Discussion about this post

User's avatar
richard butchins's avatar

What makes this so grim is not simply that the work is ugly, crude and morally vacant, but that it relies on the oldest trick in the cultural handbook: present bigotry as transgression and hope the institutional language of “challenging art” does the laundering for you. Collings has been dining out on the fumes of a bygone reputation for years, and there’s something drearily predictable about finding him here, mistaking provocation for seriousness and cartoonish hostility for political courage. A more interesting question is not whether this work is any good, because it isn’t, but why galleries and public bodies still seem so eager to confuse offensiveness with significance. Some things deserve rebuttal. Some deserve exposure. And some are best understood as the stale afterlife of a critic-artist who should, by now, have been left to mutter into the upholstery. The piece argues that the exhibition amplified antisemitic imagery through both the gallery and the local council’s promotion, which is really the heart of it. Not shock. Not daring, but institutional failure.

Jane Holland's avatar

I'm horrified and disgusted too. Is the exhibition still in place? It sounds illegal to me, as it's so clearly encouraging hate and discrimination, not simply making a political statement. Don't we have LAWS about that in the UK, or am I being hopelessly naive?

13 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?