Wafaa Bilal Has Terror “Art” Pulled From RPI
Wafaa Bilal is a struggling leftist artist who creates controversial pieces that criticize Bush and the war in Iraq. His latest “piece” called “Virtual Jihadi” was created by customizing a video game used by Al Queda to insert himself into the game wearing a suicide belt to blow up President Bush. It has no artistic merit, or about as much as a pile of dog poo with a Heinz Ketchup flag sticking out of the top of it.
Wafaa uses the excuse that his brother was nuked in Iraq to justify his pro-terror “artwork” because society loves leftists with unimpeachable “absolute moral authority.” Accusing him of being a terror-supporting asshole is wrong because he lost a brother. Just like you can’t accuse Cindy Sheehan of being a terror-supporting asshole because she lost a son in Iraq.
Now the guy’s on an FBI watch list and his latest exhibit was banned from at least one college campus. From the Times Union here:
RPI has suspended a visiting artist’s exhibition because of concerns it suggests violence against President Bush and may be based on the work of terrorists.
The move capped a chain of events — including claims the FBI was eyeing the artist — that began last month when the College Republicans blasted the arts department as “a terrorist safe haven.”
The work that provoked that attack is Wafaa Bilal’s “Virtual Jihadi.” The origin of his work is a video game called “Quest for Saddam.” The game, where players target the ex-Iraqi leader, prompted what RPI’s Web site describes as an al-Qaida spin-off called “The Night of Bush Capturing.”
Bilal hacked into that game and casts himself as a suicide bomber who gets sent on a mission to assassinate President Bush.
Bilal said his brother was killed in the conflict. His exhibit’s stated intention is to highlight vulnerability to recruitment by groups like al-Qaida “because of the U.S.’s failed strategy in securing Iraq.” It also criticizes “racist generalizations and stereotypes as exhibited in games such as ‘Quest for Saddam.”‘
Bilal was scheduled to give a lecture and unveil his exhibit but he was pulled out of the room by RPI officials.
Questions surfaced about the exhibit’s “legality” and “consistency with the norms and policies of the institute.”
“The university is considering various factors relating to the exhibition, and has suspended it pending a more complete review of its origin, content, and intent,” he said. “Rensselaer fully supports academic and artistic freedom. The question under review regards the use of university resources to provide a platform for what may be a product of a terrorist organization or which suggests violence directed toward the President of the United States and his family.”
RPI student body president Julia Leusner argued that it was hypocritical of Bilal to depict the stereotype he was condemning.
“If Bilal was making a point about the vulnerability of Iraqi civilians to the travesties of the current war, I failed to see it, as did every other student I spoke to,” Leusner said.
Leftists love controversial art. They think dropping a crucifix into a jar of urine is the cat’s meow. And they think the purpose of art is to “start dialogue” or “challenge societal norms.” But when confronted with a piece of art that challenges leftist ideals, it gets labeled as racist, bigoted, and disgusting.
One blogger, Brian Boyko, a Wafaa Bilal fanboy, Peter Griffin look-alike and avowed anti-military leftist that is trying to emigrate out of the country, really didn’t like the idea of my own artwork as described below.
I have a self-flushing Koran. I want it to be powered by a green source, but I couldn’t find one so I salvaged the unspent carbon credits of Wafaa Bilal’s dead brother to power it.
Sounds like great art to me. It has all the trappings of a political piece- its controversial, challenges societal norms, gets people talking, and tackles the beliefs of a single political party. My art piece according to Boyko? Yucky. But strapping on a bomb to kill Bush? Teh yummy.
Wow, you really “outed” me, Big Man. I’m scared! Because clearly I am so afraid of stating my beliefs in public.
Maybe I’ll go take some drugs for my depression… do they make one specifically to deal with my horror of existence of people like you?
Signing off, my little willfully ignorant friend. It’s been real fun “talking” to you. Take care of yourself. Try to read a book every once in a while. Xo.
Decent Person:
I think you forgot to respond to my post. That, or I just made really valid points.
As for your most recent post, I have a few points/questions:
1.) What, exactly, are the malicious attacks on Mr. Bilal’s character that you speak of?
