As reported in stories spreading through the Canadian Press (noted first, it seems, in Austria), an installation created by Edmontonians Sandra Bromley and Wallis Kendal has been censored during its display at a United Nations exhibition in Vienna, after complaints against a portion of the work were made by the Chinese delegation. Some of the reportage is better than others, with a gutless editor at the Globe and Mail ridiculously putting the word “censors” in their headline in inverted commas, as if it were an unconfirmed allegation, and not the statement of fact that it is. Evidently, the G&M thought it more important to make their headline punny, noting the artists are “sticking to their guns” (… get it? GUNS! LOL… ).

The title of the work in question, “The Gun Sculpture“, is actually something of a misnomer, for a few reasons. Firstly, as this censorship episode makes plain, the artists consider their full project to consist of three elements: a large cube made from weapons, a series of photographs and text on victims of violence, and a blackboard for visitor comments. Obviously, such a diverse and diffuse presentation of content is not a ‘sculpture’, per se, but rather is an installation. Their title ignores these latter components, and focuses attention primarily on the large 3D cube of weaponry (arguably the “artwork” of the piece, as the photos, text, and guestbook don’t really merit that appellation) which includes “a variety of anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, mortar shells, 110 mm recoilless rifles, AK47s, sawed-off shotguns of different makes, knives and other non-fire arm weapons“. So plainly, not just “guns”. Plus, the Borg-ship-like block is not as solid as it appears in photographs, since it is in reality a cell-like room, its thin walls wired and welded with weapons on the outside. A weapon hut, sure, but not really a “gun sculpture” at all. (The piece would be better as a sculpture, per se, if it were a solid cube, since as it stands, in the flesh it feels disappointingly thin, like an unconvincing facade, and works much better in photos. A solid lump of guns and ammo would have far more sculptural impact).

Perhaps this misnaming of the work explains why Antonio Costa, director general of the United Nations Office in Vienna, can perhaps be forgiven for thinking the comparatively inartistic supplementary portion of photos and text on victims of violence was not “integral” to “The Gun Sculpture”, since it is quite clearly NOT integral to what most people would think of as the ‘artwork’, which is the cell covered in weapons. But, since Kendal and Bromley’s work is not simply the 3D element, but is in fact a mixed media installation on violence that includes other components, then it is beyond obvious that removing a portion of the thing by definition damages that thing’s integrity (“the quality or state of being complete or undivided”… Dictionaries FTW!). With a more appropriately descriptive name for the installation, Mr. Costa’s claim “that nothing was done to undermine the integrity of the artwork and that the UN supported the installation” would be seen as akin to a claim that black is white, and just as contrary to established facts.

Although none of the coverage on this issue has included any quotes from the mysterious Wallis Kendal himself, Sandra Bromley says “Social issues like this, not everybody likes them, but most people respect the right to look at issues and discuss issues. I hope the artistic community is riled by this. I hope they speak out loudly about it.” (The Edmonton Journal also quotes Bromley as stating “We don’t look at this art as a political statement”, but that’s obviously utter nonsense.) This isn’t really an issue merely for the arts community, but for civil society at large, to be riled by, just as any other instance of censorious interference should rile those who cherish the freedoms set out in the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to free expression. And while China has long shown their disregard for basic human rights, in far worse ways than this, a commitment to free expression is something you would think the UN’s own Vienna Director-General would understand better, and hold more dear.

Unfortunately, it seems that Antonio Costa takes a rather squint-eyed view of human rights, which leads one to wonder what he’s doing in running a UN office in the first place? Perhaps it’s time for him to retire…