Art, Creativity, Critique: What are the limits to freedom of speech/ expression?
Conversation #1: Art, Creativity, Critique: What are the limits to freedom of speech/ expression?
With Christos Hadjioannou and Nicos Trimikliniotis
Guest artist- George Gavriel
Collaborating artist- Zoe Polycarpou
Date: 2 December 2020
Hosted by the #VAHANicosiaHub: Visual Voices, Symfiliosi and Yfantourgeio TheWorkplace
[In case the embedded video doesn’t work, click here]
The position I defend tonight differs from the mainstream position of the Left but also of the Liberal right in Cyprus, which is pro unconditional freedom of expression. I will try to argue why art does not and cannot enjoy absolute freedom YET. My analysis will rather complicate things rather than simplify.
1. George Gavriel’s art
- Topic very timely because of the discussion that was started on social media after the artist, George Gavriel, posted his artworks on social media.
- He was accused of “blasphemy” (“he insulted the sacred and the holy”), of “hate speech” (against Orthodox Christians + Greek Cypriot nationalists), and a disciplinary enquiry was started (still ongoing).
- His paintings depicted: (1) naked Jesus with a visible penis; (2) Jesus in ordinary daily life scenes; (3) a dog peeing on a statue of the controversial historical figure Grivas Digenis; (4) a dog peeing on a statue of the Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus, Chrysostomos II.
- As I have argued elsewhere, in my opinion the Church’s position has been contradictory on this. Gavriel’s depictions of Jesus did not insult the sacred and the holy. They depicted a sacred figure of Christ, despite what the Church accused him of and by the way never substantiated. As far as the naked depictions of Christ are concerned, there is historical precedent both in the Orthodox Church, but also mostly in the Catholic Church. As far as the popular depictions of Christ, i.e. riding a motorbike or as a football fan: such depictions are not uncommon in certain Christian denominations. Therefore, there is no issue of insulting the holy. It is a different interpretation that retains holiness, and it has to be respected as an expression of belief.
- Gavriel’s paintings do constitute a critique of state ideology and of the political status quo. They “speak truth to power”. However, his artworks also express a substantial percentage that belongs to the same ethnic/religious group that is ostensibly “insulted”: the Greek-Cypriot community. Remember: Gavriel IS a member of the same community, despite his distancing. Just like me and Nicos are members of this community. I was raised a Christian and so was Giorgos, and our families (still) practice Christianity. We were taught from the same history books. This is important to note because it is a good starting point on why Gavriel’s case differs from Charlie Hebdo. In sum: Gavriel’s artworks emerge from the margins of the Greek-Cypriot Christian Orthodox community. And let us not omit the fact that many practicing Christians are very disappointed even disgusted by Archbishop Chrysostomos II’s overall autocratic behaviour.
2. Definition of Art (ontology)
- Before we start addressing the issue of the limits of freedom of art, let me pose the deeper ontological question first, namely what is art itself and how does it “work” or how does it “happen”. From an ontological point of view, it does not make sense to speak of an absolute freedom of art, one that has no limits.
- Art needs limits in order to happen. Limits are a necessary condition for the emergence of art. I am not referring to legal prohibitions here. I am referring to deeper conditional limits.
- The most fundamental limit of art is its opposite, its negation: whatever is non-art imposes a limit. Each artwork is finite, it has a beginning and an end. There are various types of things in the world. Art is a type of thing among other types of things, for example “tools”. (So an artwork is not a tool, whereas a weaponized expression that directs hate and incites violence works like a tool àceases to work as an artwork and works as a tool-weapon). These limitations are not only the “end” of an artwork, but also the beginning of art: non-art is the condition of possibility for emergence of art, because art is a phenomenon that emerges in a space, and that space before the happening is a non-artistic space.
- WHAT counts as art is historically conditioned and relative. What now counts as art, in the past it did not. For example, think about Duchamp’s urinal.
- How are these ontological limits relevant to our conversation on the legal limits of freedom of artistic expression? Let me elaborate. We rarely agree on whether an artwork is good, mediocre or bad. But sometimes we also disagree on something deeper, namely on whether something isart at all. It is important to agree on whether something is an artwork because art legally enjoys more freedom than other forms of expression. Therefore, often people will try to deny that an object or a praxis has the status of an artwork, so as to deny it the freedom that comes with artistic expression, the so-called “poetic license”. This HAS happened with Gavriel’s artworks for example: some people said “it is not art”. Sometimes the opposite happens, too: something that is not art is hypocritically “baptized” as art so as to camouflage hate speech.
3. Art needs extra freedom because artistic creation is dialectical; if you have rigid laws then these will be broken
- As I have argued, Giorgos Gavriel’s artworks speak truth to power. It is important for art to enjoy legal freedom so as to safeguard the conditions for parrhesia to maintain itself. That is, to safeguard the potential for revolutionary, subversive praxis against oppressive establishment.
- While art needs limits, these limits are moveable. There is no a priori metaphysical schema. Art is the very act of moving/shifting limits because art is dialectical. Art is dialectical in the sense that it can both turn the sacred into profane and the profane into sacred.
- It is also difficult to a priori regulate the process of artistic production. Art involves imagination and inspiration. More often than not, it is not a controlled experiment (although sometimes it can be). Often, it transcends the intention of the artist or the intention of the viewer. It is a recalcitrant procedure. Reception and interpretation is also a similar process, in the sense that it requires a certain openness and often it is unpredictable how it will be received. (This is not the case with other kinds of expressions, such as linguistic threats or acts of violence).
4. Art is not “expression”
- Another reason why art ought to enjoy more freedom than other forms of expression is precisely the fact that it differs from other forms of expression in that it does not always try to communicate something specific. Art has a disclosive character, that is it discloses a certain truth and an aspect of a world, that is not translatable into a declarative sentence about a state of affairs (in the way a libellous sentence would), or in the way an imperative sentence works (such as a threat or incitement to violence).
- This creates a question: are artworks expressions to begin with?
5. Logic behind prohibition of artworks
- Freedom of expression conflicts with right to freedom of belief and other rights, as well as other legal barriers. (For example, rape, murder, etc.)
- Art is sometimes weaponized in order to do the opposite of what parrhesia does. It is weaponized in order to oppress the weak. This is the case with Charlie Hebdo, for example. It is used to attack an othercommunity and cultivate hatred against them or indeed incite violence against them.
- This is where Charlie Hebdo differs from George Gavriel’s artworks. The latter is immanent: it takes place from within the community it shakes, which is at the same time the oppressive establishment. The former does it from the outside of the community it “attacks” and to a minority (Muslims in France). Key message: CONTEXT and power structure matters.