Tweet
Foreign Policy
Nov 7 2013
Art as Politics
by Ani Torossian | on November 7th, 2013
It is not often that a rug becomes caught in the crosshairs of foreign
policy and cast away from artistic appreciation, yet the 1920s
Armenian orphan rug that was planned for display in December at the
Smithsonian Museum suffers just this fate.
Bound by the common thread of their identity as children and survivors
of the Armenian genocide, Armenian orphans in a Lebanon refuge camp
wove a room-sized rug as a gift presented to the White House in 1925.
Each woven thread contained a symbolic message of gratitude for
American humanitarian aid in the Middle East, Greece and Armenia -
assistance that came in the form of education, healthcare and
relocation for the hundreds of thousands of orphaned children in a
region devastated by the Turkish atrocities committed against the
backdrop of World War I.
As a work of art, this Armenian rug represents an image of the
Biblical Garden of Eden. It was set for display at the Smithsonian
before the Obama administration's unexplained refusal to loan the rug.
Now, it fades from significance in a White House storage room.
As a work of art imbued with a political subtext, the Armenian rug
represents far more than meets the eye. Many note that its public
display would complicate U.S.-Turkey relations. To this day, Turkey
refuses to label the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire as
genocide.
Yet to deny the American public access to the rug is to deny the
openness necessary for historical scholarship and artistic
appreciation.
President Obama has made diplomatic dances around the term `genocide'
far too many times for the administration to worry about the rug's
negative impact on the foreign policy agenda with Turkey.
His promise as a presidential candidate was as follows: `America
deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide
and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that
president.'
But the courage with which Mr. Obama confronted the issue as a
presidential candidate has faded. During his presidency, he omitted
the term `genocide' from his public statements.
Appeasing Turkey at the cost of glossing over historical facts had
been regretfully swallowed in the past. The refusal to now display
artwork for the sake of foreign policy considerations is not at all
what the American public deserves.
And if the White House's refusal does not rest on an attempt to
politically appease Turkey and protect its relationship, then the
Obama administration would do well to offer the American public an
explanation that actually consists of an explanation. Otherwise, it
leaves a political can of worms open in the form of speculation
unpleasant to both the government and its public.
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/11/07/art-as-politics/
Nov 7 2013
Art as Politics
by Ani Torossian | on November 7th, 2013
It is not often that a rug becomes caught in the crosshairs of foreign
policy and cast away from artistic appreciation, yet the 1920s
Armenian orphan rug that was planned for display in December at the
Smithsonian Museum suffers just this fate.
Bound by the common thread of their identity as children and survivors
of the Armenian genocide, Armenian orphans in a Lebanon refuge camp
wove a room-sized rug as a gift presented to the White House in 1925.
Each woven thread contained a symbolic message of gratitude for
American humanitarian aid in the Middle East, Greece and Armenia -
assistance that came in the form of education, healthcare and
relocation for the hundreds of thousands of orphaned children in a
region devastated by the Turkish atrocities committed against the
backdrop of World War I.
As a work of art, this Armenian rug represents an image of the
Biblical Garden of Eden. It was set for display at the Smithsonian
before the Obama administration's unexplained refusal to loan the rug.
Now, it fades from significance in a White House storage room.
As a work of art imbued with a political subtext, the Armenian rug
represents far more than meets the eye. Many note that its public
display would complicate U.S.-Turkey relations. To this day, Turkey
refuses to label the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire as
genocide.
Yet to deny the American public access to the rug is to deny the
openness necessary for historical scholarship and artistic
appreciation.
President Obama has made diplomatic dances around the term `genocide'
far too many times for the administration to worry about the rug's
negative impact on the foreign policy agenda with Turkey.
His promise as a presidential candidate was as follows: `America
deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide
and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that
president.'
But the courage with which Mr. Obama confronted the issue as a
presidential candidate has faded. During his presidency, he omitted
the term `genocide' from his public statements.
Appeasing Turkey at the cost of glossing over historical facts had
been regretfully swallowed in the past. The refusal to now display
artwork for the sake of foreign policy considerations is not at all
what the American public deserves.
And if the White House's refusal does not rest on an attempt to
politically appease Turkey and protect its relationship, then the
Obama administration would do well to offer the American public an
explanation that actually consists of an explanation. Otherwise, it
leaves a political can of worms open in the form of speculation
unpleasant to both the government and its public.
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/11/07/art-as-politics/