New report on China’s influence on the world of art

“If a painting can overthrow a government, then the government must be very fragile”

  • Lumli Lumlong

Since its inception, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has sought to exert influence over every component of Chinese society, including the world of art. Art is perceived by the CCP as a tool to legitimise its systems of government, not as an expression of human creativity. This project has taken on global relevance as the CCP has sought to utilise art and culture to counter international criticism on a range of topics including the state’s treatment of Uyghurs and Hong Kong’s independence, and assuage concerns about its growing influence in the world economy and international institutions.

The CCP sees itself as the single arbiter of Chinese culture. By the CCP’s definition, being “Chinese” encapsulates not only Chinese nationals but the entire global diaspora. As a result, even artists living in Europe but originally from mainland China, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and elsewhere can be subject to attempts at censorship if their art does not toe the party line. The tactics used to achieve this goal are diverse: from physical violence and the leveraging of financial ties over European galleries to the threatening of family members. Fear of repercussions for themselves or their families is enough to silence many artists even if they now live in Europe.

The extra-territorial nature of CCP censorship should concern anyone wishing to ensure artistic expression is protected. The perpetual threat of violence against artists and their family members in Europe is a stark reflection of the challenge to freedom of expression that the CCP poses across the world. The ability of the CCP to silence critics and curate conversations about themselves globally is unprecedented.

However, the CCP’s struggle against dissident artists also reflects its weakness. Lumli Lumlong, a Hong Kong painting duo based in the UK, told Index “We really want to expose the cruelty of the CCP. They are fragile, their hearts are made of glass.” While the CCP’s soft power operations in Europe have struggled to influence the artistic landscape in Europe, artists have played a crucial role in raising awareness in Europe of the CCP’s human rights abuses. 

To investigate the current state of artistic freedom in Europe, and whether and how the CCP attempts to undermine it, Index on Censorship has submitted over 35 Freedom of Information requests and has conducted interviews with more than 40 artists, curators, academics and experts from 10 European countries. The report demonstrates how art can be used by states to extend the reach of censorship into cities across Europe, while also offering a powerful way for artists to challenge state power.

You can download the report here

Writers and free speech champions celebrate Salman Rushdie’s work

In support of Salman Rushdie, Index on Censorship, English PEN, Article 19, and Humanists UK have invited writers and free speech champions to read excerpts from Rushdie’s writing. Through these videos we invite you to explore Rushdie’s work. We also encourage you to reflect on the significant risks writers across the world face.

On 12 August 2022, novelist Salman Rushdie was stabbed on stage as he was preparing to give a lecture at Chautauqua Institution in New York. The attack has been a shocking reminder of what censorship looks like in practice.

Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Rushdie in 1989 following the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses.  Rushdie has survived several assassination attempts and death threats. Despite the persistent intimidation, Rushdie continues to write, and he is an outspoken defender of freedom of expression.

You can read and share your own messages of support for Salman Rushdie here.

Russia: Drop all charges against Yulia Tsvetkova

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image="113181" img_size="full" add_caption="yes"][vc_column_text]

Ahead of feminist activist Yulia Tsvetkova’s trial today, Index on Censorship calls for the charges against her to be immediately and unconditionally dropped. Tsvetkova, who received an Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award last year, is facing up to six years in prison on the charge of “producing and distributing pornography” in retaliation for her artwork, which promoted body positivity and women’s rights.

“Yulia has already faced nearly a year and a half of judicial harassment at the hands of the Russian authorities for doing nothing more than exercising her right to freedom of expression by publishing her artwork online. She has already been subject to extortionate fines and has been under house arrest as a result of her work in defence of LGBTQ+ and women’s rights,” said Jessica Ní Mhainín, policy and campaigns manager at Index on Censorship. “We call on the Russian authorities to immediately and unconditionally drop these absurd charges against her.”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Why a naked feminist statue should remain uncensored

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Maggi Hambling's Statue for Mary Wollstonecraft, photo: Grim23, CC BY-SA 4.0

What would Mary Wollstonecraft have thought? The 18th century feminist, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, has been commemorated with a new sculpture that includes the figure of a small, naked woman. The woman is not, according to artist Maggi Hambling, Wollstonecraft herself, but a timeless everywoman. Indeed, the work is A Sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft rather than of her.

