essay of producer who was very disappointed that the board was not cutting any of his violent scenes, pleading: “Come on, how will people know this film exists? I’ve made a very violent film. How will I publicise it?”
The third is the allegation that board members take bribes in exchange for lenient certifications, as reported by Mint. Some feel the board goes easy on big production houses. This is because there are great financial implications involved with the certification process. Filmmakers want to make their investments back, both from the box office and lucrative satellite rights should their films be picked up for prime time viewing on television channels — as they can be with a U rating. Five Indian filmmakers have expressed their frustration with the lack of transparency in the decision making process of the CBFC, as well as perceived political interference. “I got an SMS from a senior member of a national political party, who told me that he was now with the Censor Board so to let him know if I needed any help,” revealed filmmaker Tigmanshu Dhulia.
However, ultimately, the entire argument boils down to the moral order, real or contrived, that Indian films must subscribe to should they want to be seen by the general public — both in movie halls and at a reasonable hour on television. In 1994, the censor board asked the makers of the movie Khuddar to replace the word “sexy” in a song with the word “baby”. So lyrics went like this (translated) – “baby, baby, baby, is what people call me.” In a repeat performance of a kind, in 2009, the world “sexy” was yet again replaced, but this time with “crazy” for the television version of the film. Over the years, kissing and even some sex scenes have slipped into Hindi cinema, as has a lot of cussing and plenty of violence. Nudity is only permitted in certain movies, which is either pixelated or viewed by a long-shot. Freedom of expression certainly seems in line behind the perceived notions of vulgarity of a few.
Thankfully, satire is alive and well in India, and enough websites are taking the CBFC and its new CEO to task. Others, like filmmaker Hansal Mehta, are determined to file an RTI – Right to Information – application to question every decision the board takes. As he says: “It only takes Rs 10 (under 1GBP) to file an RTI application. We live in a democracy, no one can stop me.”
This article was published on 29 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
24 Jan 14 | Africa, Kenya
Leonardo DiCaprio at the recent British premiere of The Wolf of Wall Street in London (Image: Info100/Demotix)
Two people have been arrested in Nakuru, Kenya, for selling The Wolf of Wall Street, reports The Standard Digital News. Five hundred copies of the film were also confiscated.
The two could face up to five years in prison and/or a fine of 100,000 Kenyan shillings for being in violation of Section 12 of the Kenya Film and Stage Plays Act. Among other things, it prohibits the distribution of films not approved by the Kenya Film Classification Board. The Oscar-nominated Hollywood film was last week banned by the board.
“There is a LIMIT to everything and we believe the Kenyan public deserves better. WOLF OF WALLSTREET has been RESTRICTED. The film is NOT for sale, exhibition or distribution in KENYA. Violators shall be PROSECUTED,” read the statement on their official Facebook page.
On Wednesday, the board announced “a crackdown” on the same page: “A crackdown was started countrywide to check on UNRATED content and restricted films. MANY have already been arrested and will be prosecuted. Please, be warned that KFCB and the POLICE are on the look-out for violators.” Earlier today, they posted a link to a news story of the arrests, accompanied by the message “The crackdown is still on-going…”
“We support the board in carrying out its responsibilities. It is our wish to see a society that upholds morals and good values. This movie was banned long time ago and those found selling it should face the law,” said Nakuru Sub-County Commissioner Thomas Sunkei.
This article was posted on 24 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
