According to Latvian Ombudsman Juris Jansons, there is no reason «to prohibit exhibition of controversial art pieces» at Daugavpils Mark Rothko Art Centre.
«An art piece can be provocative and can potentially hurt the feelings of a part of society and religious groups, as it happened in one case, but this does not mean such art pieces should not be put on public display,» as mentioned in the ombudsman’s public statement.
The Ombudsman’s Office confirms having received multiple requests from residents to assess the actions of Daugavpils municipality in making Marks Rothko Art Centre remove the art pieces by Sanders Raudseps. The city’s administration has also requested the ombudsman’s opinion on this.
«Freedom of innovation in art is a very important element.
The Constitution provides for artistic freedom and prohibits restriction of artistic expression in cases when the author’s opinion about a certain topic is «incorrect» or does not comply with other people’s opinions,» said the ombudsman.
«People respond differently to art pieces, and it is normal and part of the point of art – challenging people to think, analyse and evaluate. The point of art is not only to produce results pleasant to the palette but also to promote independent thinking process, teach people to think outside their comfort zone,» stresses Jansons.
According to the ombudsman, when Daugavpils administration made the decision to remove the art pieces from the exhibition, «officials did not take into account the opinion of the residents who would have liked to have a look at them».
«Considering the public resonance this caused, it is clear the actions of Daugavpils municipality hurt the feelings of many public representatives, especially representatives of culture and art representatives, raising concerns about the freedom of artistic freedom in Latvia,» said the ombudsman, adding that «art works were exhibited in place specifically for them and warnings were put around them about the content of the exhibition».
«Organisers of the exhibition were discrete, considering the chosen theme, and the artist publicly explained the purpose of the exhibition,» said Jansons.
The ombudsman explains that Latvian legislation does not provide liability for offending religious views. «The Criminal Law provides liability for causing religious hatred or dissent, but in this particular case there were no acts committed that would indicate there were attempts to hurt the feelings of some specific group,» said the ombudsman.
Also read: Latvia’s defence budget reaches 2.25% of GDP