THE MORAL CHOICES OF AN ARTIST IN CULTURAL CONFLICTS
4th conference day organised in the series “An Addenda to Estonian Art History” by Center for Contemporary Arts, Estonia on 27th April 2006 in the Tallinn Art Hall.
Main organizer Johannes Saar
Speakers Margit Sutrop, Johannes Saar, Marek Järvik, Ene-Liis Semper, Eero Epner, Marco Laimre
Programme and the summaries of the papers:
10.30 Introduction by Johannes Saar
10.45 MARGIT SUTROP Tartu University Centre of Ethics
“The clash of value-based identities. Liberal versus communitarian morality.”
The contrast between liberal and communitarian ethics helps us understand where we stand in terms of our value system and why conflicts may rise between our culture and other cultures. The central values in liberal morality are freedom and individual autonomy. Liberal morality is grounded in a specific view of man: we are separate, rational beings, each of us having his own aims, interests and conceptions of good and of good life. For communitarians, the basic values are solidarity and responsibility. In contrast to liberalism which prioritizes the individual before society, communitarianism emphasizes the importance of society. We are social beings who have been shaped by society and by the context in which we have been brought up. Our identity is embedded in tradition. This grounds our obligations to the associations to which we belong. The contrast between liberal and communitarian values is useful in understanding the difference between European and American values. It will be asked in the paper how the values of Estonians could be classified and whether we should embrace liberal or communitarian ethics.
11.30 JOHANNES SAAR Center of Contemporary Arts in Estonia
“The down side of individual freedom of speech and creation, or should an artist occasionally keep his mouth shut?”
The universal human-rights rhetoric of liberal democracy talks about the freedom of expression and creation as inalienable rights. This suggests the subconscious naturalisation of these rights. In the West, the latter are now perceived as inherent qualities, an organic part in the daily functioning of each individual body. Indiscriminate expression of personal opinions has become just as natural as breathing and eating. The extreme and provocative practising of such egocentric individualism has led to the atomising of civil society and produced an inert and disorganised electorate that, despite all the noise it makes, is still easy to manipulate.
Should the artists, in the name of combative cultural consensus, revise the notion of individual freedom of creation in favour of more extensive collectiveness? Is it time, in the manner of the soviet era, to talk about artists as soldiers on the ideological front? What moral choices are required by the artists’ political organisation?
12.15 Presentation of the works by artists participating in the exhibition “Violence and Propaganda”.
13.00 MAREK JÄRVIK Tartu University Centre of Ethics
“Why can’t we justify terrorism on moral grounds?”
The main questions tackled by philosophical literature on terrorism: 1) how to define terrorism, 2) why should it be condemned. I would like to show that it is in fact not possible to clearly distinguish these questions, because terrorism cannot be properly defined as morally neutral. In case the definition of terrorism contains morally damning notions, the moral justification of terrorism as a phenomenon cannot be taken seriously. In order to justify certain kind of violence (e.g. the fight of the Chechens) we have to show it as freedom fighting, and this demands fixing the essential border between terrorism and freedom fighting.
13.45 ENE-LIIS SEMPER & EERO EPNER Theatre NO99
“Don’t eat bread in plastic, or is it possible to understand political art?”
“What I really want,“ said a theatre critic a few years ago, „is that theatre could have ESTO-TV type of people.“ And a few lines below: „People usually don’t know what they want. They should be shown what they would like.“ This charming contradiction where theatre is seen as a place for both nihilist clownery and didactic moral sermon, reflects worries for the lack of socially responsible and sensitive art in our domestic theatrical world. Somewhat surprisingly, the worry unites different generations of theatre critics and ideological platforms; drought has parched the throats.
NO99 production „Nafta!“ (Oil) examines energy crisis, excess consumption, enslavement by debt and other keywords characterising modern Estonians. Although the topics are distressing, the directors Tiit Ojasoo and Ene-Liis Semper have chosen the forms of cabaret, musical and strip tease. The questions that rose during the directing process and later in reception, are perhaps typical of certain authors whose art is political. Does „political“ also mean prescriptive? Whether and why is art wishing to change the world? And how? Should people involved in the arts approach sensitive topics in the first place, when they know nothing of „reality“? Should Ojasoo drive his car in the future or should he prefer a tuk-tuk? Why is a state theatre behaving in an unstatemanlike manner, fighting against the oil transit? Does it have any right to do this? We treat “Nafta!” both as a separate phenomenon and litmus paper. There is no wish to teach anybody.
14.30 MARCO LAIMRE
“Violence doesn't talk”
I will focus on the place of violence in the reception of contemporary war, the character of the violent media pictures in information society as powerful drug. The paper also examines the possibility of political speech on different interpretation levels of symbolic violence. A closer look is taken at the so-called offroadmethod, ways of escape from the centre of structural violence and ways of positive re-writings. The paper is based on the visual practice of an artist in relations with the mass media during the past year.
17.00 Presentation of the Finnish film-maker PIRJO HONKASALO’s documentary
“Three Rooms of Melancholy in the Tallinn Art Hall”
„Three Rooms of Melancholy“, a much-awarded epic documentary was completed in 2004. It tells the story of children fleeing from the Chechen war to the militarising Russia, in heavily bombed Grozny and in a refuge in Ingushetia untouched by war. Honkasalo manages to avoid the usual pro and contra attitudes and show with superb intimate sensitivity the human tragedies on both sides of the frontline, revenge, the psychology of violence and its emergence from purely human melancholy, pain of loss and brutal laws of the war.
Film shows at 7.30 p.m. in cinema „Sõprus“
From the press release:
Philosophers, critics and artists with different educational backgrounds will weigh the chances and the need of artists to express their opinion about the increasingly strained relations between liberal democracy and Islam.
We live at a time of cultural clashes developing from local hotbeds of tension into global turmoil of violence without frontiers, while having politicians producing the „just war“-rhetoric only. The escalating military violence expectedly moves along together with the radicalisation of propagandist strategies. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, declared without any compromise a few months ago at the height of the row about the cartoon that „freedom of speech is not negotiable“. Now that the sales of products of the Danish-Swedish dairy company Arla have dropped 85 per cent in the Islamic countries, the Western business circles seriously consider restricting the freedom of expression and creation for the sake of business interests. It goes now without saying that freedom of expression and creation do not pay, hence press with all its caricaturists should make sure they are not stepping on the toes of clients too hard.
The conference day attempts to discuss whether unrestricted practising of individual freedom of expression and creation will in fact lead to the collapse of the civil society and in the longer term also to the emergence of control society. Are there any moral justifications for restricting individual freedom of expression and creation, let's say for sake of keeping up the possibility of intercultural consensus? Will the renaming of terror as just war provide the latter with moral justification? Are the languages of strip tease and reality show the only kinds wider audience can be communicated to socially sensitive art? Is violence the silent agreement of majority or a dramatic performance for the global auditorium of the screen society?
Speakers include Margit Sutrop, Johannes Saar, Marek Järvik, Ene-Liis Semper, Eero Epner, Marco Laimre and Pirjo Honkasalo.
The conference day was born in co-operation with the artists of the exhibition „Violence and Propaganda“ and is inspired by the themes of Emergency Biennale (www.emergency-biennale.org).
Read more “Moral Choises” (Center for Contemporary Arts, Estonia 2006, ISBN 978-9985-9778-0-4).