2.) The US Department of State has defined a terrorist safe haven as being “an area of relative security exploited by terrorists to indoctrinate, recruit, coalesce, train, and regroup, as well as prepare and support their operations”. While no one–and I repeat, no one–at RPI has ever called or believed Mr. Bilal to be a terrorist (including any and all of the RPI College Republicans–CRs), there were three components of Mr. Bilal’s presentation which were believed to qualify his work as falling under the definition of terrorist indoctrination, thus leading the CRs to use that word:
(a) the glorification of suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism against civilians; among them, the President of the United States
(b) the fact that the work is nearly identical to an Al-Qaeda publication, in which users have an identical goal
(c) the overall attempt by Mr. Bilal to humanize and, theoretically, garner sympathy for, Al-Qaeda members and their actions (particularly, those recruited by Al-Qaeda)
Inflammatory language or not, there was justification behind its use and furthermore, the fact that there has been ample discussion about Mr. Bilal’s video game is a testament to people not clearly seeing Bilal’s intention behind this piece of “art”. This is not to say anyone thinks he is a terrorist, by far, so please don’t mince my words. What I do mean is that Bilal’s intentions and purpose behind his artwork isn’t clearly being received by the viewing public, necessitating further discussion about it. Honestly, I’m also still wondering why he felt the need to debut his video game at a school that is not known for art at all (RPI), as opposed to a place that is very well-known (Art Institute of Chicago). Doesn’t make much sense!
3.) No particular group “succeeded in getting him kicked off campus.” The College Republicans made a post on their blog–that’s it. They didn’t protest the event, they didn’t storm the Troy building and demand that Dr. Jackson cancel the event, they didn’t send threatening emails or letters, etc. The media caught wind of this exhibit at RPI and it was such a controversial exhibit, that a few sources published short blurbs about it. What did get the exhibit suspended, and ultimately closed, was the discussion last Wednesday night following Bilal’s presentation, in addition to the fact that instead of making his own game, he ripped the basic scaffold off of a terrorist organization. How is that art? Make your own game if you want to actually warrant referring to it as art.
4.) What are the “continuing statements around campus (and in Troy) about how Mr. Bilal should go back to his own country and stop attacking “our country””? I’m around Troy, even though it is Spring Break for RPI right now, and I haven’t heard any of this. And if it is coming from the campus and/or the City of Troy, it’s not coming from the CRs.
5.) I have seen his “artwork” in question, as well as a lot of his other work (I checked out his website and have done a lot of research on him); I am an artist, myself. What he did is not art. It’s not original, it’s not creative; he simply tried to make a political statement and failed miserably at doing so. He wanted to create controversy to get people engaged (as he admits, himself), which is ironic considering his point has been drowned out by the controversy.
6.) Bilal’s artwork was not censored. It was shown to RPI students and to some of the public (from what I saw/heard, the audience was 99.99% RPI folks) for some time, albeit brief, and is now open for viewing in a different venue. RPI is a private institution and has every right to decide what can or cannot be displayed on their campus. To this end, if you are still going to maintain the premise that the removal of Wafaa Bilal’s exhibit is “censorship,” then I ask this question: the RPI administration removed the College Republicans’ website “temporarily” yesterday–would this not also be censorship?
Now who’s the bad guy, Decent Person?
Decent Person’s art is here.
http://p-lane.com/
Compared to Bilal’s it is superior in just about every way, despite its controversial and liberal subject matter.
Penny obviously feels for Bilal as a fellow art professor and is pained to see him get the heave-ho, but seriously, his exhibit had no merit.
NO WAY. Decent person = Penny Lane???
AHAHAHAHA this just gets better and better…
Is Penny a “Decent Person?” As someone not from the Troy region, is she some sort of local celebrity or something?
No, definitely not a local celebrity, but she did lead a pro-abortion crusade in the capital region. I actually know her more intimately than that (nothing indecent, I promise!), but I’ll be she hasn’t a clue who I am.
She’s not a bad person, just a huge feminist of sorts–a very vocal one, at that.
To fix a mistake in my above post so it makes more sense:
*but I’ll BET she hasn’t a clue who I am.
By the way, I was just amused that the person I was responding to all along was someone I know. It’s a small world, I guess!
