When Heba told me she had the prints, my first instinct was to burn them.
It had been a week since our first call concerning a series of golden silkscreen prints. She, Don and the manager of the gallery representing Heba had discovered them by accident at the Berlin Art Fair. The prints are rather unremarkable- a series of nine, subdued silkscreens of pictures taken off the internet, printed with a shimmering, golden hue. They reminded me of my grandmothers' furniture in Cairo. What they depicted, however, was very familiar to us- we had made it, and these were blatant copies of our documentation of the work on the Homeland set.
Set picture: Bottom left, next to the flag: This series does not represent the view of the artists.
What they had come across was a series by David Krippendorff entitled “This Show does not Represent the View of the Artist”, a tiny play on one of the slogans we used. I was somewhat flattered, at first, at this attempt at an homage, until I read the artists statement, which does not even bother to mention the full context of the hack, let alone have the decency to name the group involved in its creation. It was simply an homage to the Homeland hack and the Arab speaking artists" who made it. It does not reflect on the views of the artists, or attempt to expand the discussion we initiated in any way, shape or form. This is extractive artistic commercialism in the thin veneer of baseless flattery. It tastes bitter to be associated with it, and have to deal with the aftermath. And yet, until recently, I was not planning to say anything about this publicly- the whole story seemed comical, even pathetic, to a point where it seemed petty to make anything more than a few laughs over a drink out of it. Recent developments have changed my mind.
Let’s think about this for a moment: we undertook our actions on the set of homeland to create a counter-narrative* from within to the story the series was spinning about people of Middle Eastern and South-East Asian origin. To reclaim, as possible, a medial space of representation, and to ask for a more differentiated view of people of those backgrounds in media and society- a view that does not homogenise a wide swathe of people into the image of an antagonistic other. We saw the need for a discussion, and a vessel to promote it. We took our risks, said our piece, and then left the stage open to others. It happened to catch the public interest, and I think a good laugh was had by all as the events following the reveal of the hack unfolded. An ongoing discussion was initiated. I regret to see a positive memory sullied in such a cheap, and cheapening way.
As it was told to me- I was not present at the art fair- Heba (Amin) and Don (Stone) were given the artwork, to keep or destroy, with no strings attached. We decided that, the matter apparently being settled, there was no need for legal consultation. It seemed clear: we had caught someone plagiarising and selling copies of our work without notifying us, they handed over the work, and agreed not to reproduce it. We sought a written agreement, to have some recourse, shaking our heads at the act, but willing to let it go, until subsequent events made us decide it was time to speak out about this. Heba went public with a post about the incidents- she, and we, felt it was important to detail the moral and ethical implications of this appropriation, no matter what the legal consequences.
I spent a day comparing the prints to our work, going through the film “Homeland is Not a Series” frame by frame to locate possible points of provenance. I ended up concluding, privately, that “Most of the stylistic differences are created by the technique used, rather than artistic decisions made by David in preparing the prints. Even the hue he uses in his prints is very similar to some of ours. The only difference I can see here is the medium- screen vs. paper.”. Note that I am not an art appraiser or copyright lawyer, but do know a thing or two about printing techniques and copyright through studying Communication Design. I cannot value the work, save for saying that I find it unoriginal and bland, but I can say that its creation did not involve, as silkscreening goes, a great amount of effort or artistic innovation. I am, of course, biased towards our work, and can only comment on what I have seen so far, so I hope this is not an unfair assessment of Mr. Krippendorffs work, even if it is copying ours.
In doing this, I discovered something irksome to me personally- Mr. Krippendorff had stolen "There is no Homeland", which includes my tag, Mafish**. I’ve been writing Mafish for years now, as it is a word that automatically starts a discussion. It is a trademark, a heteronym and has become a part of me after years of using it. It was taken away without my consent. Mr. Krippendorff is trying to sell it. This particular Nothing is not for sale or placement by anyone but me. It doesn’t matter that he doesn’t know this; what matters is how easily he could have known- even if I am a person who enjoys his privacy, there are enough ways to reach me. And if that’s not enough: there are three people he could have reached out to, not to mention an entire production company.
A bit of history:
 |
| The first Mafish, Cairo, 2012 |
When I started writing "Mafish" (There is no…) in Cairo in 2012, it was intended as a provocative moment that would cause the reader to question the statement. My hope was that it would cause either an affirmation- that would lead to action- a disavowal- which might lead to thoughts about scarcity, isolation, justice, resources and personal relation to the above- or abstract reflection- take that word and see what it means to you. Nothing means Everything. Does it?
