Art as a Form of Resistance

Art can be a powerful medium to make statements about social issues and the different types of violence inflicted upon a diverse set of communities. Technology in the 20th and 21st centuries has revolutionized violence. Its documentation created an influx of new problems, social relations, and damaging possibilities. 

The scale and quantity of shootings, hate crimes, and other malicious acts have risen over the past 120 years. Improvements in technology has given way to new methods of violence with even more disastrous consequences. 

At times, art is the only safe method to comment on politics, making art that much more significant in understanding how violence has shaped communities and histories. 

Violence has evolved with society. Guillotines and catapults are no longer the epitome of punishment or warfare. The 20th and 21st centuries have forged a new era of violence with the seemingly endless possibilities technology provides. In his book Modernity and the Holocaust, Zygmunt Bauman indicates the causes that led to the willing participation of antisemitism, ultimately leading to the Holocaust. He identifies that modern society birthed the combination of “technological achievement of an industrial society” and the “organizational achievement of a bureaucratic society” (Bauman, 13). With both the technology to create new psychological and physical weapons and the organization to develop new tactics and means of deploying said weapons, modern society became the perfect backdrop for increased violence. 

Artists took to their canvases, their cameras, and their studios to create art symbolizing Global Resistance where it was then shown in Le Centre Pompidou in Paris. This exhibit pulled artists from around the world to display their acts of resistance against violence. Two artists in particular, Thomas Hirschhorn and Chim↑Pom commented on the influx of violence around the globe and the damaging effects of nuclear waste respectively.

How is the rationalization of violence depicted through art?

Outgrowth, by Thomas Hirschhorn

Thomas Hirschhorn’s piece, Outgrowth, comments on the multitude of violent atrocities plaguing the world. When presented at the National Museum of Modern Art in 2011, Hirschhorn explained the world faces “an excess of problems… too many wars, too much violence, [and] too much injustice” (Pompidou, 1). In 2005, when Hirschhorn presented this piece, North Korea had created nuclear weapons, China blocked Taiwan from gaining their independence, and multiple bombings occurred around the globe. Hirschhorn does not specify a single moment of violence that inspired his piece, but rather the global trend towards violence and intolerance.

One globe out of the 126 in Hirschhorn’s piece

Hirschhorn’s use of brown tape compares the idea of a tumor - something foreign, abnormal, and at times, deadly - with the growing disdain and violence occurring around the world. By using 126 globes and startling photographs, he resembles the frustration, sadness, and overwhelming nature the viewer feels with the feelings of those living through the violence.

Hirschhorn’s piece debuted 60 years after the end of the Holocaust, yet many of the same themes still ring true. The constant exposure to broadcasted violence around the world desensitizes the general public to its real weight and devastating impact. The normalcy of violence breeds a sense of apathy: if it is not happening to me, I should not concern myself with it. It is only when faced with violence does the true extent of the issue come to light. 

Violent acts in the 20th and 21st centuries, according to Bauman, can surpass moral obligations if one or more of the following three conditions are reached: “authoriz[ation]”, “routinized” actions, and “dehumaniz[ation]” (21, Bauman). These conditions allow an individual to simply follow orders as “through honor, discipline is substituted for moral responsibility” (Bauman, 22). Bauman’s analysis of the disregard for one’s morality in the name of obligation is pivotal. To challenge the origins and consequences of violence, one must be able to name the causes and justifications. The lack of concern for morality in the case of genocide or human rights violations can be explained through Bauman’s outline. 

Growing up, I constantly asked myself “how could a normal person ever become a nazi?”. To me it felt like a cop out to blame it on following orders instead of taking personal responsibility.

A study done by Stanley Milgram at Yale University in the early 1960s sought to examine the justifications of violence during the Holocaust. He found that most participants cited “obedience” as their defense. His experiment consisted of one man being attached to electrodes and answering test questions while the other was to administer increasing levels of voltage with each wrong answer. The teacher in a lab coat told the second participant when to administer the shocks. The two participants could not see one another. In an article, Milgram summarizes that “stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives” and despite their “ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not” (Milgram, 1). Thus, a lack of connection from the act and the presence of authority can mitigate one’s morals to maintain their respect for authority. 

Another example of violence being justified through job duties, though distinct in the fact that undocumented immigrants technically broke the law, is how ICE has mobilized under the Trump administration. In the wake of the 2016 presidency, a new executive order by President Trump directed American ICE officers to detain and deport all undocumented immigrants even if they had not committed a violent crime. The presence of undocumented immigrants contributes greatly to the US economy and culture as they bring a strong work ethic along with new ideas and customs. ICE agents claim they were simply following orders. In the Netflix docu-series Immigration Nation, one agent reveals the realities of immigration in the US and explains that they “constantly look like the bad guys when all [they] are doing is enforcing the laws and doing [their] jobs” (Immigration Nation, 11:06, episode 1).

