NZ gallery removes controversial flag walking artwork
A New Zealand flag printed with the words "please walk on me" and laid on the floor of an art gallery has once again been packed away following public outcry, 30 years after protests forced the removal of the same artwork.
The Suter Art Gallery in the city of Nelson said on Thursday it had removed the work by Māori artist Diane Prince due to escalating tensions and safety fears.
The episode mirrored an Auckland gallery's removal of the work amid public backlash and complaints to law enforcement in 1995.
This time, the flag was meant to remain on display for five months.
Instead, it lasted just 19 days, reigniting long-running debates in New Zealand over artistic expression, national symbols and the country's colonial history.
Police told The Associated Press on Friday that officers were investigating several complaints about the exhibition.
The piece, titled Flagging the Future, is a cloth New Zealand flag displayed on the floor with the words "please walk on me" stencilled across it.
The flag features the British Union Jack and red stars on a blue background.
The work is part of an exhibition, Diane Prince: Activist Artist, and was meant to provoke reflection on the Māori experience since New Zealand's colonisation by Britain in the 19th century.
Prince created the piece in 1995 in response to a government policy that limited compensation to Māori tribes for historical land theft.
"I have no attachment to the New Zealand flag," Prince told Radio New Zealand in 2024.
"I don't call myself a New Zealander. I call myself a Māori."
Prince couldn't be reached immediately for comment Friday.
New Zealand's reckoning with its colonial past has gathered pace in recent decades.
But there has been little appetite among successive governments to sever the country's remaining constitutional ties to Britain or change the flag to a design that doesn't feature the Union Jack.
New Zealand is among countries where desecrating the national flag is considered taboo and prohibited by law.
Damaging a flag in public with the intent to dishonour it is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 New Zealand dollars ($A4,641), but prosecutions are fleetingly rare.
As in the United States and elsewhere, the country's flag is synonymous for some with military service.
But for others, particularly some Māori, it's a reminder of land dispossession and loss of culture and identity.
Protests of the artwork in the city of Nelson, population 55,000, included videos posted to social media by a local woman, Ruth Tipu, whose grandfather served in the army's Māori Battalion during World War II.
In one clip, she is seen lifting the flag from the floor and draping it over another artwork, an action Tipu said she would repeat daily.
A veterans' group also denounced the piece as shameful and offensive.
City council member Tim Skinner said he was horrified by the work's inclusion.
But others welcomed it.
Nelson's deputy mayor, Rohan O'Neill-Stevens, posted on social media: "in strong defence of artistic expression and the right for us all to be challenged and confronted by art."
The work was perhaps expected to provoke controversy and in the exhibition's opening days, The Suter Gallery defended its inclusion.
But a statement on its Facebook page late Thursday said a "sharp escalation in the tone and nature of the discourse, moving well beyond the bounds of respectful debate" had prompted the flag's removal.
"This should not be interpreted as a judgement on the artwork or the artist's intent," the statement said.
The gallery didn't detail specific incidents of concern and a gallery spokesperson didn't respond to a request for an interview on Friday.
New Zealand's Police said in a statement Friday that while officers were investigating complaints, they weren't called to any disturbances at the exhibition.
Prince said when she revived the work in 2024 that threats of prosecution by law enforcement had prompted its removal from the Auckland gallery in 1995.
The Nelson gallery didn't suggest in its statement that police involvement had influenced Thursday's decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Sherrie Hewson refuses to go out without makeup on: 'I'd rather bury myself in the back garden...'
Sherrie Hewson refuses to go out without wearing makeup. The 74-year-old actress has been a mainstay on British television for decades but insisted that she would rather "bury [herself] in the back garden" than go out with a bare face. She told MyWeekly: "I would rather bury myself in my back garden than go outside without make-up on. I love to go full face glam and describe my style as a bit of everything." The former 'Benidorm' star added that one of her "pet hates" in life is being called old, and tries to take inspiration from her late mother when it comes to ageing. She said: "Being called a pensioner or senior citizen is one of my pet hates. It infers you're past it and that's rubbish. I don't want to be treated in a certain way because of my age. "My mum was 89 when she died. But up until near the end, she went out dancing every night, she sailed, she went on skiing holidays. She never thought, 'Oh, I'm a certain age so I mustn't do that any more!'" The former 'Coronation Street' actress thinks that it is "important" that others do the same, and insisted she will never let anything like age get in the way of what she really wants to do. She added: "I think it's important that we all stand up and say and do the same. We must stop being so timid and downtrodden. Get out there, do what you want! Go bungee-jumping if it's what you've always dreamed of! Don't ever let anyone stop you from being who you are."
