As I mentioned in class last Thursday, while studying abroad in Amman, Jordan last semester I had the chance to attend an exhibition of paintings made by Iraqi torture victims through the course of their participation in The Center for Victims of Tortures’ art therapy program.
Our class discussion that day revolved around the role of the state in discouraging and delegitimizing art that portrayed the darker aspects of life in Iraq. The role of the Iraqi state in stifling this type of darker art was diminished in this case as it was displayed in Jordan under the auspices of an international organization. The Jordanian state may even have had an interest in promoting this specific exhibition as a means of propagating its image as a progressive regime among the Arab states.
After reviewing a few of these paintings, I noticed that they seemed a bit more varied than the works we viewed in class that were produced within Iraq; some are certainly just as dark, yet many boast the inclusion of symbols of hope. This, I think, comes from the fact that the individual artists behind the paintings are creating their work under the care of individuals encouraging them to look toward a brighter future.
To be perfectly honest, at first, the fact that an exhibition was being held to view this type of art struck me as strange. Isn’t therapy a very personal venture? Who is the actual audience that will view, interpret, and be influenced by the art? The exhibition was held in a wealthier area of Amman, and a fellow American student and I were the only people in attendance for a full forty-five minutes. And after perusing photos of the gallery online, I noticed that all viewers that were photographed were very clearly either upper-class Jordanians or Westerners. This initially makes me think that that the intent is to reach human rights activists residing in Jordan, but I can’t help but wonder why victims of torture that haven’t spoken up yet were not at least a portion the target audience for viewing of the program’s final result.
The Center for Victims of Torture website can be accessed through the following link: http://www.cvt.org/
An informational video about the exhibit can be viewed here: http://www.cvt.org/where-we-work/middle-east
I think that the question about who this art show is being marketed to is really interesting. I agree that therapy is generally seen as a really personal thing, but I wonder if for some, sharing their experiences in a sort of activist way is also part of that, as though raising awareness in the hopes that it means other won’t have to go through what they did becomes part of the healing process. I would imagine that it could help them to regain agency instead of being just a passive victim. But that, then, would imply having a broad audience, so your question of who really was seeing this work is really important, especially since, if it was mostly activists seeing the work, they’re already aware of the issues, more or less. Why weren’t there other victims at the exhibit, and why wasn’t a greater audience there in general? I was wondering, do you happen to know anything about how the exhibit was marketed and advertised?
I agree with you that an exhibition of therapeutic art is a strange concept, as the art and its underlying meanings would seem to be highly personal. From what I’ve seen of the informational video, the works do seem “brighter” than the ones we were shown in class and from the New York Times article assigned. However, a big difference is that the art from class was done by professional artists or art students, who have a different approach to and conception of art. The works at the exhibit were done to relieve personal stress and for purposes of therapy, while professional artists usually have a message they want to express for a certain “art” elite or institution – they can be highly political, or critical of social or cultural issues.
The Center would also do better to display less “dark” art, as darker subjects would probably be a sign that the therapy isn’t really working (although not necessarily).
Another question is: are these therapeutic pieces created for public viewing? And who is the viewer? You addressed this question in your post, but the content would probably be affected by this. Ultimately, there are a lot of questions behind the Center for Victims of Torture’s use of victims’ art. I’m definitely not saying that the organization is being manipulative or unethical, just that even with the best of intentions, there are still issues that arise.
I definitely see where you are coming from when you wrote about art therapy as a personal venture being presented almost as public art. However, is the idea that art therapy as a personal venture grounded on how we Americans see it as a private matter? How do people from Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East perceive such matters? It could be a matter of cultural difference. Maybe it goes beyond the individual’s healing and becomes a means to cope collectively as a society by sharing these works. The paintings become the voice of the people.
I know we haven’t gone into it in much detail yet but, I also wonder how the subversiveness of some paintings are more threatening in this case despite their personal production than cartoons that seem to reveal everything like that one we saw in class about the way the media (TV) frames things and what they don’t show as in the image of the soldier and his hurt finger.