arts and culture. A historic work by artist Hervé
Di Rosa representing and commemorating the
abolition of slavery in France in 1794 decorates
the wall of the hall through which the tribunes
walk to the meeting hall of the Palais Bourbon.
The fresco depicts two black fi gures against a
background of broken chains rendered in a manner
evocative of comic books, a style for which
this master of the free fi guration style is known.
The canvas, which memorializes the abolition of
slavery by legislative decree, had, until recently,
not aroused anyone’s ire. However, beginning last
April, a petition has been circulated and articles
have been written demanding the removal of the
work on the grounds that it “trivializes racism” at
the Assemblée Nationale. The organizers of this
petition denounce the manner in which the artist
chose to represent the “faces of the Blacks, with
bug-eyes, oversized lips, toothy grins, and with
imagery that seems to be have been drawn from
Tintin in the Congo and advertisements for Banania
chocolate.”
The subject of this artwork, let us recall, is incontrovertibly
the abolition of slavery in 1794, and
thus it is clearly the artistic approach, the artist’s
choice and vision of the subject, that are being
judged and deemed non-conforming with contemporary
ideology. Did someone say “censorship”?
The author of this controversial work has unsuccessfully
sought to defend himself, but has failed
to convince the self-appointed judges of what is
“artistically correct” by invoking his other works,
which are populated with “grotesque forms, often
drawn from popular imagery” that are rendered
in a codifi ed manner. “Whatever their color, their
gender, or their other physical characteristics, my
characters all have big red lips.” His arguments
were made to no avail.
127
Around the world,
self-righteous militants are
busy relighting the embers
of censorship ‘‘
‘‘
ART + LAW