The State Hermitage Museum: Information

The Art of Provocation
Article in Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti
Issue No. 205, October 24, 2012

There is a reason to talk about provocation. Provocation is the actions by people to force others to act in a manner unfavourable to themselves, wrong or in a manner that they did not intend to do so openly.

For Russia, provocation is a familiar modus operandi. This is the country of Azef, where during the struggle between revolutionaries and state security both parties made use of provocations. There were numerous provocations during the history of the 20th century. It is known to be the easiest way of fighting an enemy. The technique is to detect him, force into action and then punish. By studying the history of provocation it is possible to learn from past experiences, to see who initiates the provocation and how people respond.

In the 10th century following the Moorish conquest of Spain a society developed which historians believe to be one of co-existence. It was a prosperous nation where Muslim, Christian and Jew lived together quite peacefully. Christian and Jew worked in the Caliph's court. Some adopted Islam, others did not. The nature of the social structure was simple: you could retain your religion but for this you had to pay an additional tax, behave well and do not act against Islam.

What happened? A priest came to the court in Cordoba and in the course of a conversation he began to actively insult the Islamic faith and the Prophet Muhammad. Everyone knows this is a terrible crime. Muhammad is not God. No miracles have been ascribed to him. This is a man God chose. He did what he was entrusted to do. It is impossible to offend God. Muhammad is defenceless, and such insults are severely punished.

The judge, to whom the priest went, knew all this. But he was used to a peaceful life and had no desire to behead him. He chose a council which nonetheless had to sentence the guilty man to death. Then, somewhere else another man openly defied Islam. This time there was no hurry to execute him, his actions were brought before the Emir’s court. A series of actions then took place against Islam in various parts of Spain. The people who did these are known as the Martyrs of Cordoba. There were 48 of them, known by name.

This is a special category of martyr. They did not hide their faith in the face of persecution, as during the Roman times. These people were deliberately provocative and were executed. The death of the Cordoban Martyrs helped the Christian rulers of Spain. While the country was peaceful, many Christians converted to Islam. The stability of the country was destroyed. This is a typical example of a political, well-thought out provocation.

The very same thing has occurred in our day with the caricatures of Muhammad. If you attack a weak spot, it will be followed by an explosion. The question is, who makes the initial attack and who provides for the explosion.

It is clear that anti-Islamic provocations do not occur in isolation. The caricatures of Muhammad were initially published in a Danish paper, which few people read. And suddenly Muslims around the world find out about the caricatures, and riots, arson and murders follow. Such a terrible story. And then for the second time everyone knows about the cartoons. Finally a film appears and even the Russian title is unclear, either it is the Innocence of Muslims or the Guiltlessness of Muslims. The film was on the internet, and no one paid any attention to it. It was translated into Arabic and broadcast on Arabic television. The world caught fire. Who did this? In an earlier period we would say either the KGB or the CIA. Now, they don’t need it, but there is one group that is traditionally Muslim - the Shiites. Now they have become a powerful group, not only a religious but a political force in the Middle East. These are people who have over hundreds of years been skilled in intrigue, the organisation of secret societies and riots. Fitna is the term used for Arab revolutions. It is a mutiny using religious elements for political motives.

Without a doubt, the artistic works - caricatures and films - can offend people. For example, the Martin Scorsese movie The Last Temptation of Christ is offensive to the idea many have of the divine nature of Jesus Christ. It is offensive but not provocative.

We have encountered a series of provocations. Recently Salman Rushdie’s autobiography has been published. The author of the Satanic Verses swears that if he knew how much blood would flow, he would have written even worse about Muhammad. He did not intend to provoke anyone, he had already been a famous author when he wrote the Satanic Verses. Journals published extracts where he describes the black preacher, devouring people, having created a revolution - Khomeini. There were lines where the author makes disrespectful remarks about Muhammad and political references. Some religious indignation, some social discontent was sufficient to set the masses off.

The world is inflamed by a wretched film or some lines of verse. No one is capable of restraining their words. The protestors don’t know the meaning of what they are protesting against. In this manner accumulated dissatisfaction with life is poured out. Indignation grows in those unhappy about the Arab revolution who have seen that it is sinister, intolerant, and bloody. Peaceful development is not allowed.

The situation with religious and political provocations using the example of the Islamic world is clear. There is an answer to the question of what to do. There is one solution - do not give way to provocation. They lead to instability within society and fill people's lives with distractions from important problems.

This is the political side. But art can also be provocative. And it is a characteristic feature of modern art. This has always been so. Malevich's Black Square is an artistic provocation. Impressionists, Fauvists and many other artists made deliberate use of scandal. Museums have for a long time faced provocation. Marinetti's manifesto is wellknown as are the Russian Futurists: let's destroy museums, they are dumps, cemeteries... Incidentally, the sale of paintings from Russian museums in the West have been associated with this idea. Classical art is a junk, if it is appreciated abroad, let them pay for it. We have progressive, avant-garde art. When State Hermitage Museum paintings were being returned from Moscow, Commissioner Nikolai Punin said: "It's good that they have been returned but nobody wants them." Museums have responded to such performances quietly, you do your job, we do ours, and we'll see how it goes.

Contemporary art needs close observation. We often say that 50% is quackery. How do we know what is real? Pictures on the walls, made during the Arab revolution, are not art today because it is war now. In 200 years, they will be art. The Muhammad cartoons are not art, but stylistically they are treated like art. Art ends where it becomes a political provocation. To what extent is it within the scope of criminal prosecution is not our issue. It is important not to succumb to provocations, and know how to counter them.

When the famous group Voina (War) drew, excuse me, a penis on the bridge in front of the FSB it was political provocation. The same was done on Palace Square. The drawing was quickly erased there and the reaction which the organisers had calculated on didn’t occur.

I have already said how everything is shallow, even provocations. Serious actions were carried out by Soviet dissidents, when our forces entered Czechoslovakia. People deliberately went to the place of execution in order to be arrested. There was meaning in this act.

Today everyone except the idle talks about Pussy Riot. The issue is not whether the girls are guilty or not, whether they are hooligans or not, or under what legislation they are tried. We are without a doubt dealing with a deliberate provocation; it should cause a hard-line response. The provocation was successful. Society is engaged a good deal more in this case than it deserves.

The boundary between art and provocation is determined by the museum. This is its function. The Chapman brothers' exhibition, which we have just opened in the General Staff building, is doubtless provocative. Their exhibition has a political side to it - Hitlerism and the war. But it is at an artistic level and does not transverse the boundary of politics. It is a philosophical discussion on the horrors of war and the horror of human nature with its violent tendency. The artists' work is not offensive to anyone other than fascists.

I shall say it again, provocation which offends people goes beyond the confines of art. You can laugh, you can protest, but you cannot offend.

There are many examples of artistic provocation. Now they love to focus on religion, and not so much religion as religious institutions. In my opinion, this is a deliberate attack on the Russian church. The answer must be for the art community to ignore such acts and mark such actions out of the art sphere.

The Prayer in a church was an act of hooliganism, and not artistry. To attack icons with an axe is an insult. An exhibition with an original storyline icon arrangement is possible, if it does not cause offence to believers.