Sydney Morning Herald
7 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
I've spent time with tech oligarchs – you have no idea just how weird they are
Last week, Jesse Armstrong, the British director behind Succession, released his first feature-length film – a thinly veiled satire about the tech oligarchs who dominate our lives and, increasingly, have a say over what constitutes free speech. Though it would be easy to write Mountainhead off as pure fiction, to anyone who has spent time around these people, as I have, it was eerily accurate. The four fictional billionaires are flush with obscene wealth accumulated in the technological miracle of the past two decades. Having all flown in on their respective private jets, they decamp to a remote mansion for a weekend of poker and bounce between 'friendly' shit talking, writing their net worth on their chests, planning a coup, and watching mass violence unfold around the world thanks to one of the character's apps (likely a nod to Facebook's amplification of content that ultimately contributed to genocide in Myanmar). In writing the script, Armstrong borrowed from real life, using Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Andreesen and Sam Bankman-Fried as inspiration. Some of the most important and influential people of Silicon Valley, these men all share a belief in the saving grace of their own genius, even as one of them serves a 25-year sentence for duping people out of billions. Loading Though the world mostly thinks of Silicon Valley as some kind of liberal bastion, at its core, it is libertarian (even the film's title is a nod to 'the godmother of American libertarianism', Ayn Rand). When I lived in San Francisco, where I was working for the Biden-Harris administration and the Democratic National Convention, I quickly realised that the prevailing attitude is that governments and regulations are pesky and burdensome – that they only serve to obstruct technological progress they're too small-minded to understand. Working among and moving in the same social circles as senior tech executives and some of today's best known billionaires, you'd see just how weird they were. They would brag about sleeping in the office or demanding staff miss important family events. I once watched the son of a tech billionaire demand that a senior US government official record a video to ask a girl out for him. In 2022, when autonomous-driving taxis started appearing on the streets of San Francisco, this confrontation between big-tech cockiness and government process showed up loud and clear. The businesses making the taxis failed to notify local officials before rolling out the vehicles, and only partially released their data to regulators. When one tech company's fleet was taken off the roads due to safety concerns, other tech companies lobbied to get rid of human taxi drivers entirely. Sure, there's a lot less awkward chat in driverless taxis, but for technology with such a profound impact as vehicles driving around a city with no human behind the wheel, transparent oversight should be non-negotiable.
The Age
7 hours ago
- The Age
I've spent time with tech oligarchs – you have no idea just how weird they are
Last week, Jesse Armstrong, the British director behind Succession, released his first feature-length film – a thinly veiled satire about the tech oligarchs who dominate our lives and, increasingly, have a say over what constitutes free speech. Though it would be easy to write Mountainhead off as pure fiction, to anyone who has spent time around these people, as I have, it was eerily accurate. The four fictional billionaires are flush with obscene wealth accumulated in the technological miracle of the past two decades. Having all flown in on their respective private jets, they decamp to a remote mansion for a weekend of poker and bounce between 'friendly' shit talking, writing their net worth on their chests, planning a coup, and watching mass violence unfold around the world thanks to one of the character's apps (likely a nod to Facebook's amplification of content that ultimately contributed to genocide in Myanmar). In writing the script, Armstrong borrowed from real life, using Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Andreesen and Sam Bankman-Fried as inspiration. Some of the most important and influential people of Silicon Valley, these men all share a belief in the saving grace of their own genius, even as one of them serves a 25-year sentence for duping people out of billions. Loading Though the world mostly thinks of Silicon Valley as some kind of liberal bastion, at its core, it is libertarian (even the film's title is a nod to 'the godmother of American libertarianism', Ayn Rand). When I lived in San Francisco, where I was working for the Biden-Harris administration and the Democratic National Convention, I quickly realised that the prevailing attitude is that governments and regulations are pesky and burdensome – that they only serve to obstruct technological progress they're too small-minded to understand. Working among and moving in the same social circles as senior tech executives and some of today's best known billionaires, you'd see just how weird they were. They would brag about sleeping in the office or demanding staff miss important family events. I once watched the son of a tech billionaire demand that a senior US government official record a video to ask a girl out for him. In 2022, when autonomous-driving taxis started appearing on the streets of San Francisco, this confrontation between big-tech cockiness and government process showed up loud and clear. The businesses making the taxis failed to notify local officials before rolling out the vehicles, and only partially released their data to regulators. When one tech company's fleet was taken off the roads due to safety concerns, other tech companies lobbied to get rid of human taxi drivers entirely. Sure, there's a lot less awkward chat in driverless taxis, but for technology with such a profound impact as vehicles driving around a city with no human behind the wheel, transparent oversight should be non-negotiable.
