Censorship has always been associated with totalitarian regimes and dictators intent on having control of the message. It goes hand in hand with propaganda. What such regimes assume is a belief in the power of words and image to enact or foment change. Fear is often at the root of censorship, fear that should the audience see an alternative version or alternative interpretation of facts, they will react in unpredictable ways. Control of the message presumes to control human behaviour and there are limitless examples of fear of the unknown being used to engender hatred and elitism. However, it’s commonly assumed that works of art are special should be immune to censorship in that silencing the artist or taking way the artist’s tools is considered unconscionable. We choose to ignore the depravity of a Gauguin, the sexual violence of a Picasso and the Nazi leanings of a Reifenstahl in order to celebrate the revolution of colour, the political protest of a Guernica or the remarkable film of the 1936 Olympics. Separating the art from the artist would seem to solve a problem given that the aesthetic experience is considered more valuable than the reality of the artist who created it. In some cases, the life of the artist is celebrated for its context. Bacon, Pollock, van Gogh, Caravaggio and Munch all had problems but no one is suggesting the removal of their works from the museum walls will benefit society. Apparently, we can all cope with the dilemma and duality without the intervention of the censor.

Works of art that express hate messages or violence are suggested to have the ability to incite violence. Innumerable studies have attempted to prove the link between video games and antisocial behaviour but none has established a causal link beyond the superficial. Indeed, it’s notoriously difficult to prove that particular artworks directly cause criminal behaviour or change peoples’ opinions.  Whatever intentions an artist has or had, meaning in art is complex and open to endless interpretation. Whether Hitler actually believed that art had the power to undermine his authority or challenge his limited aesthetic viewpoint, we may never know. That Mussolini built concrete fortresses as governmental buildings is not in question but the power of the undecorated façade to accentuate power, was not his alone. Suppression of style, suppression of individual artists or art movements has certain consequences. It either draws attention to the very thing considered to be offensive or makes artists even more determined to fight for what they perceive as moral, ethical or sociological rights to freedom of expression.

I have to ask just what the police in NSW thought they were doing this week in the light of a murals being painted over. Whether they forewent their usual duties to wield a paint brush or brought in contractors, their actions made national headlines. The mural in question would have been seen by only those who chose to walk past it and given the notoriously short concentration span of the 21^st century citizen, probably forgotten immediately. As it is, their actions were plastered all over the country and remained extant until at least the next news cycle. So, what did it achieve? Scottie Marsh depicted a police car set alight. Marsh’s works are sought after by international collectors as he is a leading figure in the rise of graffiti-based art, His paintings are created with both brush and spray-can resulting in a dynamic fusion in Australian art. Marsh’s subject matter juxtaposes classic ‘high-art’ themes such as still life, and the female nude, with contemporary motifs. While Marsh is obviously working with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, the result is none-the-less aesthetic for it. His political murals, have attracted world-wide attention, dealing with issues such as liquor-licensing laws (Casino Mike, 2016), environmentalism (Reef Killers, 2017) and Marriage Equality (Bride of Tony Abbott, 2017). When the social glue seems to be becoming weaker due to social inequality and fractured politics, the artist responds. To then point the blame at the artist is illogical

A political mural By ALLISON HORE in Marrickville NSW was washed over with white paint on Thursday night, less than 24 hours after it was painted. Again, police were involved. The mural titled, ‘Vote or Die – Deal with the devil’, depicted US President Trump and Prime Minister Morrison shaking hands atop a pile of skulls.  The mural is about Australia’s deals with the US as well as the nations’ responses to climate change.  Writing endless words in opinion columns of the national papers or drawing a cartoon are acceptable. Murals, surprisingly,  are not. I recall the incident from the film Ship of Fools when the sculptor has his knife confiscated just in case it could become a weapon, while a Nazi officer in the black regalia of Hitler’s regime, gets dressed to present himself to the world. What role a single artist might have assumed in bringing down the Third Reich was never explored. What role either mural could play in the power struggles of politicians in NSW remains to be seen. Bringing in police though is a very different matter.

Making the painting of a mural a criminal offence, just as is the needless tagging of public buildings by disenfrancised youth, is an alignment that serves no one. If police had tried to paint over the IRA murals in Belfast or those that fill the walls of the Favellas in Rio there would have been riots. Such murals are historical documents. The political murals in NSW are no different. If the authorities imagine that they will be more successful than any of the predecessors in writing alternative views of history, theirs is a very limited understanding of history. As actions increase to have public monuments to slave traders removed, the presence of murals is just as much akin to living history as the statues of imperialists were in the past. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Trying to separate the artist from the work of art or the colonial imperialist from the nature of the culture created, is futile. As much as you might disagree with historical interpretation, artists will always seek to make a point. That is why we laud them in the first place.