The interaction between art as a form of protest and legal boundaries
In early March at the University of Cambridge, a painting of the British politician, Lord Balfour, was spray-painted and slashed by a protestor. Balfour pledged support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the state of Palestine in 1917. This acted as the catalyst for the founding of modern Israel and the Nakba that followed in 1948.
Art has often been used as a form of protest. Some of the earliest cases were documented in ancient Egypt where art was used to critique the pharaohs and the ruling cast. In the 1960s, France was on the brink of a civil war after World War II The economic circumstances at the time sparked a rise in the use of protest art as a major contributor to rebellion. In recent times, the defacement of statues and monuments commemorating colonial figures has been seen. These acts contribute to the decolonisation of museums and university spaces. Examples include the “Rhodes Must Fall” campaign as well as the “Black Lives Matter” protests which critique white supremacism and Apartheid.
In contemporary times, political activism is generally spearheaded by visual culture. Hence, art has the ability to spark a more emotive response in the public. It mobilises people to take action against governments who are complacent in human rights violations. Protest art can raise awareness about global issues and give a voice to marginalised communities. In response to Israel’s relentless war on Gaza, the pro-Palestinian protestors who defaced the painting of Lord Balfour used red paint to symbolise the bloodshed of Palestinian people. They intended to highlight the alarming death toll in Gaza at that time, which had risen beyond 31 000. This is one case which powerfully illustrates how protest art can evoke a response to social, economic, and political issues. Regrettably, in such cases, the protestors may have to reap the legal consequences of their actions.
Some forms of protest art can be seen as controversial and may even be regarded as offensive and inappropriate. In many democratic countries, the act of protesting is lawful. However, in relation to protest art, the consequences may be more severe such as criminal sanctions including fines, or imprisonment. Furthermore, it can be argued that important monuments and artworks may become permanently damaged, and that protest art is another form of vandalism. In the example previously mentioned, the police were actively seeking to apprehend the protestors. Consequently, the University of Cambridge issued a statement regretting the damage to the portrait of Balfour, in an attempt to counteract legal repercussions.
An example of an anonymous street artist who is known for creating politically charged pieces, that have often been dubbed as vandalism is Banksy. His subversive artwork has often led to him being held criminally liable. His art has, however, inspired newer generations of street artists to use their craft as a form of social and political protest. It has also been argued that protest art has a great value as it captures the political mood of an important moment in time and has the power to inspire change. Protest Art empowers groups with inferior influence to challenge those with power such as large institutions and governments.
Thus, the question remains as to what degree protest art should be restricted by the law? In pondering this question, the words of Diego Riviera are worth mentioning when he says, “great protests are great art works”.
Comments