Yes, it's snowing here again, but then what does one expect so far north of the equator in January?

There has been a gentle powdering of continous snow since yesterday and in places it is quite deep and soft. Perfect for snow angels! I might see if I can sweet talk my man into posing for a pictorial essay (purely for our education, of course!) about making snow angels. But basically, in the right kind of snow (and believe me, there are many kinds of snow), you flop yourself backwards into the snow with arms outstretched, then wave them about in the snow and when you get up, you leave an impression of an angel in the snow. Of course, the impression you leave on the neighbours is something else altogether.

In the news this week, the Stockholm International Forum on preventing genocide has been meeting this week. Once again traffic has been disrupted in the downtown area, as police have cordoned off streets around the conference center and have put up barriers to prevent cars from parking nearby.

There are 1000 government representatives and other delegates from almost 60 countries attending the conference. But even before the conference began, we had a huge art controversy over one of the pieces in an exhibition mounted to co-incide with the conference.

The exhibition is called Making Differences. The theme is Lämnad ensam med sin egen svaghet, är människor i stand till vad som helst. — Man, left alone with his own weaknesses, is capable of almost anything. As a theme to accompany an international conference on genocide, it certainly offers one perspective on the origins of evil. But I digress. The offending piece is called SnöVit (Snow White).

The huge controversy occurred when the Israeli ambassador visited the exhibition after reading about it in the local news and vandalised this installation, claiming that it was anti-Semetic and glorified the suicide bomber, Hanadi Jaradat. The artist, himself an Israeli living now in Sweden vehemently denied the charge. You can read the text accompanying the exhibit here.

He strongly objected to the notion that he in any way supports suicide bombings, and said basically that the exhibit was meant to create a discussion about why a 29 year old woman, a well educated lawyer, would commit the hideous act that she did. And about the circumstances in society that create the amount of desperation that causes some people to resort to this type of response. The text accompanying the artwork held the names of the victims of the bombing.

However, politicians weighed in with ill-informed opinions and a bun fight ensued about whether it should be removed or not. The Prime Minister eventually stated that Sweden was not a police state and that there would be no censorship of the artwork.

So then the controversy turned to the posters advertising the exhibition that were plastered all over town, including the subway. There were demands by the Israeli ambassador to have them removed or Israel would not attend the conference. Eventually the transport company agreed to remove the posters of the bomber to placate the Israelis.

I haven't seen the offending piece and doubt that I will go now as the whole debate has prejudiced my view. I'll be looking at it and wondering what it was that others saw in it rather than being able to get a first, own reaction. Which is a pity. I am no art critic, but my question is: Who is the responsible party in art? Or, is it the audience's fault it misconstrues the intent and message of the piece, or is it the artist's fault?

High-minded elites no doubt would blame bushpigs like me for being too ignorant of 'art' to see the nuanced ideas behind the exhibit. I admit that I am an idiot, but I believe that the artist is almost wholly responsible for the interpretation of his work.

I see a parallel to the artwork Holy Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili that was displayed in New York in 1999. The piece had the Virgin Mary on a canvas smeared with elephant dung. The artist did not intend the work to be offensive to Mary and thus Catholics, but it was. He was using an African symbol to convey a certain idea about the Blessed Virgin. Fine. But for him and the elite to expect ordinary people in a largely Irish/Italian Catholic American city not to get extremely upset is ludicrous. The artist failed to know how to correctly communicate with his audience. And we had the same homegrown controversy in Australia in 1997 with the display of Andre Serrano's contoversial piece Piss Christ. The talkback radio shows were frothing at the mouth for weeks!

Does Snow White offend on account of its message? The Israeli Ambassador probably thought so. Does this justify defacing it? I don't really think so.

Wow. This has been a somewhat more serious post from me. Not what you are used to at all. So I better remedy that with another of my completely useless, inane quizzes. Come on, Sue, you know you can't resist:

How Would YOU Take Over the World?