Naeem — Journalisms — Homeland Security meets "Homeland"
Comments Off on Naeem — Journalisms — Homeland Security meets "Homeland"Naeem — Journalisms — Homeland Security meets “Homeland”
————————————————————
“Journalisms:” or “Our Correspondent:” or “?”
The title and mission of this collective project
is a work in progress. But the general idea is
that we cannot be in all places at all times.
So those who would like to can write a “report”
or “editorial” or “correspondence” to share
experiences for the benefit of others.
To take part, send submission or for more information
please write to journalisms@16beavergroup.org
or post online:
www.16beavergroup.org/journalisms/contact.php
————————————————————
Homeland Security meets “Homeland”
A review by Naeem Mohaiemen
06.25.03
“Why are Americans this way?” This was the persistent ambush question
in Dhaka. I went back to visit Bangladesh soon after Baghdad fell.
This trip, old school friends only wanted to talk about one thing:
America. More specific: the invasion of Iraq, and the “overwhelming”
support for Bush. Everyone took as gospel a poll taken during the
invasion, which claimed 70% support for the White House.
I agreed with some arguments, but also disagreed with stereotypes.
Most persistent was the cliche about the “average American”– they’re
complacent, they don’t resist, they accept immigrant-bashing and
warmongering, the list went on…
A welcome antidote to all this doom-and-gloom came as soon as I
returned to New York– with the opening of the “Homeland” exhibit.
Provoked by the dreaded Dept. of Homeland Security, this is
double-barreled political art with no holds barred. During the last
Documenta, critics grumbled that too much of that work was overtly
political and agenda-driven. That debate hasn’t muzzled the Homeland
artists. There’s no mistaking the targets in this exhibition– the
Pentagon war machine, manipulation of patriotism, surveillance society,
the Israeli occupation, and decimation of Native Americans.
A little background here. The Homeland invite came courtesy of my
friend, Palestinian artist Ayreen Anastas. Her work in the exhibition,
“m* of Bethlethem” is a video map describing a “homeland lived under
occupation and geopolitical displacement.” Ayreen is part of the 16
Beaver art collective, and last year she initiated a spectacular piece
of resistance art that also morphed into raging controversy. In summer
of 2002, I received notice about a new exhibition that she and artist
Rene Gabri were mounting at White Box Gallery. Named “Radioactive,” it
was a series of radio shows on 9-11 and its discontents. Premiering on
the first anniversary, it would obviously carry a “big” political
message. Though I skip many art openings, I dutifully marked off this
one on my calendar.
So far, so good.
One day after the opening, we suddenly received an e-mail on the 16
Beaver mailing list. The Dept. of Homeland Security’s Cultural Bureau
(hscb.org) had shut down the exhibit, citing “potentially dangerous
content”. Several people had been to the Gallery to find it closed
down. Astounded, I went to the Cultural Bureau’s website. Nestled
between stories about other department initiatives was the closure
announcement. The notice referred to the “cultural sabotage act”, but
didn’t specify what was “objectionable” about the exhibit.
Stunned and outraged, I found it easy to get mobilized. Here was a
chance to tap directly into resistance networks we’d been building
since 2001. I wrote immediately to Ayreen. What do you need? Do you
have a lawyer? Can the gallery help? My cousin contacted a Federal
judge, who promised to get the Wall Street Journal to send a reporter.
By coincidence, I’d just purchased David Cole’s new book, “Terrorism &
the Constitution.” A good book about the crackdown on civil liberties,
with a startling cover image of a shredded copy of the constitution.
Leafing through it, I began to wonder if Cole himself could be
contacted.
A flurry of e-mail condemnations followed, all from the art world.
Several prominent artists condemned the closure and forwarded the
e-mail. Activists also chimed in. Someone suggested a press
conference. But within 24 hours of the first announcement came a
second e-mail. There had been no closure of the exhibition, and there
was no Cultural Bureau under the Dept. of Homeland Security! The
entire chain of events: planning and promotion of the exhibit, then its
closure, shuttering the gallery, and even the website for the Cultural
Bureau were planned and executed by Ayreen and Rene.
Incredulous, I went back to the website. But of course– there were
telltale signs, why hadn’t I noticed them before? The description of
the Bureau’s mission sounded plausible, but there was an over-the-top
quality to the breathless prose. Perhaps the offer of a magazine
subscription should have been a tip-off. Why would the obsessively
secretive Bush government be publishing a magazine about the Dept. of
Homeland Security? For those who looked closely, there were enough
clues to tip you off to the “art intervention” cloaked as a closure
order.
The interesting thing was that I had found it entirely plausible. I
found it logical that the government would create a cultural affairs
bureau, which would monitor the “appropriateness” of art. Why not?
Scarier things had already happened- reality was a daily dose of
Orwellian satire. The fact that the entire event had been so
believable was precisely the artists’ point, and they had made it in
the only way possible– by staging it as a real event, and not warning
anyone in advance.
Not everyone shared my outlook. Particularly livid were senior art
world figures, outraged at being “taken in by a hoax.” Several e-mails
accused the artists of acting irresponsibly and trivializing the issue
of censorship. Heated debates followed, ending in a forum at the 16
Beaver gallery. At the forum, Ayreen and Rene were interested in the
intensity of the reactions, and wanted to create a forum for people to
articulate their concerns, doubts, questions and positions central to
the work.
