MORE ON THE BELLMER CENSORSHIP STORY

In response to enquiries about the alleged censorship of their current Hans Bellmer exhibition (see previous post), the Whitechapel Gallery has sent copies of two statements, one of their own and one from the Centre Pompidou in Paris. The statements are as follows:

1. STATEMENT FROM THE WHITECHAPEL GALLERY, 5 October 2006
   "Over 200 works by the artist Hans Bellmer are currently displayed at the Whitechapel Gallery, London in an exhibition organised by the Centre Pompidou, Musee National d’Art Moderne, Paris. Though smaller than the original Paris exhibition due to the Whitechapel’s smaller exhibition spaces, the works displayed in London were selected in close consultation with the exhibition's curators Agnes de la Beaumelle and Alain Sayag and with the Whitechapel’s curator Anthony Spira.
   "The exhibition continues at the Whitechapel Gallery until 19 November 2006."
2. STATEMENT FROM THE CENTRE POMPIDOU, 7 October 2006
   "Centre Pompidou has today issued a statement in response to articles that have appeared with regard to the Hans Bellmer exhibition at the Whitechapel Art Gallery in London. The exhibition was shown at Centre Pompidou from 1 March to 22 May 2006.
   "Centre Pompidou confirms that, as a result of the smaller space available for the exhibition at the Whitechapel Art Gallery, the whole selection of works displayed at the institution in Paris could not be shown in London. The Bellmer works that are not included in the display in London are no more or less shocking for certain visitors than those that are in the show.
   "For further information, please contact
   Roya Nasser, Director of Communications, Centre Pompdiou
   Telephone number + 33 6 24 97 72 29"

As far as we are aware, none of the parties involved has ever disputed that the Whitechapel Gallery lacks space in comparison with the Pompidou. What is in dispute is the Whitechapel's rationale for deciding which of the works to omit from its smaller version of the exhibition. The article in Le Monde alleged that the excluded works were removed on the grounds of their supposed offensiveness to local Muslims. These carefully worded statements from the two galleries in effect neither confirm nor deny those allegations, because they do not explain the basis on which the selections for removal were made. If the missing works were not selected for removal on the grounds of offensiveness, on what grounds were they selected? It is precisely by stonewalling on this question that the statements have achieved their aim, namely, to "kill" the story before it reaches the mainstream British press.