The poster, which was unveiled a month back, is an artist’s take on what he calls the “horrors” of the American lifestyle.
“This art provocation is a form of violence
against the sensitivity of many people,” Norbert Napieraj told The Associated Press.
The Prosecutors, however, claim that the poster is art which does not violate the country’s laws against glorifying Nazism.
The poster has been vandalised twice since it was put up but gallery director Maria Czarnecka said that she does not plan to remove it.
Czarnecka told The Associated Press, “Art should be provocative and controversial.”
She insists that the poster does not intend to propagate Nazism but instead wants to explore “symbols and how they work.”
I admit that I find this work fairly unimaginative, it reminds me of the sort of thing you see first year art students creating as they rail against the status quo. it’s angry and designed to offend. the good news is that this time it isn’t the nude that’s causing the furor- thank goodness for that! I agree that art should be ‘provocative and controversial’, that is one of the many points of art, but there is a fine line between designing something to be provocative and creating it in order to offend people. The massive swastika does seem to glorify nazism – how can it not? it’s the first thing you see. it’s the primary focus. perhaps adding more symbols to reinforce their key concept may detract from the implied glorification, I don’t know, but it seems a little inflammatory to me.
I’ve always wondered about artwork like this. when the message is so blatant, and the intent is worn on it’s sleeve (frame?) what is there to ponder? what makes you return to the work? what makes it relatable to people?