It came in four colours: Red, signifying blood (mafish dam- there is no blood is an Arabic saying signifying that a person has no humanity within them), black, signalling justice, gold- a symbol for wealth and money, and green, for religion. It was an overly complex code, which I left to the individual to decypher for themselves. In 2014, I added an infinity loop- mafish, either to infinity, or to signify that nothing is eternal. I’ve been using that since, and applying contextual variants. Whichever variant I have used, it has always led to discussion, whether through the act of writing it in public, or by people reading it in public without necessarily associating the word with me. It is as much a signature as it is a statement. Any number of friends have an acrylic glass plate signed in this fashion. The variant seen on the Homeland set is the OG variant, in spray paint.
 |
| Beirut, 2013 |
It has been used in several articles and to illustrate transcripts of academic discussion and presented in a number of exhibitions without me requiring attribution or clarification on the provenance of this particular Nothing. In the context of the Homeland Hack, it is a footnote at best, and, until recently, I was happy to enjoy this inside joke privately. I don’t recall bringing it up with Don or Heba until October of 2018 and would have liked not to have to- it is nothing, after all. The action, its meaning and impact is greater than the sum of the individuals involved in it- it seemed egoistic to draw extra attention to a personal trademark - and “Homeland is Watermelon/الوطن بطيخ" is irrisistible.
The specific image of Mafish used by Mr. Krippendorff was not amongst those we included in the film***. Up to this point, Mr. Krippendorff has been feigning ignorance about our persons and the hack. However, the use of this image leads me to the conjecture that he did some research online to find material not included in the film. This makes it difficult to believe his ignorance about our action and persons is genuine, which renders his artist statement even more lazy it already is.
 |
| 2018 |
This is a small part, one-ninth of a third, to be exact, of this overall story, and a tiny link in the many stories connected to the Homeland Incident, but a fair illustration of the overall point: the Homeland Hack is, to me, about reclaiming agency, about the right to your story, the right to tell it and the right to exist independently of a master narrative*, to define and fight for your place and perception as an individual in a globalised society. Beyond that, it is also about a claim to your history, and the narration thereof. In selling my name without consent, David Krippendorff robbed me of the agency to associate that name in contexts of my choosing. He took it to the art market, uninterested in its background or history, to sell for his personal gain. What to him is a resource to callously exploit is to me a world of meaning and critical questions I ask of the world. Seeing it printed- golden ink on fine paper - without my consent fills me with a sense of irony, turns that world into the very definition of a kitschy souvenir.
 |
| 2018- I also work from found footage and pictures. This one can be found on Amnesty.ch, entre autres. |
By extension, he did this with the entire body of work and thought that constitutes the Homeland Incident, which, in turn, was a critique of and reaction to the lack of agency accorded to the real-world locations and diverse groups of people depicted on the show “Homeland”. Even the show proved more receptive to this critique than Mr. Krippendorff, who somehow managed to replicate the very issue we were critiquing in his kitschy copy.
Mr Krippendorff, in his statement, did not bother to mention the Arabian Street Artists by name. We became unnamed, Arab-speaking sprayers. He told us he was trying to provide us with “publicity”. We’ve had publicity, thank you, more than you can apparently imagine. He automatically assumed, reportedly, that we were of lesser stature than him, as artists, and in need of his platform****. I am not going to dispute the aesthetics of the graffiti either way, save to say that we had a lot to do in a very short time. In correspondence, he offered to credit us in future showings of the work. As generous as this offer may seem, it is not one that interested us. There are actions, and in this case, works, that are so distasteful that no-one should profit off them. Larmoyant excuses do not improve the situation.
To see our work reproduced in such a lackluster fashion, with so little thought, with such a profiteering motive and so little artistry, save, so far, for legal contortions, is a pathetic reflection of an extractive economy focused on short-term gains over long-term consequences, and the impossibility of meaningful reflection and innovation when caught within. Moreover, seeing our work thus appropriated by an artist who should have a better understanding of the subject matter he is dealing with, not to mention awareness of the issues addressed in the Hack is personally offensive. It is a lack of style and no substance.
To add insult to injury, or vice versa, we are currently threatened to be taken to court for- ironically- violating Mr. Krippendorff’s copyright by publishing pictures comparing his plagiarism to the original work it is based on. This is the point at which it became clear to me that I would have to defend, and fight for the integrity of my Nothing.
In the end, what remains of us, either as footnotes, or chapters, is names and what is associated with them. If Mr. Krippendorff did not understand that his act of plagiaristic appropriation- whichever flavour it has- will forever be associated with his, there is very little l can add here, save to say that whatever happens, he brought it upon himself.
I'd like mine to stay associated with questioning the nature of Nothing.
Update: Mr. Krippendorff has decided to grace us with another statement. Oh joy.
Also: Hyperallergic reports.
Update: Mr. Krippendorff has decided to grace us with another statement. Oh joy.
Also: Hyperallergic reports.
NB 1: some of these wordings have, by now, been used elsewhere. I only have so many words to describe this chapter and they are occasionally shared between publications.
NB 2: Heba Amin and I took the set pictures.
* Bamberg,M. 2004. Considering counter narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense, 351-371;
** mafish can be used in a variety of situations. Like many colloquialisms, it is a highly malleable word. I'm translating it as Nothing here, but it would usually be used in conjcuntion with a noun- as in "Mafish Qahwa?" "Mafish.". It's opposite, fi, means there is, or in. I am drawing from its description of a void to permit myself to translate it as Nothing.
*** NB: I did not discover it in the frame-by-frame forensics I did on my own
**** NB: I don't admit to being an artist most of the time. I work at a printing house and am very happy splitting my time between there and personal endeavours
Comments