Well, here we are again, involved with the battle of Israel and Palestine. Only this time a suicide bomber is immortalized through a piece of artwork in the Stockholm Museum of Antiquities. Last Friday a Jewish man, Zvi Mazel, disonnected cabling that supported lights for a piece of artwork, which caused it to fall into the set. The artwork was a piece of floating paper in a 'boat' with the picture of the deceased Palestinian bomber Hanadi Jaradat. The solution that the boat was floating in was dyed red water, to resemble blood. Inscribed on the side was 'Snovit' which means Snow White in English. The artwork has been restored since then, and just recently Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a statement supporting the act of vandalism on the artwork. The Stockholm Museum refused to take down the piece, and rightly so, in my opinion.

Now, before you start to criticize me for making that last statement, let me explain how this issue is so much more than simply Israel vs. Palestine:
Artwork is the freedom of expression. This was made so much more apparent by the artwork entitled "Piss Christ", which had a picture of Jesus of Nazareth encased in semi-dried human urine. The art absolutely offended throngs of people, but still it went on exhibit. Not to mention there have been many performing artists who have bent the laws of morality for the sake and pursuit of art. And they still walk among us. And still, many people are offended to this day from events that have happened many years prior.

So why defend the freedom of art? The freedom of expression? Why not limit it, such as our limits on free speech? You think free speech is unlimited, but if you yell "fire" and you don't mean it, you could land in jail. You can say, "I'm going to kill the President today", and end up in a federal looney bin. So where are the restrictions on art? If somebody went to Germany and make a statue of the World Trade Center collapsing, would it be offensive to most people in the United States? Hell yes it would. But it still should be able to stand.

Many moons ago, you could open up one of the original Playboy magazines, and you couldn't even see the pubic region on a woman. Now, you can get a Hustler magazine, or even a popup while surfing the internet, and you have all sorts of graphic images that far exceed those days. The same goes for the new era of Rock 'n Roll. Elvis was evil incarnate to many families, and now you can listen on the radio to gansta rap, and sexually suggestive hip-hop songs. The 'Catcher in the Rye' was banned from schools. Now students have almost unrestrained access to the internet in class. Is this morally wrong, to allow culture to push itself along, or is it inevitable?

My answer, in defense of art, offensive or original, boundary extending or genre-defining, is that culture creates itself. Art may serve as a limitation of society, but if we don't push those boundaries, then we limit ourselves to the same mistakes over and over. By making something offensive, the opposed crowd can redefine their issues, and celebrate unity against a particular tangible force. That is the beauty of the land that we live in. That we may be able to satirize our President, work out our anger in sculpture, and paint our thoughts on a canvas, and let our peers see.

The artists who created the work in Stockholm have offended a nation. And, no doubt they are aware that their piece would be construed as a symbol of antisemitism, but there are other ways of rejecting art, instead of resorting to vandalism. If an architect designs and builds an innovative building on top of a once pristine swath of forest, does that give the right to the Environmentalists to burn it down before it is finished? When offensive public television comes on, do the right-wing Christians have the right to knock out the station's broadcasts? Our society cannot limit ourselves by a minority, and therefore we have choices here. And the same goes with Stockholm. Ariel Sharon should think before he opens his mouth, because he is presiding over cities that house many Jewish structures that are offensive to the Palestinians and Muslims. There has been so much blood shed in that part of the world. It is extremely heinous that there are suicide bombers attacking civilians, but a leader must be wise in his or her statements, and not inflammatory.

Now that I've gone into several tangents, I hope my point can find its way into a plausible form. Artwork should not be taken away for the sake of its offensive nature, instead, the ignorance of it should be exemplified and expounded upon. It should serve as a model of ignorance, and therefore used for a more powerful statement. It is how we define society. It is how we interract with each other. Everyone has experienced discrimination, but we don't remove the source - we educate, protest, write, and set our own example. That is how we are living works of art, and we all deserve to be heard and seen...peacefully.