Visual artist: Can I exhibit my feminist works, which feature the Bible, in Denmark?
Visual artist: Can I exhibit my feminist works, which feature the Bible, in Denmark?
Opinion piece by Augusta Atla published in Dagbladet Information - 14 December 2023
Opinion piece by Augusta Atla published in Dagbladet Information - 14 December 2023
Is the Bible a small or large part of my works? Should impropriety be measured in square centimetres? The ‘Quran Law’ does not take the freedom of art into account. It protects religious institutions.
The day after the so-called ‘Quran Law’ was passed in the Danish Parliament, the Liberal Party’s Jan E. Jørgensen said (on the Danish radio programme P1 Morgen) that the new blasphemy law “has no practical significance for Danish art and cultural life”. He also stated that, even though the law was not aimed at art, “in spite of everything”, the law will criminalise the works and practice of just one Danish artist – Firoozeh Bazrafkan.
This is simply not correct. As a Danish professional visual artist, I have been using the Bible in my artworks since 2011. My works are exhibited by museums and art galleries in Denmark and abroad. In the past, other visual artists have also used religious texts in their works of art: works that are also part of major international art collections and the 20th-century canon of art – works by the likes of the British artist John Latham, which can no longer be shown in Denmark.
The law and fear of punishment will certainly lead to self-censorship vis-à-vis an artist presenting and exhibiting their works of art in Denmark. I am one of those artists. The bill is serious, given that it carries a penalty of up to two years –just one year less than in Russia, where the penalty is three years.
Artists can and will continue to create these works, but can we exhibit them in Denmark? Can artists put our works online on our website or social media? No.
Should improper treatment be calculated in minutes?
Unlike the original draft, the law that was adopted “takes art into account”. If an action occurs as a minor part of a work of art, it will fall outside the ban.
Who is to say whether the Bible plays a minor or major role in my works? Not even I can answer that question.
If the work is a performance, do we have to think in minutes? In square centimetres if it is a collage? In intention, if the work is conceptual? Or in the general theme or meta-theme?
And what if the ‘improper’ treatment of a religious text in a work of art is neither the overall theme nor intended ‘blasphemy, but is nevertheless judged by others as ‘improper’?
The political parties in power continue to talk about the fact that art is already subject to the Criminal Code, arguing that “this little extra law” will not make much difference. But there is a huge difference between the limitations already imposed on art – and of course art is subject to the penal code – and the new limitations, under which it will now be subject to religious institutions and their ideas about their texts.
Bear in mind that a religious community is an institution, not a person. Many religions are affluent, economic institutions – thriving businesses, What’s more, many religions all over the world are also politically powerful. Why should we protect the texts of wealthy, powerful institutions? Why should we not severely criticise these institutions for their ‘improper’ or free use of their own religious texts?
It is believed that the Roman Catholic Church has assets of around $30 billion. Who knows how rich the Greek Orthodox Church is? It owns land all over Greece – even in Jerusalem.
These very religions – the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Church and Islam etc. – are yet to carry out reforms to ensure gender equality. Even though I would love to visit it, I am denied access to the Greek monastic centre of Mount Athos – simply because I was born and am classified as female.
Powerful religious institutions must be able to withstand harsh criticism
Religions are not only powerful and wealthy in the present; they are also ubiquitous in our cultural narrative and in human stories. That is why it is important for artists to destroy and transform the Bible and other sacred texts in works of art.
As everyone knows, throughout history – in the West too – religious institutions have been instrumental in oppressing people and undermining human rights in general. Criticism of the Church as an institution stems from the fact that the Church is not, or has not been as ‘holy’ as it claims to be. For centuries, the Church has incited murder and persecution, committed paedophilia and rape, and pillaged and/or burned beautiful works of art.
So, it is no wonder that, in the West, the tradition is that religious institutions must be able to withstand harsh criticism.
For the same reason, an artist should be able to make free use of the major religions in their work: partly because visual artists tend to tackle the difficult issues of life – everything that causes tragedy and pain; and partly because religions have contributed to the continued repression of women and prevented the development of equality.
For centuries in the West we have fought for human rights and equal rights. How? By separating the state from religion. The aim of secular democracy and its legislation is to protect the individual and democracy itself.
Over the years, a few religious communities have slowly incorporated human rights and equality – but only because they were challenged from outside. Why risk not protecting human rights and gender equality in one’s own country – Denmark? What friendship does this law engender?
The law undermines free, secular art
“We believe it is a positive, pragmatic solution – relating to the security of the kingdom without relaxing artistic freedom,” says Peter Mark Lundberg (chairman of the board of the trade alliance Dansk Kulturliv) to Ritzau.
But does that statement really make Dansk Kulturliv a representative of Danish cultural life? No. Far from it. I have no idea on whose behalf he is speaking. At least not for the visual arts in Denmark.
There is no doubt that the new blasphemy law will lead to censorship of artistic works in Danish art institutions, thereby impacting the public repertoire of art and affecting the cultural life of people in Denmark.
The law not only restricts the professional practice of a handful of artists in Denmark; it is a far bigger problem than what the politicians intentionally put a lid on: a more fundamental question about the basic democratic principles of art – the free, secular method of art in our society.
Art is a way of perceiving the delicate shades of grey and reflecting on ambiguity, training us to see a myriad of different nuances. In front of a work of art, the viewer is also ‘trained’ to participate in their democratic society and be an individual: to think for themself.
In addition to being prime minister and world-renowned for his political achievements during World War II, Winston Churchill was a visual artist (a painter). He was also a great advocate and protector of the important role of art in society. Speaking at the Royal Academy, Burlington House, London on 1 May 1927, he stated:
“I would be prepared to say that all forms of art and action are in principle the same – all forms of action and art really require at their critical moments the same kind of decisions.”
What Churchill meant was that, regardless of whether or not a work of art tackles a political subject, whether it is downright ambiguous or even abstract, art is based on freedom of speech and action. Regardless of its subject area and aesthetics, this makes art ethically demanding, democratic, important and political.
Not only does this law violate secular democracy.
Not only does this law directly contradict the theology of Protestantism by making not only the text of the Bible sacred, but also the very paper on which it is printed!
Not only is this law a huge setback for opportunities to protect women’s rights and promote gender equality.
This law simply undermines our tradition: free (secular) art. And guess what? Free art is one of the pillars of a functional secular democracy.