I want to address something my colleagues from Israel pointed out — that there’s a certain movement inside the international community toward the cancellation of Israeli artists. (The original posts were by Dasha Ilyashenko, and the response by Kate Finkelstein) Part of this movement involves being on the “right side of history,” which, at least for now, in the eyes of those people, means being against the war in Gaza.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a process like this. After the war in Ukraine began, a similar dynamic emerged.
So I wanted to address that issue — that cultural exclusion method. The aestheticization of politics creates the politicization of art. As Walter Benjamin wrote. Today, the processes unfolding in global movements — including polarization and cancel culture — are being absorbed into the arts. Because art always acts like a sponge for new ideas and methods, sometimes critically reflecting on them, but sometimes just chasing the next interesting thing.
But is that absorption doing any good in that case?
Is this method of exclusion achieving anything productive?
Does it exercise any morally better ground?
I don’t think so.
I want to remind us that art is a pluralistic activity. The only thing that can be used as a generalizing factor is that very plurality, as Boris Groys wrote in his book Art and Power. And with that comes a certain responsibility. In a world of information bubbles and polarized camps, where people mark you as either with them or against them on specific issues, we need a space for pluralistic discussions, opinions, and different political views. We need a safe framed space.
I want to be exhibited in one space with Palestinians, as a holder of an Israeli passport. I want to be exhibited in one space with Ukrainians, as a holder of a Russian passport. I want us to be able to speak with each other — because when the possibility of speaking is no longer there, the only thing left to do is fight, as Yoav Navarri noted.
So my hope is that we, as artists — as an art community — are able to hold this pluralism. This frame of being united by our interests and passions, not our political ideologies. And by doing so, we can actually become an example of mutual exploration, an attempt at understanding — even without agreement — of the other. And maybe we can translate that process and become an example of it for people in other areas of life.