Call it what it is

A recent fracas involving a government Minister at a music event simply shows that an artist is allowed to provoke, but cannot be provoked.

So, a government Minister has found himself in woke hot water because he dared to give his honest opinion at the recent Aotearoa Music Awards. Chris Bishop, a former colleague of mine and who would happily describe himself on the liberal side of the National Party, was at the awards night and called a highly political musical performance “a load of crap.” Unfortunately for him, even as a liberal, he crossed an unwritten and unseen line which is that you never critique anything progressive or woke. Celebrate, yes. But never criticise.

In this case, the sin was made worse for by calling out a performance by Stan Walker related to Toitu te Tiriti, and one is to never express any opinion about the Treaty other than complete obsequiousness.

When we step back, we can observe three dynamics in play and all should concern New Zealanders. The first is a highly hypocritical approach to the place of art in challenging society. The second is the silencing of free speech. The third is a legacy media and some of the arts community deliberately using such moments to scapegoat an individual (in this case Chris Bishop) as as warning to others. Their message is very clear – don’t you dare share a view we disagree with, or else we will put you in the figurative public stocks of to be harassed and humiliated.

HYPOCRISY CELEBRATED

The performance, from what I can observe from reporting, was very much aligned with the Maori Party’s political views. It was a strange blend of indigenous ethno-state advocacy and colonially acquired, cultural Marxism. But the Minister’s error was, according to both organisers and legacy media, failing to realise that New Zealanders are not allowed hold an opinion on this topic. Well, that is not quite correct – you are allowed to support it vocally, but not question or oppose it.

Ironically, for some in the arts community - pushing the boundaries, critiquing and challenging society, being provocative or offensive - only applies to some topics.

Clearly the performance around Walker’s music was politically loaded. That’s actually fine; artists are free to share their views. But it seem the audience is not allowed to express it’s view; or at least those who think his work is a “load of crap.”

An artist is allowed to provoke, but cannot be provoked.

We can also observe the recently withdrawn exhibition by Diane Prince at the Suter Art Gallery in Nelson. In a good example of the Streisand effect and how irrelevant both entities are, I’ve never heard of Prince or the Suter Gallery, and I was the Shadow Minister for Arts at one point!

The artist invited people to walk on the New Zealand flag, a protest presumably about colonialism and the fact that art galleries now exist, along with the likes electric light, toilets, donation trays, and car parking. Understandably, there were some who were upset and others saying the art was a confronting, but necessary, artistic expression.

However, you just know most of those defending the exhibition would be the first to cry foul had this been the pride flag or Maori sovereignty flag. They would have been crying outrage, claiming they feel unsafe, and probably acting violently to disrupt the exhibition just as they did to the Treaty exhibition at Te Papa a few years back.

ARTISTIC FREEDOM

One would have also thought that freedom of speech would be important to the artistic community. To be fair, there are many in the artistic community and there are a range of views, so these comments are directed as a generalisation to those currently expressing outrage at Bishop, including the organisers of the music event.

In a sane world, people are allowed to express their views. If Bishop thought the performance was a “load of crap”, then he’s allowed to say it.

A lot of New Zealand’s art is a “load of crap”. A lot is also very resonating, beautiful, or rightly challenging. New Zealanders should be able to say what they think – is that not one of the very purposes of art and performance, to garner a reaction from the audience?

THE NEW PUBLIC STOCKS

Which brings me to the third point, of how media and some in the arts community seek to humiliate in public anyone who dares questions their often progressive narrative. This is deliberate and intentional, designed to send a warning to others – remain silent.

As noted earlier, much of what is artistically celebrated these days is due to being politically aligned, controversial for no other reason than it seeks to offend (as opposed to provoke), or just “a load of crap.”

Granted, the attempts to humiliate Bishop in media are mild compared to the now frequent calls to violence by those supporting the Maori Party. In recent days it’s the son of a MP effectively wanting to beat up the leader of the ACT Party.

Whether it be actual violence, calls to violence, or the aggressive humiliating of people in media, it is all directed with the same intention - humiliating and silencing people who hold views not acceptable to the far-left, progressives, or anarchist revolutionaries.

A FINAL REFLECTION

I had to laugh darkly as I read organisers of the music event saying it was one that was inclusive, safe, and respectful while simultaneously condemning Bishop’s opinion. I am not sure when being censorious and pretentious became inclusive and respectful, but clearly the music awards organisers use a different dictionary to me.

But what also struck me is that this event was funded by taxpayers. Taxpayers who would have enjoyed Walker’s performance, others who would back Bishop’s view, along with many others who have no idea who the artists or event are.

Yet the organisers want all the taxpayer’s money, but only some of the views.

These music awards and Stan Walker (among many others) receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New Zealand taxpayer, and yet no mention of this by legacy media.

You would think therefore, every taxpayer would have some right to have an opinion on their art and performance – perhaps even more so, a Minister of the Crown responsible for allocating such funding.

When you step back, the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and aggression of the woke and progressive viewpoint is, ultimately, “just a load of crap.”