This photo showcases the artwork of the subversive British artist "Banksy" on the Palestinian side of the Israeli West Bank barrier. The barrier runs for 470 miles along and within the West Bank, and separates Israel from Palestine. It was erected by Israeli authorities to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorist attacks and is considered illegal by the United Nations. Banksy, who saw the wall as the "ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers" has stated that the wall "essentially turns Palestine into the world's largest open prison," according to his website. Banksy created nine images along the barrier and was met by tension from Israeli security forces who pointed guns at him and shot rounds in the air to threaten him. According to Banksy's website, a Palestinian man told him that his paintings made the wall look beautiful. After Banksy thanked him the man replied, "We don't want it to be beautiful; we hate this wall. Go home."
This photo interested me on many levels. First, by taking the photo, the photographer is allowing a temporary piece of art to live on in history. Although street art is gaining the admiration of art critics worldwide, it is still illegal and considered vandalism by many. Most street art is short lived, since it comes to life on public spaces or private property and can be quickly whitewashed over. As Berger states, "a photograph arrests the time in which the event photographed once exisisted" (86). Preserving the art in a photo allows the art to continue to speak against the establishment. The British government continues to remove Banksy's art in public spaces (regardless of the huge reputation and popularity Banksy has attained) to enforce their condemnation of graffiti. An original piece of Banksy's art has been sold by art auctioneers for as high as $576,000.
Secondly, as the photographer decided to capture the image of Banksy's armored dove with a Palestinian woman walking in front of it, he or she changes the tone and message of Banksy's image. I viewed another photo of the same dove, but the second one featured a member of the Palestinian security forces standing in front of the dove, holding an AK47. In the photo above, the dove seemed like a guardian, watching over the woman who was standing in front of the wall where forty Palestinians had previously been shot to death. In the second image, the irony of the armored dove is highlighted, as the symbol for peace is juxtaposed with an image of violence and war, emphasizing that no peace is secure. As the photographers decide what to include and exclude in their photos, they are taking creative agency away from the image's original creator and creating their own narratives.
As for traditions, the dove pulls from a religious tradition dating back to the biblical story of the dove released by Noah after the great flood. The dove is a symbol for peace in the Christian religion. The image also draws on social themes such as anti-war, anti-imperialism, and anti-authoritarianism.
Questions:
Should photographers have the license to distort/emphasize/construct meaning for another artist's work? Did Banksy's image have a true meaning to begin with?
Some people oppose Banksy's art on the West Bank barrier as it has increasingly drawn Western tourism to the area. Tourists are drawn by their interest in seeing a Westerner's mural on a wall that is ruining the lives of many Palestinians. Do outsiders have the authority to give meaning to an event that they are not directly involved in? Should people view art as a purely aesthetic form, or should they always be seeking to understand the meaning of the images?
Aimee,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a cool photo. I'm a bit confused as to how I might interpret it, however. It sounded as if you thought it might be intended to be an expression of peace (maybe I misunderstood you). To me it seems as if the artist intended it to show how peace is being killed/thwarted: an image of a dove with what looks like a bullet-proof vest with a target on its chest.
In response to your first question, it seems to me that an artist never really has control over how his or her work will be received and reconfigured once they've put it out into the world. I'm thinking now of something like the theory of intertextuality, in which all texts are thought to be connected like a web; new texts take bits and pieces of old texts and re-interpret and reconfigure them in ways unintended by the original authors. We all do this to some extent whether consciously or not. As well, I'm reminded of the article we read by Foss last week where she talks about the difference in a visuals intended purpose (which comes from the creator) and function (which is how it actually affects the viewers).
Aimee,
ReplyDeleteBanksy's work is always a joy of analysis, especially in regard to the author's attitude towards such work. As an individual that retains anonymity and only works through third-parties in the display/auctioning of such work, it raises a lot of questions in terms of who determines the meaning of a piece of art. Street art also brings into question the issue of ownership, as who owns the stencil of a rat pasted to the side of a building? (Especially since I remember hearing that such a piece had been auctioned off, but the matter of removing or "collecting" the artwork was left to the new owner). I think artists such as Banksy highlight the transience of meaning, often making use of imagery that clearly holds a symbolic implication while simultaneously refusing to "spell out" direct intent. I agree with Ryan that an artist never has true control over the reception of a piece of art, and I think Banksy highlights that fact through his style (the use of stencils) and the fact that he creates street art.
The larger question of granting meaning from a distant perspective is even more troubling. Bringing to bear a Western lens on issues such as these always carries the risk of misunderstanding. Yet, also irresponsible is simply looking at a situation and essentially stating, "this is beyond my scope of knowledge and I should just back away quietly before anyone notices I was looking." I love the questions you raised!
Aimee,
ReplyDeleteWhen you mention the religious connotations of the dove, I begin to think about the kinds of audience that this piece can speak to. Considering a dove as a symbol of peace seems to demand a particular, Western cultural context. I wonder, then, what meaning this picture would have to someone who does not have a Western background. Additionally, how would our interpretation differ if we weren't first told that this was taken in the West Bank?