Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

sylvanian families terrorised by isis

30 replies

southeastastra · 26/09/2015 20:03

\link{http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/26/sylvanian-families-isis-freedom-of-expression-exhibition\here} have to say i find it bizarre they were banned from the passion of freedom exhibition.

OP posts:
MissFitt68 · 26/09/2015 20:38

That's just bizarre

hackmum · 27/09/2015 11:43

They weren't banned, were they?

"It was removed from the Passion for Freedom exhibition at the Mall galleries after police raised concerns about the “potentially inflammatory content” of the work, informing the organisers that, if they went ahead with their plans to display it, they would have to pay £36,000 for security for the six-day show."

It's the police taking the piss, essentially.

TheoriginalLEM · 27/09/2015 11:54

I am glad it has been removed. That is not freedom of expression (which i think we have every right to) that is just inflammatory, publicity seeking shite (Like a lot of modern "art"). What is it trying to say - that Isis are threatening our naice way of life? or is it saying -oooh look at me, i dare to say what other people are scared of saying? please pay me lots of money for my talentless "art".

These sort of "displays" do more to damage freedom of speech than anything else.

Original poster
southeastastra · 27/09/2015 20:50

how can it do damage to freedom of speech? :/

OP posts:
hiddenhome2 · 28/09/2015 15:01

I quite like it Blush

EduCated · 28/09/2015 15:08

The gallery chose to remove it because they don't want to pay the police the £36,000 it will cost to provide security.

Whether that is a realistic figure, I don't know, but I'm also not sure the police should provide extra security 'unfunded'. But then I do appreciate the freedom of expression stuff. So all in all, on the fence Blush

hiddenhome2 · 28/09/2015 15:13

Why would extra security be needed? Who could possibly kick off about it? It's just a wry observation. It's amusing and topical as well. What's not to like?

We're told that isis doesn't represent any religion or country and there are no isis members in this country, so who could possibly object? Smile

EduCated · 28/09/2015 15:16

I presume the police believe it might attract problems, presumably from ISIS or those sympathetic to them.

How credible that is, not a clue!

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 28/09/2015 15:52

I quite like it too. Very odd that the police would object when the exhibition had already been displayed elsewhere with no problems.

MephistophelesApprentice · 28/09/2015 15:54

So this is how free speech ends - not too dangerous, just too expensive...

APlaceOnTheCouch · 28/09/2015 16:08

I quite liked it and I don't really see how it's more inflammatory than the rest of the pieces.

BlahBlahUsername · 28/09/2015 16:09

Why would extra security be needed? Who could possibly kick off about it? It's just a wry observation. It's amusing and topical as well. What's not to like?

Why indeed. We must not display artworks that show ISIS killing innocent people, in case ISIS have their feelings hurt and turn up to kill innocent people.

wickedlazy · 28/09/2015 16:19

Quite worried they think something as simple as this piece of art would be a serious security risk. Or is it health and saftey planning gone overboard?

I like it btw. Thing it makes a simple but effective statement.

wickedlazy · 28/09/2015 16:19

*think

noblegiraffe · 28/09/2015 16:30

It's hardly like they've got a Sylvanian Mohammed is it? I could understand any concern if they did.

hiddenhome2 · 28/09/2015 16:39

Freedom of both speech and expression being quietly eroded.

hiddenhome2 · 28/09/2015 16:40

As an act of rebellion, I have it set as my wallpaper.

Isis are perfectly welcome to come and tell me what they think of me Smile

hackmum · 28/09/2015 16:41

I like it too. It's funny yet sinister - as hiddenhome2 says, what's not to like?

It's not completely clear to me whether the organisers refused to include it without security or whether the police insisted that they would have to have security if they went ahead. Are the police allowed to do that?

hiddenhome2 · 28/09/2015 16:46

I believe the police have a duty to protect citizens who are going about their business - in this case, setting up and displaying an art piece.

If it's deemed to be offensive, than what about the nudes in countless art galleries up and down the country? Are these galleries going to be targeted for displaying offensive art pieces?

Dapplegrey1 · 28/09/2015 16:49

"If it's deemed to be offensive, than what about the nudes in countless art galleries up and down the country? Are these galleries going to be targeted for displaying offensive art pieces?"

It may well come to that, Hiddenhome.

hiddenhome2 · 28/09/2015 16:54

It is coming to that Sad

EduCated · 28/09/2015 16:56

It's a particularly hot topic at the moment due to the Prevent strategy from the government - lots of universities kicking up a stink about it, and its impact on academic freedom.

seagreengirl · 28/09/2015 22:48

I like it too, why shouldn't modern art be inflammatory, haven't we got enough vases of flowers already?

It actually really worries me that people are becoming too frightened to show things like this.

EduCated · 28/09/2015 22:54

Did you see that certain universities were 'named and shamed' a week or so back for hosting controversial speakers? I'm not surprised places are antsy about the controversial stuff, but because of the legislative situation/restrictions, rather than direct threats.

I may well be wrong!

fourmummy · 01/10/2015 09:52

Some very revealing comments here.
inflammatory - ???
We're told that isis doesn't represent any religion - Why don't we listen to what the terrorists are telling us - they hate anyone who is not 'like them', want to destroy in the name of Islam and Allah, and set up a Caliphate.

My theory is this: this is a form of benevolent racism. We see ourselves so much more superior and better developed than 'them' that we set ourselves up as experts, who know better than the subjects of our attention what is going on in their heads, that our Enlightenment, human rights and liberalism are so well developed that we must not apply these principles to these 'other' cultures - it'd be like taking sweets from a baby. Too easy. Note that this is uniquely Western sentiment. Other countries and cultures do not share this perspective. The thing is that this type of benevolent racism perpetuates the very thing it's trying to mitigate - inequality.