The new blasphemy law undermines the basic democratic principles of art
The new blasphemy law undermines the basic democratic principles of art
Opinion piece by Augusta Atla published in Kulturmonitor - 6 December 2023
Opinion piece by Augusta Atla published in Kulturmonitor - 6 December 2023
Debate: Adjustments to the new blasphemy law do not change the fact that it undermines the basic democratic principles of art.
"Doubt alone will unfortunately function as self-censorship for fear of punishment," writes artist Augusta Atla on the day the government plans to vote through its amended bill banning Koran burnings.
As an active, professional and internationally exhibiting visual artist and art writer, I am calling out against the new blasphemy law 2.0 - a bill that may be intended out of kindness and respect for other religions, but which in theory and practice violates the West's own tradition. This bill sets us back at least 100 years and may even set back the development of gender equality.
The bill will have an impact on and a function in the professional and public repertoire of the visual arts and in the cultural life of the people of Denmark. This is serious, and I am referring to the professional, political and other inappropriate aspects of the bill that will affect Danish visual artists, museum management, exhibition curators and the Danish people - including the art viewer and user - in general.
The law will certainly lead to self-censorship among us artists, but it will also lead to censorship of artistic works at Danish art institutions.
As far as art is concerned, the new bill looks peaceful to the lazy eye; now the punishable offence is 'only' the use of religious writings with significant religious significance for a recognized religious community. Furthermore, the law tries - in vain - to 'protect' art by making the improper part OK if it is only a small part of the work.
The bill has thus attempted to exempt the theater, dance and film industry, but has done so by treating the visual arts and the theater, dance and film industry as a merely practical matter - and it is not (!).
The law will not only mean that art will be censored, but also that there will be a new art police. We, as artists, will be confused about when and if a work is illegal. When it comes to my own collage and installation works, which are full of criticism of power and religion, I have my own doubts about whether they will be illegal or not. And the doubt alone will unfortunately act as self-censorship for fear of punishment.
Definitions are still unclear
There is still no clarity on what 'inappropriate' means. What is not inappropriate for me is inappropriate for someone else.
And what scripture is a scripture of 'substantial' religious significance? Within Christianity, is it just the Bible? I'm confused. As an artist, I need to be clear, as I use all texts in my artworks, collages and installations.
The bill states: '... will also not include the dissemination of other persons' improper treatment of writings with significant religious significance.' But here, for example, you need to clarify: Does a Danish visual artist have the right to disseminate their own work made in a foreign country where this law does not exist?
All in all, it's safe to say that no, the free artistic method does not think in fractions. On the contrary, an artist works freely with his thoughts and material. What about masterpieces from art history, such as the sculpture 'God is Great (no. 2)' by John Latham? The work has been acquired by Tate Modern. Can that work now no longer be shown at Louisiana or SMK? And if John Latham were still alive, could he not work freely in Denmark?
I can tell you that as an artist, I don't necessarily make art for one point of view or another, and that this can also change in periods and works throughout one's life. The artwork can even be ambivalent and thematically go in opposite directions - all at the same time.
But what artists all have in common today is that the artistic method itself is free. If an artist wants to make a harsh criticism of a religious community through art, this is fully justified and also a tradition in the visual arts.
As pop queen Madonna said this year on social media X: 'Artists are here to disturb the peace'.
Not just a bold practice for a few privileged artists
While one might think that the bill is only a small encroachment on artistic freedom, it is not.
This type of rhetoric is simply a statement of failure to understand how important art is as an asset in democracy, and that art activates the very freedom of expression - both for the sender and the receiver - through the work.
The artistic freedom in the work is not a bold practice for a few privileged artists. On the contrary, it is, firstly, fundamental and impossible to remove; it is the very freedom of the human being. Secondly, it is a natural way to receive artistic inspiration and work. The inspiration that the ancient Greeks believed came from the nine muses that museums today are named after: the Temple of the Muses.
Or what Nietzsche called the Dionysian force in man.
Artistic freedom means that there are no rules for how to perform or read a work of art, and that the viewer of the work of art reflecting on the work in front of the work is an active act in itself, where the viewer is put in a position where he or she is creative - thinking, reflecting and seeking truth.
In other words, the work and the viewer are precisely what makes the artwork the democratic method in action.
This work - or the relationship between the work and the viewer - is invisible, but very essential, and it is built on our Western values of the free-thinking individual and the individual's own ethical responsibility. 'Not merely for pleasure,' as it is written above the old stage of the Royal Danish Theatre.
Democracy is the intellectual life of our time, but we put it at risk if we legislate that art is subject to religious powers and their ideas about religious texts.