N. Korean Artists Denied Entry to Thier Own Art Show

Imagine being an artist from a developing country and having your political artwork, full of strife and struggle, accepted in a major developed nation. The enormity of that achievement would fill one with a profound sense of accomplishment and pride. Now imagine making your travel plans to attend your own show and being denied a VISA from the developed nation that eagerly welcomed your art.  I wish I could say that this situation was hypothetical, but it is anything but. Just this week, five North Korean artists from the Mansudae Art Studio in Pyongyang were denied entry into Australia after attempting to attend THEIR OWN SHOW. The Australian government reported that the artists use their studio and paintings to promote the North Korean dictator- Kim Jung Il. This statement directly contradicts the political atmosphere in which North Koreans are forced to tolerate. Artistic expression is taboo in a country where virtually every news outlet (and their advertisers) is government regulated and journalists do not exist.

In North Korea, freedom (generally and artistically) is determined by what you can accomplish within the government regulations. Thus, North Korean artists paint government accepted imagery with the intent to release their creative juices on a personal level and maintain their livelihood in a threatening political climate.  Suggesting that these artists are propaganda agents for Kim Jung Il because of the imagery on the canvas has several implications. First, it implies that North Korean artists should paint something other than government accepted imagery- a task easier said than done considering the environment. Even so, Kim Jung Il is a major part of their lives and they are surrounded by his image daily. Goverment posters cover nearly every wall of North Korea. With this obvious presence, why would anyone expect them to paint anything other than what they live with daily? And more importantly, why should they? This very notion is beyond insensitive; it is arrogantly naive.

Second (and arguably more importantly), the Australian government has placed itself in the position of an art critic after already accepting, receiving and installing 69 pieces of art from the artists. Riddle me this: What is the difference between Australia censoring who can enter the country based on artistic expression and North Korea censoring what images can be expressed artistically? In no way am I defending North Korea or its human rights violations. However, both countries are exercising their power of censorship. The only difference is that they just happen to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Furthermore, the Australian government literally removed the platform for the artists to verbalize the emotion that went into their artwork at their own show. The show will continue without the artists present to answer questions and defend the nature of their work. This is similar to a parent surprising their child with a trip to Disneyland and then telling the child to “be quiet” when he shouts out in excitement. It is a set-up. A  tease.  And another instance in which a developed nation has used its sovereignty to bully a developing nation after it has reaped the benefits.