We live in the so-called Age of Terror. After the watershed of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and later the London bombings, many argue that the politics of fear have been used by Governments around the world to maintain power and justify censorship of the arts.
But the politics of fear – and indeed censorship of the arts – have been with us for millennia.
Around 483 BC the Athenian politician and general Themistocles played on a longstanding feud between the people of Athens and neighbouring Aegina, in order to raise funds to build warships that were eventually used to defeat the Persians. Little has changed, politically speaking, since then.
As Sara Ahmed wrote in her 2005 New Internationalist feature ‘Be Very Afraid’, “When George Bush articulates the imperative, ‘we must wage War on Terror’, he evokes our fear to suit his purpose.”
“His purpose”, seems to many to have been to wage war against Iraq and Afghanistan, while picking up contracts for, predominantly, American and British companies to ‘rebuild’ the beleaguered nations.
Former Prime Minister Blair held the crayon with President Bush as they painted a picture of Western civil society at risk of destruction from a rag-tag army of guerilla insurgents. The image of Western culture under attack from uncivilized barbarians is a strong one, as successful today as it was when employed by Themistocles.
Nobody really knows how much the War on Terror has cost UK taxpayers. Estimates hover somewhere between £5 billion and £7 billion. The cost to civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t lived through war.
The way in which Terror has impacted artists and affected arts censorship has surprised many, but perhaps its too easy to think that only terrorism is to blame.
Writing less than a year after 9/11, cultural critic Jeff Chang argued that music “used to be the dominant force against war” but that musicians seem to think it’s “easier to shut up and get paid.”
Chang said that since the fall of the Twin Towers, “We’ve seen dozens of acts quietly bury their edgier songs. We’ve seen radio playlists rewritten so as not to ‘offend listeners’ … Message music is being pinched off by an increasingly monopolized media industry suddenly eager to please the White House.”
Speaking at a press conference before Denmark’s Roskilde Festival 2003, indie pop icon Damon Albarn suggested that global music corporations “shy away from, or suppress, groups or solo acts who might have critical and sharp opinions, which the companies feel might come across as explicit and problematic for the record buying audience.”
Albarn added, “Of course, as a musician you’re not prevented from making music just because there’s censorship from the big companies, but your access to the public via commercial channels is quite often hindered, which means that some musicians won’t be able to make a living.”
The ability of artists to make a living has been at the heart of many of the arts censorship stories that have been reported.
In June Guardian blogger and editor of The Philosophers’ Magazine, Julian Baggini, reported a tale of commercial censorship concerning Chinese film director Xiaolu Guo.
When Xiaolu Guo decided to make her first feature she had to choose between accepting funding from a major production company and making the film “their way”, or going it alone and relinquishing the chance to have national/international distribution.
Baggini writes, “Suffice it to say it was an example of a general problem that some issues and topics are judged to be too sensitive to voice in certain countries. It’s not that the authorities won’t let you talk about them, it’s just that distribution channels shy away from the wrong kind of controversial.”
In the same vein as Albarn, Baggini says this is tantamount to letting market forces censor whatever is unlikely to be commercially successful. But artists are not dumb players when it comes to censorship.
Artists who consent to having their work edited, ‘toned down’, or put on hold until more favourable market conditions exist, are effectively advocating censorship. Likewise, when venues such as the Tate Britain, (who decided not to include God is Great in a display of works by the British artist John Latham, so as not to offend Muslims) and touring companies like the RSC, (who made Sir Ian McKellen keep his pants on when King Lear plays in Singapore) bow to pressure to remove or censor artworks, it is those who would expect to champion artistic freedom of expression who take on the role of censor.
It is easy to pass judgment and say that anyone who allows artwork to be censored is a fool or a menace. The trouble is that all of the above risked terrible consequences by not consenting to censorship.
Even before 9/11 the American Congress was suggesting that funding to cultural institutions, such as the Brooklyn Museum, which were labeled “offensive” should be cancelled.
Post 9/11 musicians who criticized the war effort faced the wrath of The Big Four if they released music that could be classified as offensive, resulting in reduced record sales.
Artists who defy pressure to have their work censored run the risk of damaging their careers. Venues that defy censors risk material damage. The question is, is the price of consenting to censorship potentially greater than the immediate gains that come from being censored now?
