Art can be a powerful tool. It can be used to evoke immense emotions. That is one reason that art is so useful when it comes to propaganda. It can relate a clear message without ever having to say a word.
When art does evoke a reaction, either positive or negative, we shouldn’t be surprised. Depending on what the message is, that reaction may even be immediate; something that is guttural. When such a reaction is brought forth, it can be hard to take a step back and really examine the piece of art that gave us such a reaction, as we naturally work towards justifying that base reaction.
This reaction is going to be different for everyone, and that is something we must remember and be aware of. Just because a piece of art represents one thing for us, that doesn’t means it will represent something similar to others. They may see something completely different, and it’s not necessarily because they are looking for that particular meaning.
In Bismarck, ND, all of this has come together for what really has become a perfect storm. As a city that is divided, a piece of art has become just one more wedge that continues to split citizens. The art piece, a photo of a young woman, Greta Thunberg, has become a symbol for much more, with both sides using her for their own narratives.
Attempting to take a step back from the situation, it shouldn’t be surprising that the proposal to have this image displayed on a downtown building received some amount of push back. Especially when we consider that the majority of the push back came through social media. Sadly, social media, for all of its positives, also has the negative consequence of allowing minority views to appear much larger than they are, and in effect, gain undue power. In conjunction with this, social media has made it much easier to manufacture outrage, which can take on a life of its own.
The Art and Artist
To be transparent, I like Shane Balkowitsch. He’s an extremely talented artist who has brought a great amount of exposure to his beloved wet plate procedure. He’s exceptionally passionate about what he does and the issues that he backs. And what may be most admirable about him is that he isn’t just about mixing words, but he is a man of action.
It was that passion that led him to follow the story of Greta Thunberg, and jump at the chance of capturing her in silver. Capturing her, for Shane, was capturing history. And that is history that he wants to share with others. Not everyone shares in that sentiment though.
Greta has become a divisive character, and not necessarily for who she is, but who people see her as, and what they affiliate with her. Because of that, multiple sides have decided to use her for their own goals. Sadly, that has devolved into also transforming her into a meme that both sides use to poke fun at each other.
It is that environment that a mural of Greta was proposed to be placed on a building in downtown Bismarck. Upon hearing that proposal, there was a minority that did push back, and they did so with threats. As often is the case, negativity was met with more negativity, allowing for outrage to be manufactured for a variety of purposes.
Manufactured Outrage
Social media has provided a great number of benefits. It allows families and friends to stay connected even when they are apart. It allows us to connect with new people, and sometimes have great exchanges.
It has also allowed the manufacturing of outrage to become much easier. When news first broke that the Greta mural was to be put up, it should have been no surprise that some people would oppose it. It’s not that Bismarck is backwards, but it’s because Greta has become politicized. When a business in Fargo decided to allow the mural instead, there was also push back there as well.
If you read the comments from any article dealing with the Greta mural, there are those who oppose it, no matter where it is. No one, and no art, is going to be loved universally.
Instead of just dying out though, with some other outrage replacing it, groups used it in order to manufacture an outrage that was much more. Outrage, after all, can be a powerful thing.
One group that built on the outrage was a local blog, The Minuteman. Again, to be upfront, I’m not a fan of The Minuteman Blog. But they are good at manufacturing outrage. They opposed the mural and then were able to build on the continuing controversy, and by the amount of comments and shares they received, they did so quite successfully.
While I may not agree with their stance, and many of the things they were to say in their blog posts, I support their right to say what they did. That is something that has largely been missed in all of this; the freedom of speech.
This works for both sides. Shane had the right to display his photo and the message that went with it. It truly is a shame that because of the view of some, that opportunity was taken away. But those who oppose the mural also had the right to voice their dissatisfaction, as does The MinuteMan.
Just because we have the right to make our voices heard though doesn’t mean all views will be equal.
Stop with the Nazis
A sure fire way to create outrage is to bring up Hitler, the Nazis, or the Holocaust. The further we move away from the events of WWII, the more frequent such comparisons to Hitler or the like seem to appear.
I’m personally opposed to such comparisons, as they are overused, aren’t accurate, and really are an offense to what occurred during the period surrounding WWII. The mention of Hitler and Nazis has become more mundane, which largely glosses over history.
Both Shane and The MinuteMan have used Hitler or the Nazis in their own rhetoric. The Minuteman goes as far as to justify their use by saying that Shane did it first.
For Shane, he used a reference to Hitler in a wetplate photo that was meant to portray President Trump. In it, he gives the Trump figure the standard mustache associated with Hitler.
Is Trump the next Hitler? No. While I don’t like Trump, I also acknowledge that he isn’t a Hitleresque figure, nor does he have a path to become like Hitler, even if he chose to. Shane has every right to create a piece likening Trump to Hitler, but for me, it’s insulting to history. That isn’t Shane’s intention, but such comparisons to Hitler demean the evil that Hitler unleashed. It demeans the millions that were exterminated because they weren’t perceived as humans.
The MinuteMan uses this image to justify linking Shane with Nazi ideology. While they don’t state that Shane supports the Nazis, or is sympathetic to them, they do tie him with the Nazis by mentioning that Shane owns a Porsche, and Ferdinand Porsche was an avowed Nazi.
