Christoforos Katsadiotis’ ‘Saint Christopher,’ 2020, was one of the pieces smashed on the floor by the religious-fundamentalist MP from the Niki party. [John Liakos/Intime News]
The hallmark of religious fanatics is not dogmatism, but their inability to accept that someone else has different preferences and opinions. They are haunted by the thought that there are people who do not agree with them and that these people are free to make different choices. Therefore, it is not enough for them not to read, not to listen to, not to see something “blasphemous” themselves; they consider it their duty to prevent others from doing so as well. They believe that they have an obligation – perhaps they even imagine that they have the right – to determine the limits of what is permissible.
When a far-right religious fanatic is outraged by works of art that he considers offensive to his religious feelings, he may, of course, not visit the exhibition and thus make sure he is not “offended.” But that is not enough for him – he does not want others to see them either. That is why we repeatedly have incidents of intolerance in Greece even in the 21st century: from Outlook 2003 (Greece’s biggest – up until then – contemporary art exhibition), and Art Athina 2007, to the Hytyrio (Foundry) Theater in 2012 and the National Theater of Northern Greece in 2017.
This kind of intolerant Christian version of the Taliban is incapable of making critical moral distinctions. Thus, he uses one of the most flimsy and immoral arguments: “I react violently because I was provoked!” This argument is of the same quality as the argument that rape is not the fault of rapists, but of victims, who “provoke” them with their clothes; domestic violence is not the fault of brutal husbands, but of women who “provoke” them by speaking out; homophobia is not the fault of narrow-minded people, but of homosexuals who “provoke,” simply because they exist. Entering into a discussion about the quality of specific works or the work of a specific artist at this particular point is similarly immoral, as it attempts to relativize the offense. It’s like he’s saying, “Hey, he asked for it,” or, “If the works aren’t to my liking, it doesn’t bother me that much if they get vandalized.”
This immoral argument ends in the “thug’s veto”: The rise of the far-right is due to “woke culture,” liberalism, tolerance, immigrants, social movements, “entitlement,” which “provoke” the average Greek and give him the right to react. So, with that logic, the religious-fundamentalist lawmaker from the nationalist Niki party who stormed into the National Gallery last week and smashed four artworks he found “offensive,” was not to blame for what happened, but the artist, the National Gallery, globalization etc, which do not leave people alone to live in the Middle Ages, but “provoke” them by reminding them that the world around them is constantly changing, while they themselves are fossils.
If one reads the delusional justification of the incident, one will see the attempt to justify an act that was premeditated and planned as an act committed in a fit of rage by an outraged religious patriot who is being persecuted by the Greek-hating anti-Christs. But the security footage that was released reveals the organized way in which the attack was carried out. I think the decision of the National Gallery to release the video and keep the scene of the vandalism intact for a few days was wise. Here is a nice visual intervention, showing the results of intolerance.
There is another weak argument: The National Gallery is funded by the “Greek people” and it is not possible to house works that “offend” religious sentiment. I don’t know where to start with this. Freedom of artistic expression is a fundamental right in any liberal democracy. Art often provokes, challenges and subverts established perceptions. If the only permissible artistic discourse is one that does not “offend” anyone, then we are led to a sterile form of art. The history of art is full of works that caused reactions in their time, but are considered masterpieces today (e.g. works by Caravaggio, Goya, Picasso). Art, after all, does not have to conform to anyone’s religious sensibilities. Any restriction on art today creates a dangerous precedent of censorship.
The National Gallery, as an institutional custodian of culture, belongs to all citizens, regardless of religious beliefs. In a liberal democracy, state funding does not mean that the institution represents the majority, but that it serves pluralism and freedom of expression. If we follow the logic that every publicly funded organization must comply with the sensitivities of the majority, then theaters, universities, museums, and even scientific research itself should be censored.
In an open society, there is no right to “not offend” opinions, beliefs and ideas. But there is a right to choose: Anyone who does not wish to see an artwork can simply not visit it. We should not let the thugs set the rules.
Aristides Hatzis is a professor of philosophy of law and theory of institutions at the University of Athens.