With that context in mind, I knew when I received Ayreen’s invite that
this new exhibition wouldn’t be a coy affair. I wasn’t disappointed.
As I walked into the CUNY Art Center, the words “Homeland” were
emblazoned on a large window, in front of a wall of photographs of
raised fists. One of them might even be the black-gloved salute from
the ’68 Olympics. Organized by the Whitney Museum Independent Study
Program’s Curatorial Fellows, the show “draws attention to the recent
mobilization of the term [Homeland] as well as its broader historical
connotations.” Perhaps that’s why some of the fists on that wall were
white. Could there be white power events (perhaps even Nazi
rallies…) mixed in with civil rights moments?
The exhibition is divided into two kinds of work. There is work
highlighting the historical background of the present clampdown on
civil liberties. Then there are interactive staged events. The most
thought-provoking work is in the second category, Emily Jacir’s “sexy
semite” (more on that later).
In the first category, there is “The People” (Jonathan Horowitz)– a
wall of photographs, downloaded from the internet, of 25 celebrities
who were major donors to Bush’s election campaign. The photos seem
carelessly selected– many have website text splashed across the
bottom. The haphazard selection (and uneven print quality) doesn’t
lessen the shock of seeing some of these faces. It’s no surprise to
see Bruce Willis (with a cartoonish Anna Nicole Smith at Planet
Hollywood), Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norri– macho men and
life-long Republicans. But Ricky Schroder? Drew Carey? Farrah
Fawcett? And even a naked Bo Derek, getting splashed by the waterfall
in “10”! If Brigite Bardot can mutate into an immigrant-hating griot
of the French right, why not Bo as well?
In the opposite corner, Barbara Pollock’s “America’s Army” is a
split-screen video. In the top half are the eyes of a teenager who is
playing a video game, the game screen itself is in the bottom half. At
first glance it seems to be a first-person shooter game. The one thing
that stands out is that there are only targets, no live bodies being
shot to pieces. If you don’t look at the explanatory sign, you may not
realize that the game was designed by the US army. The sign explains,
” this game was created to interest young teenagers in army
recruitment.” At the end of the video loop, our player seems to lose,
and the viewer is left with the image of a dead GI (presumably the
shooter) sprawled on the floor.
There are also some more obvious exhibits– the ones that interested me
the least. A shopping cart full of American flags, a collage of
declassified FBI reports, and a crudely made corporate CEO statue (a
parody of Cigar Store Indians). There’s also “Minaret”, a video
project where Michael Rakowitz plays the Islamic call to prayer (adhan)
from a clock radio, via amplified bullhorn, from the rooftops of tall
Manhattan buildings. The video left me wanting to see shots of
bystanders on the street– their reactions would have completed the
loop of this work.
The standout piece is “sexy semite,” a simple media intervention staged
by Emily Jacir. Over the last three years, she staged this event at
random times through the pages of the Village Voice. The Voice’s
personal ads sections are usually a destination for both serious
relationship-seekers and fetishists. Buried within those personals,
Emily posted ads of Palestinians who wanted to marry Jews and migrate
to Israel. The ads played on many levels: the miscegenation anxieties
that surround inter-racial unions, the shared heritage yet divergent
realities of Jews and Arabs, the politics of race and sexuality, and of
course, Israel’s “right of return”– which allows Jews born anywhere
the right to immigrate to Israel, but doesn’t give rights to those who
are from occupied Palestine.
The ads range from the seemingly innocuous (“Buxom redheaded
Palestinian seeks athletic Jewish man for LTR”, “Dusky eyed beauty
seeks loving companion”), to the comic (“No fatties”) and overt (“You
stole the land, might as well steal the women. I’m ready to be
colonized by your army”). Yet in spite of the blatant provocation,
many readers did not see it as a political project. Mounted above
printouts of the actual ads were three articles. As I started reading
them, I expected criticism of the politics, or denunciations that the
project “trivialized” the conflict (like the earlier White Box
project). If only! In the super-heated political environment of post
9-11 America, instead of seeing it as political provocation, some
quarters feared a more malicious intention. Two articles warned
readers to steer clear of these ads, warning that it might be a plot to
dupe and kidnap (and who know what else?) unsuspecting Jewish New
Yorkers. “Our phone calls were not answered,” rumbled one article.
Caveat emptor.
George Bush launched a post 9-11 “crusade” and later changed the term
after the obvious parallel was pointed out. The invasion plans were
renamed from “Operation Infinite Justice” to “Enduring Freedom” when
Muslims accused the White House of having a God-complex. Similarly,
the term “Homeland” has traveled from Hitler Youth and South African
“bantustans” to the present Bush administration — an etymology with
its own twisted logic. In a witless and fanatical time, resistance art
is a valuable tool for fighting back. The Homeland exhibit continues
the process of challenging the surveillance state and subverting its
language.
“Homeland” runs through June 29th, at The Art Gallery of the Graduate
Center/CUNY, 365 Fifth Avenue at 34th Street. Details at
homelandexhibition.com
AUTHOR BIO: Naeem Mohaiemen runs Shobak.Org, a website for “Outsider
Asian Voices”