Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

If this painting depicted the Muslim "martyrs" ascending to their hundred virgins, I might agree with the painting's critics. But it doesn't. There is no difference between the subject matter of this work and say a Franz Marc, Paul Nash, Georg Groz or any of the numerous painters who depicted the atrocities of the second world war. Nor is it in nature that different from 19th-century artist John Martin's work, which realistically depicted Armageddon-esque biblical scenes, or even Bruegel's Tower of Babel.

Mark Sinckler's 7/7 painting: the stuff of tabloid outrage
Art is no stranger to controversy – but why would anyone be shocked at the depiction of 7/7 victims as angels?

Tim Williams
guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 November 2010 18.00 GMT


Artist Mark Sinckler's mural, entitled Age of Shiva, at pop-up gallery Marks & Stencils – set up by Banksy.

The latest controversy involving contemporary art hit the headlines today. The fuss is over a Bristol-based "urban artist" Mark Sinckler's black and white mural, which is currently on display in the window of an exhibition curated by Banksy in the Marks & Stencils gallery. It depicts the wreckage of the bus destroyed in the 7 July, 2005 explosion in Tavistock Square – the souls of the victims of the atrocity are shown ascending in to heaven, somewhat in the manner of a Catholic counter-reformation renaissance painting.

So why all the fuss? As well as the representation of an apparently controversial subject, the artist is – at least according to the Sun – a Muslim. The Sun also managed to discover the thoughts of the bus driver involved in the incident, who has apparently called for the painting to be removed from the gallery. I don't know whether he saw the painting, but this reactionary stance fits in nicely with the Sun's agenda. If this painting depicted the Muslim "martyrs" ascending to their hundred virgins, I might agree with the painting's critics. But it doesn't. There is no difference between the subject matter of this work and say a Franz Marc, Paul Nash, Georg Groz or any of the numerous painters who depicted the atrocities of the second world war. Nor is it in nature that different from 19th-century artist John Martin's work, which realistically depicted Armageddon-esque biblical scenes, or even Bruegel's Tower of Babel.

My father, an artist, once had an exhibition of his works in a sleepy New Zealand city gallery; he titled it In Your Face and basically alluded to parallels between the treatment of the Maori and the treatment of Jews in the second world war. One painting depicted Adolf Hitler with female breasts and an embryo, together with representations of Jewish victims. Apparently, it was offensive to women, offensive to Jews, probably offensive to neo-nazis and some called for it to be removed from the gallery. But the work's point was to criticise the abhorrent actions of the Third Reich: my father wanted it to have an impact not in the press and media, but with the everyday gallery visitor. Unfortunately, they missed the point.

A similar reactionary stance involved Marcus Harvey back in 1997. His portrait of Moors murderer Myra Hindley, now in the Saatchi gallery, was made from the handprints of children – evoking victims of the murders. The art critic Richard Cork described the piece in the Times:

"Far from cynically exploiting her notoriety, Harvey's grave and monumental canvas succeeds in conveying the enormity of the crime she committed."
It would be safe to assume that Harvey wasn't condoning the slaughter of innocent children. However, the painting received the tabloids' wrath and was subsequently vandalised in two separate incidents by "outraged" people on opening day (I would suggest that Marks & Stencils gallery upgrade their security, as no doubt some tabloid-digesting "outraged" will be making their way through Soho armed with a selection of various dairy products). Similarly, there was the artist Stella Vine, who portrayed Princess Diana with blood streaming from her mouth.

Controversy surrounding art is nothing new; we've had Duchamp and his fountain, Manzoni with his can of shit, Warhol with his car crash silkscreens, the Etty and Courbet nudes of the 19th century – do I really need to go on?

Pretty much every artist you can think of once did something "controversial". If the suggestion of victims of the 7/7 bombings going to heaven (which to me seems like a rather nice thought) offends you, then I don't know what to suggest. If you're an art collector and you don't have a Mark Sinckler painting, then you should have purchased one yesterday, or last week. As for the media, well, these offended folks need to spend their money somewhere. Expect to be reading the next controversial story regarding contemporary art in a tabloid near you very soon.