A controversial piece of artwork that prompted 101 complaints in a week has now been stolen from a Hastings art gallery.
The installation, Flagging the Future, at Te Whare Toi o Heretaunga Hastings Art Gallery asked gallery visitors to “please” walk on top of a quasi-NZ flag.
Councillor Steve Gibson expressed his displeasure with the exhibition earlier this week. Since then there have been small protests outside, 101 complaints to the Hastings District Council and the gallery and at least one trespass notice issued.
The artist and the gallery probably think they are brave and edgy, but in reality they are cowards. They know what they are doing is hugely offensive to most NZers, but they are banking on the fact that the worst they will get is angry e-mails.
Think if the artist and gallery did a different display. Say they had four flags on display on the floor. The NZ ensign, the Tino Rangatiratanga flag, the Rainbow flag and a flag showing Muhammad on it. And they invited people to walk on the flag that displeases them most.
Would they ever do that? Of course not. They are cowards. They know the outrage would be so massive. They pick the safe option of the NZ ensign. They are not being edgy. They are not being provocative. They are just being sad.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
17 comments:
A more underlying concern is the way art is being used as political propaganda by public institutions.
As I recall, this "art" was produced for the ultra woke Dowse Art Gallery in Lower Hutt after one of the Waitangi fiascos when Tama Iti stomped on the NZ flag. Not to be outdone, Ms Prince, who was Dun Mikaka's (recent) ex partner, thought she would put a flag on the floor of the Dowse so other people can stand on that as well.
Now 20 years or so later, this hackneyed idea is doing the rounds of the public galleries to supposedly edify the public, "as a provocative work of art meant to foster dialogue about National identity." I'll hate to guess what these curators think our national identity is.
I thought I would look at Creative NZ's website to see why so much of this political rubbish gets funded. Their legislation says that arts need to promoted for everyone. However their values are only to promote art for diversity, Maori and Pacific Islanders. So where are all the quality NZ artists today? Where are all the 21st Century Goldies, McCahons, Hodgkins, Len Lyes today? They will be busy with their day jobs because only Maori and Pacific Island radicals get funded or exhibited in public galleries.
A flag on the floor to stomp on is NOT ART. It is a thinly disguised political statement.
Other similar junk that poses as "art" have been seen before. For example:-
1/ An outdoor sh*ithouse that brays like a donkey.
2/ A condom placed over the Virgin (Te Papa)
3/ An indoor staircase smothered in paperwork/tickets.
Robert Arthur
I like the four flags idea. Would get me and a myriad others into an art gallery. There would be queues. A problem is 3 flags would need very frequent replacement due wear. Alternatively just the Insurrection flag with "Use to Wipe" would be revealing. No cameras permitted to moderate utu and thus not deter true unrestricted art.
The artist created what they wanted to, they didn’t want to make a strawman, much to Farrier’s disappointment. Shame on the small minded criminal that took it. As a conservative I support freedom of expression, and abhor crime in all its forms. I denounce the cowardly act.
I bet the artist is a lefty. Only those type of gutter rats would do something like that. Do they have no self respect?
I bet anonymous knows nothing about art at all. It’s a free world though, even the uninformed can have a voice. The internet does the rest.
Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981:
"Section 11 Offences involving New Zealand Flag
(1) Every person commits an offence against this Act who,—
(a) without lawful authority, alters the New Zealand Flag by the placement thereon of any letter, emblem, or representation:
(b) in or within view of any public place, uses, displays, destroys, or damages the New Zealand Flag in any manner with the intention of dishonouring it.
(2) In this section the New Zealand Flag means any flag of the design depicted in Schedule 1 or of any other design that so closely resembles it as to be likely to cause any person to believe that it is the design depicted in that schedule.
(3) In any prosecution for an offence against this section the onus of proving that any alteration of the New Zealand Flag was lawfully authorised shall be on the defendant."
Has anything been done to enforce the Act in this case? - Yeh right!
Quote: "...much to Farrier’s disappointment..." Who is "Farrier". ..??!!
According to Michael Laws the "artist" is a former partner of Dun Mihaka famed for presenting his bare backside to royalty in accord with te ao and tikanga. That may not make the artist a lefty but for sure not a rational impartial observer or a friend of civilising colonisers.
@anon 711pm - don’t be so precious. We fight for freedom and that includes freedom of expression. Don’t be such a snowflake. Art is weird and wonderful, we live in a western nation, not some tinpot dictatorship.
Re: Anon 7.11PM: In this fair Country there is little by way of compliance monitoring & enforcement (CME) and where it does occur, it is often the ones bringing attention to wrongdoing that are placed under the microscope and find enforcement applied to them.
No anon 7:11, nothing has been done nor will it ever be. The clown Tama Iti got away with it because prosecution would have given him a bigger stage to perform on. I see the bloke who nicked it has been charged with "theft of artwork worth $15000" What a joke. I'm sure an insurance company wouldn't value it at that! I agree with an earlier comment about seeing the reaction if a maori sovereignty flag was put down to walk on!
Anon @ 9.16pm: Oh Dear! "We fight for freedom and that includes freedom of expression. Don’t be such a snowflake."
Being ex-military and well into my 70's, I have never been described as a snowflake, I'm touch and honoured ... also, you can have your freedom of expression, just be aware that there is a specific law against defacing our flag - an act that here is not art.
I guess art is weird but I don't know about wonderful in this specific case, I'd call it something else. As for being in a "western nation, not some tinpot dictatorship" - I sometimes wonder since we are about as far east as we can get and elements of our society seem to want to put us back in the stone age.
Totally agree, some of these conservatives see hell-bent on dragging us back to the dark ages. Simon O’Connor want to make abortion illegal again, Castello wants to bring back smoking. Even measles is making a comeback under Luxon’s watch! I don’t mind me some retro, but this isn’t what I had in mind.
Anon 946 seems to be a little bit confused. Is he claiming that the 'artists' were conservatives? I don't see any reference to conservatives in this little piece. The connection between the flags and abortion, tobacco and measles eludes me too.
I'm not giving the flag back either ;-)
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.