Such comparisons really are infantile though. If we look at the Nazi impact on the world, we can find many things that we use that Nazis also used, or had some hand in creating. The U.S. mission to the moon was also helped along by Nazis. To try to take an extremely complicated subject and turn it into a black and white idea simply doesn’t work.
While The MinuteMan may not have directly called Shane a Nazi sympathizer, their intent was clear. And that is a problem with bringing Nazis into everything. It waters the history down so much as to be meaningless. By doing that, we ignore the atrocities that did happen. We forget the people who suffered.
Stop Silencing the Other
What all of this has boiled down to though are attempts to silence those that one doesn’t agree with, and in turn, it creates idealized martyrs. Attempting to prevent art to be hung on private property is uncalled for, for the most part. We may not agree with the message that is being portrayed, but if we try to restrict all opposing views, we can’t be surprised when our own views become restricted.
And while some may say that the mural of Greta is just a photo, it’s just art, that simply is not true. There was a clear message behind it. The title, Standing for Us All, helps to make that clear. And in the aftermath, that message only becomes more clear. Greta’s image has become much more than just a young woman; it’s attached to an ideology. It’s why she can so easily be used for memes.
At the same time though, the response, to try to silence The MinuteMan, also is uncalled for. They have a right to publish their views, even if they are wrong. But there is another issue with them. They have made themselves anonymous.
Personally, I do have an issue with that. I think if you’re going to protest anything, if you’re going to try to make your voice heard, you should have the courage to put your face with it. I held this same view while masked individuals protested the Dakota Access Pipeline. We shouldn’t hide behind anonymity.
But I can see why people do. As some argued during the DAPL protest, some hid their faces as to not face possible ramifications, such as the loss of their jobs. Many who made that argument are now also calling for the unmasking of The MinuteMan. You can’t have it both ways though.
I understand Shane’s want to face The MinuteMan face to face. Anonymity is a hindrance, and often it makes people feel as if they are untouchable, which leads to a lot of negativity. But offering a bounty to unmask someone, especially during a time of outrage, leads nowhere good. It leads to doxing, to threats, and possible harm, especially when there is mob mentality involved. It makes a bad situation worse.
No One Wins
In the end, no one really wins when outrage is manufactured as it has been in this situation. No real progress is made, and instead, shame is passed around equally. Both sides have attempted to claim victory here, and they will support their own views. But the community as a whole has lost.
Throughout the fighting, all that occurred was that people became more entrenched in their own views. What largely lacked was meaningful conversations that tried to bridge the divide.
Both sides came out of this believing that their side was morally superior, that they were in the right. But what much of it came down to was hypocrisy and demonizing the other. This has come to light especially in later conversations that occurred.
Two examples should suffice. First, after the proposed mural was rejected by one business in Bismarck, another in Fargo offered to take it. Many praised Fargo for being so much more progressive. Yet, the same reaction was also seen there.
A minority of people there also objected to the mural, and many of those people proposed to boycott the business. The view was largely the same in both areas. But the dissent in Fargo was largely ignored because the business didn’t bow out, but then again, the dissent wasn’t a surprise to them because they had a better idea of what they were getting into. It also probably didn’t hurt that so much attention was being placed on the issue either, which is rather good publicity.
The business owner may have also realized that such threat of boycotts largely amount to nothing, as the people boycotting either will forget about it, or weren’t patrons of the establishment. That’s not to say that boycotting can’t work, but it takes a much more organized approach to work.
Second, there is every reason to believe that those getting upset about this piece of art being protested would also get up in arms if a piece of art they didn’t like was proposed for public display. This isn’t just a hunch, but was demonstrated a number of times.
An example that a local scholar made was that he wouldn’t be upset if a hypothetical photo of Sarah Palin, with the words Drill Baby Drill over it, were proposed for the same area. It wouldn’t effect him, and I completely trust that it wouldn’t. But many people aren’t like him.
In discussing his example, a number of people made it very clear that they would oppose such a display. There were numerous excuses as to why they would oppose it, but it really came down to the same reason that the mural of Greta was opposed. They didn’t agree with the message, and thus it wasn’t worthy of display.
The scholar gave a second example as well, one that wasn’t hypothetical. He spoke of seeing a sign that said White Lives Matter in a North Dakotan town. He didn’t oppose the freedom of speech there. Similar signs also went up in Bismarck, and many of those upset about the mural being protested also were enraged by those signs.
With freedom of speech, we can’t pick and choose what we want to protect and what we don’t. It all has to be protected. Otherwise the freedom of speech becomes meaningless. Whether one likes the mural of Greta or not, there is no reason to try to silence it. Because if one tries to do that, they have little room to complain when they are also silenced.
In the end, what this creates is just a long cycle of trying to silence the other, and with that, everyone loses. There are no winners when the community as a whole is torn apart.
Instead, the mural of Greta could have been used to spark meaningful conversation, and hopefully some understanding. At the end of the day, we don’t all need to agree, but if we can have open discussions, we may just be able to help fix the divide, and in turn, see where the other is coming from. And if we can do that, then maybe we will be open to seeing the other side, and vice versa.
