If you don’t like anything, just say
Another museum caves.
A Bangladeshi-British photographer is complaining that her work has been censored by the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. A documentary work made in Bangladesh by Syra Miah and shown as part of the museum’s Art and Islam exhibitions was removed because it contained an image of a semi-naked woman.
Update: See these comments at Mediawatchwatch for more. A reader wrote to the museum, and the museum replied with a different take. It explains the decision, which sounds less loopy than the Guardian account did, and adds “The gallery discussed the matter with Syra Miah, and the photograph was
removed on 18 July with her full agreement. Our understanding following
these discussions was that Syra Miah said that she understood the reasons
for the removal and accepted the decision. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery
had not heard from the artist about this matter since the time the work was
removed 7 weeks ago in July.”
I had amused myself composing a good old fulimination, but since it may have been inaccurate and hence unfair, I snarled gently and then decided that truth matters, so it’s gone.
There have been further developments on this. Subsequent enquiries to the gallery show that they are essentially calling Syra Miah a liar for denying she was consulted.
In an email to a mediawatchwatch reader a spokesperson for the gallery said:
The gallery discussed the matter with Syra Miah, and the photograph was
removed on 18 July with her full agreement. Our understanding following
these discussions was that Syra Miah said that she understood the reasons
for the removal and accepted the decision. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery
had not heard from the artist about this matter since the time the work was
removed 7 weeks ago in July.
Better tread carefully…
Ah, thanks, David – I’ll revise that comment then. I did at least say ‘according to Miah’ – but perhaps once wasn’t enough.
Drat, a good rant wasted!
Morning. I’m the mediawatchwatch reader in question, and I’ve sent the museum a follow-up along the lines of:
Thanks for the decent reply, but essentially you’re saying that since a work of art might have been open to subjective interpretation by the audience, and that interpretation might not have suited one particular group of artists, then the work was removed.
[They wrote: “Syra Miah’s work is a personal photographic record of Bangladesh. In
curating the show, the artist had specifically asked for no contextual
information to be provided with the photographs. This left the work
concerned, a photograph entitled “Waiting (2005)” open to potential
misunderstanding.
Within days of the photograph going on display the ‘Artists Circle’ arts
organisation expressed concern at the display of this photograph in
relation to the criteria agreed for the Art & Islam programme. The gallery
recognised that this is a unique case where context is particularly
important.”]
I’ve requested a reason why this should be a unique case? Are we returning to Victorian fig-leaf application? Is it something to do with the involvement of good old evidence-free supernaturalism?
I’ve also asked them whether, since the artist disputes their version of events, there is any documentary evidence to settle that issue..?
I’ll keep folks posted as to any further response.
Paul Foot was absolutely right – anyone can be a journalist. You’ve just got to ask questions…
p.s. I’ve emailed Ms. Miah, requesting a comment on the BMAG statement. I hope she does, since they ARE in essence publically calling her a liar.
Again, I’ll keep ya posted..
Thanks, Andy; do keep us posted. Good work.
I hate to say it, but I can see the museum’s point. If there’s no contextual information, Miah’s explanation in the article about the homeless woman must be unavailable to the viewers. In other words…in the article she explains its presence in substantive terms (it’s about something, it’s making a case), but by keeping contextual information out, she prevents viewers from seeing it that way. Those two things don’t seem to make sense together. If that’s what the museum was thinking, well…I can see their point.
From the Artists Circle Website http://artistscircle.org.uk/statement.htm
The photo in question, and an interesting perspective, can be found here;
http://www.iwrnews.org/tasneem/archives/who-is-censoring-on-behalf-of-islam
Thanks, BA. I’ll add that to the update.
It really doesn’t seem all that unreasonable.