At what point is the individual personally accountable for their actions? Violence, through terror, trauma, and physical abuse, against undocumented immigrants who have committed no violent crimes is cruel. The tactics ICE uses, entering people’s homes without showing a warrant, separating children from their parents, and creating detention centers to hold undocumented immigrants are reminiscent of the Holocaust. Parents at Auschwitz had their children ripped from their arms and if they held on, they or their children would be murdered. When comparing ICE initiatives and the Holocaust, it is important to realize the tactics draw similarity but they are not equivalent in their devastating historical influence. Becca Heller, a human rights lawyer at the International Refugee Assistance Project comments that “when you add up all the people just doing their job, it becomes this crazy, terrorizing system” (Immigration Nation, 44:46, Episode 1). 

The rationalization of the actions of ICE agents and those who furthered the Nazi regime are one and the same. The authoritative figure gives solace to those working underneath them by authorizing their actions, commonizing their actions, and dehumanizing the people they are inflicting violence upon. Additionally, the perpetuation of violence through laws and institutions reinforce the rationality of it. Agents are simply following the law, but what if the law is racist? ICE agents disregard rehabilitation and use the spectacle of arresting and deporting all undocumented immigrants as a means of deterring people from crossing the border in the future. 

ICE uses fear tactics to execute orders and to deter people from committing an action while Chim↑Pom uses fear tactics in an attempt to drive society into action. 

Chim↑Pom tackles different social issues through their art, and their pieces “Real Times” and “Without SAY GOODBYE” comment on the lack of action taken after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Okuma, Japan. After an earthquake and tsunami in 2011, the Fukushima Nuclear power plant flooded which caused the emergency generator and circulating pumps to shut off. This disaster leaked radioactive isotopes into the Pacific Ocean, contaminating the coastline and endangering local inhabitants. 

Real Times, by Chim↑Pom

In an interview, Chim↑Pom explains their artistic process when creating their pieces. They climbed to the observatory overlooking the factory wearing hazmat suits, and “took out a white flag, to which they added a red circle to make [the Japanese] flag and then the [international symbol of radiation]” (Miyakoshi, 1). They waived the flag, staking claim that radiation has conquered this area. Additionally, they erected a scarecrow wearing a hazmat suit to “pay homage” (Miyakoshi, 1) to the workers that continued to work despite the radiation leak. Although “the field was contaminated … [it] still needs to be protected” (Miyakoshi, 1). Through this, Chim↑Pom parallels the importance of the worker’s lives and the environment. creating a sense of unease. The scarecrow holds a sign reading “Without SAY GOODBYE” and is a dystopian representation of us, the human race. If nothing is done to address the climate crisis, all that will be left are the material objects we have created and no time to reverse the damage we have done. The morbidity of hazmat suits establishes a sense of urgency: if we do nothing to stop the violence against the earth, we will be subjected to wear hazmat suits until not even those can protect us. 

Real Times on the left. Without SAY GOODBYE on the right, both by Chim↑Pom

These acts of defiance are simple yet powerful. Chim↑Pom opposes indirect violence against the employees who are put into harm's way and against the environment which has no opinion on the matter. 

Almost 10 years following the disaster in Fukushima, there is still no solution for radioactive waste. Despite government intervention in 2011, the factory did not correct the issues that stemmed from the disaster. Radiation-ridden water leaked into the ocean for over a year and a half. This explosion exposed “the delusion that we could safely harness nuclear fission to deliver large scale energy” (xxv, Hindmarsh). The escalation of violence does not impact only humans, but other species and ecosystems as well. Nuclear power poses an immense environmental concern as there is currently no solution to dispose of radioactive waste. Currently, it is “stockpil[ed]” and its components take “hundreds of thousands of years” to fully dissipate and only when “isolated from natural systems” (Hindmarsh, xxvi). The assumption that a solution will be found before irreversible environmental damage occurs reveals the lack of concern for the environment. 

Violating the principles of environmental justice through the destruction or harming of an ecosystem, known as ecocide, is direct violence against the Earth. By attacking the Earth, you attack its inhabitants. Radiation and the creation of nuclear weapons are an explicit violation of environmental justice as nuclear production harms any ecosystem it comes into contact with.

Violence against the environment is often indirect and a consequence of a different political priority. Nuclear energy was originally framed “as cheap, clean, and safe” yet the opposite is true. The nuclear industry pivoted and proposed nuclear energy as the “only proven low-carbon electricity supply technology.” By doing this, they appealed to the environmentalist perspective; however, there were still two major problems: “radioactive waste and weapons proliferation” (xxvi, Hindmarsh). The irony lies in the reduction of fossil fuels while simultaneously creating an environmental nightmare with no solution, radioactive waste. 