The reaction has been swift and almost unilaterally negative. Feminist authors who stand on Wollstonecraft’s shoulders have taken to Twitter to express their views to defend the oft- labelled “mother of feminism”. Imogen Hermes Gower said a chance to break with convention has been missed and Tracy King called the piece a “shocking waste of an opportunity”. Caitlin Moran sarcastically tweeted that she expects the streets to be full of statues depicting “John Locke’s shiny testicles, Nelson Mandela’s proud penis, and Descartes' adorable arse”.

Meanwhile, Dianne Abbot MP tweeted: “Pleased to see the great feminist #MaryWollstonecraft honoured after 200 years. And it is in a lovely garden square in Stoke Newington. But what a disappointing statue. Tiny, shiny and completely inappropriate”.

Valid opinions, all. Debate around art is arguably what abstract artistic endeavour is all about. It is a form of expression as valid as the works themselves.

Where a line must be drawn is censorship.

Just a day after the sculpture appeared in North London, clothing, tape and facemasks had been used to cover up the female figure, who sits atop a large, amorphous silver mass like a star at the top of a Christmas tree. These efforts at censorship have since been removed, but they pose an interesting question: why does female nakedness, especially in conjunction with honouring feminist ideals, inspire a desire to censor?

My own thoughts on the reason the statue is controverial came quickly:  female nakedness is linked with sexual objectification, and the idea that women do not exist in the world purely as sexual objects for male pleasure is a key tenet of feminism. The two are not happy bedfellows and their collision in this sculpture is at the root of the displeasure of its critics.

But this thought process seemed a little too easy. The truth is that the link between sexual objectification and nakedness, in art as in life, is not a truth universally acknowledged. It is not unbreakable; it is not unchallengeable. It is a construct of the patriarchy, and to censor the naked female form in art is to play into the hands of those who want to preserve the idea of women exclusively as sexual beings.

Caroline Banks, an artist who has written a blog about the sculpture, says that women should own their own nakedness: “There is an argument for reappropriation of that [sexual objectification]. Why should we be ashamed of our bodies because every time we have no clothes on we think we’re going to be looked at as a sexual creature, or not [if you’re not fertile]?”

She also explored how loaded the term “nudity” is. Several news outlets have referred to the sculpture as "nude".

“That woman is naked,” Banks says, “she’s not nude”.

She explains: “That’s where the male gaze comes in a lot of the time. The idea of the nude in art is different from being naked. If you’re naked you just haven’t got any clothes on. Babies are not nude. People on the mortuary slab are not nude. They’re naked, they’re not nude.”

This idea of being naked as opposed to being nude, and the censorship of nakedness when it is loaded with the implications attached to nudity, is something that has also been explored in relation to the public exposure of female nipples.

Head of content at Index, Jemimah Steinfeld, wrote about this form of censorship in 2017. This was the year a case was taken the US Supreme Court by a woman named Sonoko Tagami, who was suing the city of Chicago over a fine she received for exposing her nipples in public, arguing that it is sex-based discrimination; men are not fined for the same action.

Censorship of female nipples on social media is also the source of debate and feelings of discrimination; Instagram continues to enforce a ban on female nipples, a topic covered in depth by The New York Times. The implication seems clear that female anatomy is sexual and therefore needs to be censored. The idea of parts of a woman’s body being exposed for reasons other than to sate the male gaze seems to have escaped the censors.

And back, then, to A Sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft.

It is a work of art, the majority of which is a roiling silver mass from which the naked figure emerges. The figure's nakedness appears at odds with feminist values.

But the sculpture's would-be censors have it wrong. Covering its nakedness merely upholds and strengthens its sexual objectification.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title="You may also want to read" category_id="15469"][/vc_column][/vc_row]