Brian Sherwin just interviewed Wafaa and this issue was mentioned. You can find it at http://www.myartspace.com/blog I personally think that Wafaa’s freedoms have been ripped from him. If a white artist had an exhibit about killing terrorists there would have been no controversy.
I might add that Wafaa is not a struggling artist. He was a main feature at Scope in the past and he teaches at SAIC. My guess is that he is not hurting in the money department.
As for the comment about the game not being art because he did not create it to begin with that is like saying that a painting is not art because the artist did not make the canvas or that an artwork involving found objects is not art because the artist did not create the found objects.
Walter thanks for your input on the discussion. Did Bilal go to jail? If not, I fail to see how any freedoms were taken from him. And you fail in your comparison of him portraying attempts to assassinate Bush to white people killing terrorists. Its not the same thing.
Much of Bilal’s art is ripped off of other artists. Some is really cool and clever and I like it, but it is still not completely original.
Walter:
What about if it was a “brown artist” who had an “exhibit about killing terrorists”? I fail to see why you had to point out that the artist needed to be white in order to avoid any controversy with the exhibit. This suggests to me that you’re missing the point, entirely. It wasn’t about the color of Mr. Bilal’s skin, but the content in his “art” exhibit. His other art exhibits remained on RPI’s campus, and RPI even kept this particular one–“virtual jihadi”–open to the RPI community for at least a day after it was initially suspended.
Also, he was not denied freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form. RPI offered him a forum through which he could discuss the controversy and closing of this particular part of his exhibit, but he refused. He had the chance and said “no”. RPI elected not to pay for the showing of his exhibit and they were well within their rights to do so as a private institution.
Moreover, it was only recently unveiled to the RPI community that the RPI Arts Department–who brought Mr. Bilal to RPI–did this “under the radar” with as little advertisement as possible, and without notifying their superiors (including but not limited to the Provost of the institution) that they were bringing Mr. Bilal to campus with RPI funds. I don’t know what you think about this, but to me, that makes it blatantly obvious that they were pushing an agenda and knew that they wouldn’t be able to get away with it if they had to have it “cleared”, first. Sneaky.
And if Mr. Bilal is so used to controversy and, in fact, open to it because he thinks it generates discussion on his art themes, then why did he fold as soon as any amount of pressure was put on him?
I know white artists who have made art involving Bush being bombed, tortured, or worse since the invasion of Iraq and none of them were attacked by the press or by Republican groups. Maybe if they were of a different color they would have had more heat placed upon them. It appears that Wafaa is being singled out because of his color, not to mention the fact that there are recordings of people at the protest yelling sand you-know-what. You guys can talk big all you want and call Wafaa a disgrace all you want but the simple fact is that I doubt you could endure the torture that he endured during Saddams regime.
Win, you lying fool. Care to provide any links or other evidence to support your assertion that white artists were bombed or tortured? You sound like a kook. Its not a racial issue, no matter how badly you liberals wish it could be.
“I know white artists who have made art involving Bush being bombed, tortured, or worse since the invasion of Iraq and none of them were attacked by the press or by Republican groups.”
Pat, I don’t think Win said anything about white artists being bombed and tortured. Read the above. And their are accounts of racial slurs being yelled about Wafaa during the protest. You can find them on youtube if they have not been taken off. And there have been white artists who have created anti-bush art who have not had this kind of reaction. You can find them all over the place on college campuses and on online art communities. I think a lot of it does have to be with Wafaa being Iraqi. Maybe not so much a racial issue as an ethnic issue. There is a difference. I also think it is naive of you to assume that Win is a liberal (you obviously associate liberal with Democrat though there is such thing as liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats) just because he said something negative about the actions of some Republicans does not mean he/she is liberal. He/she may very well be a Republican. Personally, I don’t think politics has anything to do with this debate nor should it decide if you regard a persons post or not. I’d also suggest that you read more about the artist or contact him yourself before jumping to conclusions about what his art is about. Considering the fact that Wafaa was tortured by Saddam’s men I doubt very much that he supports terrorists. With video art and installation art you sometimes have to read to know what is going on.
Ah! My bad. He was saying the art was of Bush being bombed or tortured. Not that artists were bombed or tortured.
I still want to see links proving his assertion. And I stand behind my assertion that this was not racial, and yes, Win is still a big flaming lib.