Nuclear energy has plagued the Earth with radioactive waste and the industry is still growing. Amongst the environmental concerns, the development of nuclear arms, arguably the most violent weapon in history, poses threat to world peace. Russia, in 2019, created a new underwater weapon system that when detonated, “a powerful blast followed by enormous tsunami effects” (Hwang and Kim, 87) would occur. Both “the reactor” and the “nuclear warhead [would explode]” resulting in significant environmental impact.” Additionally, “the radioactivity of nuclear power reactors lasts about 1000 times longer than [] nuclear weapons, extending their impact over 100,000 years,” (88, Hwang and Kim). The possibility of the radioactive contamination of seawater would cause immense damage to our underwater ecosystems. The production and development of nuclear power will continue to grow with the emergence of new technology yet the rationalization for such development will remain the same. Although Chim↑Pom was unaware of the future of nuclear power in 2020, it only brings more importance to their point. Despite the violence and destruction it may cause, it is in the name of scientific advancement that we rationalize the development of more and more powerful weapons.

The disconnect between high ranking officials and the damage they cause perpetuates the rationalization of violence. Bauman explains that “with killing at a distance, the link between carnage and totally innocent acts … is likely to remain a purely theoretical notion” (Bauman, 25). The Japanese government does not work in Fukushima, making the impact of the nuclear disaster removed from their sphere of consciousness and therefore, removed from their priorities. The violence against the environment and the employees who continue to work while being “conceivably ready to die” (Miyakoshi, 1) creates an inconceivable notion. The employees show up to work knowing there were still lethal amounts of radiation that could cause major health issues and there was little to nothing being done to help them. 

Through their political statement, Chim↑Pom comments on the moral ambiguity of the development of nuclear power. The concept of progress and advancement rids corporations of their moral obligation to their workers and the greater good - the environment, in the case of nuclear power. People do not speak out in fear of alienation, disrespecting cultural norms, or losing their livelihoods. Similarly, Hirschhorn’s piece “Outgrowth” comments on the deep disconnect between the violence occurring globally and one’s personal responsibility to stop it. Bauman explains that the Holocaust was often referred to as a point in “Jewish history” (Bauman, 1). By removing it from the global context and giving it a scientific backing, people were less likely to feel responsible for their actions. Both of these pieces call attention to the disconnect between each act of violence and its local or global impact. This division allows for the continuous flow of violence.

Both Hirschhorn and Chim↑Pom reveal the rationalization of violence through their respective pieces. “Outgrowth” displays the justification of violence through the sheer quantity of it. There is such a tremendous amount of violence happening globally that one more violent act does not shift the scale drastically. “Real Times” and “Without SAY GOODBYE” combat the rationalization of violence through their political statement. We can no longer justify violence for the greater good because in doing so, it destroys the commons. Governments and corporations need to take accountability for their decisions and delegate the appropriate resources and time to correct the issue. 

The threat of nuclear power revolutionized violence in the 20th and 21st centuries. Its indirect impacts on the environment and innocent lives set a precedent that political objectives (such as continuing to develop nuclear weapons) take priority over our earth and our fellow citizens.

Hirschhorn aims to illuminate modern society’s reliance on violence. By depicting different instances of violence, he begs the question why? There is little to no moral excuse for violence, yet it is a constant, pervasive force in the world we live. He explains that “the problem isn’t an absence … the problem is this excess” (Pompidou, 1) meaning the world does not have an absence of compassion and peace, but an excess of violence. 

Can understanding the justifications of violence lead us to create a world of which we are proud to be a part?

Sources:

Bauman, Zygmunt. “Sociology after the Holocaust.” The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 39,

no. 4, 1988, pp. 469–497. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/590497. Accessed 7 Oct. 2020.

Outgrowth: Centre Pompidou. (2020). 

https://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/resource/cj7r8k8/rRea97. Accessed October 07, 2020.

Editor's Preface and Foreword [Foreword]. (2014). Richard A. Hindmarsh (Author), Nuclear 

disaster at Fukushima Daiichi: Social, political and environmental issues (pp. 

Xxi-Xxviii). London, England: Routledge.

IL-SOON, HWANG, and KIM JI-SUN. The Environmental Impact of Nuclear-Powered 

Autonomous Weapons. Edited by LORA SAALMAN, Stockholm International Peace 

Research Institute, 2019, pp. 86–90, The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Strategic

Stability and Nuclear Risk: Volume II East Asian Perspectives, 

www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24532.18. Accessed 7 Oct. 2020.

Miyakoshi, Yuko. (2011, June 1). Chim↑Pom. Retrieved October 07, 2020, from 

http://www.shift.jp.org/en/archives/2011/06/chimpom.html/2/. 

Stanley, Milgram. “The Perils of Obedience.” Harper’s, December 1973, p 62.